Has the US system of checks and balances failed?

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
The idea behind the US government is that the three branches are supposed to act as checks and balances on each other to ensure that no one branch amasses too much power or abuses its authority. Supposedly the three branches are to act as competing entities, working at cross purposes from each other thus ensuring that all policies are thoroughly debated and all sides are looked at before any new policy is passed into law in America.

The two houses of congress were meant to represent the people (the House) and the states (the Senate) respectively but, the states were taken out of the mix with the amendment calling for the direct election of senators thus giving all power to the people who tend to be easily swayed by demagogues who prey upon their emotions, rather than their intellect.

The two party system, while giving the appearance of a jealous opposition along ideological lines has a strange tendency to come together on the really big issues that hurt the common people the most such as NDAA, the Patriot Act, the Bush tax cuts and the complete failure to impose any types of control or regulations on the financial industry after it wrecked the economy. Many believe the partisan bickering is just a show they put on to distract the masses from the fact that they are really working together for a common goal.

The Supreme Court, supposedly the people's last line of defense against government abuse has shown an increasing tendency to favor corporate entities over the will of the people. Sure, they allow the people to fight and bicker over silly social issues such as gay marriage and abortion but, when the corporations come a calling, they all seem to bow to their corporate masters, just as do all the other branches of government.

The president is just a figurehead anymore who sometimes threatens to veto unpopular or dangerous legislation but, never can seem to work up the nerve to deny his corporate masters their every desire.

On top of all this is the massive bureaucracy, unaccountable to anyone and with the power to regulate every aspect of the American's lives.


Is the government too big for checks and balances?

The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself: It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter. Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency. … The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all other branches combined.

Philly.com

The author of this particular article argues that this is not true saying the various branches of the government don't hesitate to challenge each other's authority and advocacy groups fill in the gaps by bringing court challenges to unpopular laws.


The answers to some of these questions, of course, are that America’s polarized political system generates at least skepticism and sometimes even hostility to this or that government program or event. But that is not the complete answer.

If there is one common denominator in each of these questions, it is that a check or balance, theoretically available within the structure of government, gets energized in the practical world by some lawyer or some advocacy group. If America now operates in the shadow of a huge administrative state, that is matched by a nearly-as-large lobbying and advocacy community.

The civic gladiators who now make the system of checks and balances actually work are energetic; they have money and talent; and they have every incentive to keep an eye on what the national government does. And it may sometimes be forgotten, they have a constitutional right to do just that: the First Amendment guarantees them a “right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”


While to some extent, what the author says is true, it seems that on the really big issues, such as bank regulations and our foreign policy serving the interests of the military industrial complex and the big corporations bent on sucking the wealth from occupied nations, all the challenges and court cases seem to come to naught.

It seems to me that all of this challenging and bickering among the parties and issue advocacy groups is nothing but show theater to give the illusion of an effective set of checks and balances, all the while the engine of big government and corporate control chugs along unopposed while we are distracted by the partisan bickering.

Is this country's system of checks and balances effective anymore or have we come to the point that our government is just too big to control?




posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Does it even really matter? Seriously, I know this quote is said over and over, but it has some truth to it.

"Give me control of a nation's money
and I care not who makes the laws."

-Mayer Amschel Rothschild


Whoever controls the Federal Reserve controls the US. Nothing else really matters. The whole "Checks and Balances" system is another facade to give an illusion of freedom and safety.

Furthermore, I noticed you mentioned NDAA, which is interesting. Because in the 40's thousands of American Japanese Citizens were arrested and put in internment camps just for being Japanese.

So there's proof enough that you don't need laws to get away with these types of things. But now it's legal with NDAA.

So if they can get away with it in the 40's, without even having NDAA, do our "civil liberties" really mean anything at all? How can we have rights if they can be taken away in a flash? Isn't that the whole point of rights, is so they can't be taken away? Sort of defeats the whole purpose doesn't it?

Sorry to rant here but to answer your question, in my opinion, if our civil liberties don't really mean anything, and the President can sign an EO whenever he wants, then obliviously the checks and balances system means nothing at all.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Yes it has.

The real question is how do we fix it?

Don't say elect the crooks out because I do believe the US elections are rigged.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Everyone has been 'bought' by large corporative interest groups. It's only money that talks.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
it has fail all over the world in every government . Fixing the problem will never happen most people are obvious to what happens outside of their friends list and whats happening on tv



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 01:16 AM
link   
The system of checks and balances has become a farce.Everyone who is aware of it knows,sadly people cling to the illusion that these checks and balances actually work.The reality is they don't this system has been bought and paid for years ago.It has become a imperial system rather than a democratic system.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kang69
Does it even really matter? Seriously, I know this quote is said over and over, but it has some truth to it.

"Give me control of a nation's money
and I care not who makes the laws."

-Mayer Amschel Rothschild


Source please. I have seen no evidence that Mayer Amschel Rothschild ever spoke or even wrote these words.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
I would actually like to see some proof on how the system is bought and paid for?

Giving out a list of campaign contributions does not count, I want to see how are system is actually being bought.

What about when two different corporation want different things on the same issue?

Somebody has to win and they both have millions of dollars so obviously someone isn't buying the system if the other one gets their way.

Is it only a select few corporations who own the system?

What's the proof?

Fact is that the checks and balances system works very well. Because everything doesn't work out the way you think it should does not mean it isn't working.

How many times in the last decade has the Roberts Court sided with the States over federal intrusion?

Quite a few actually.

How many times in the last decade has Congress blocked a presidents legislative goals?

Quite a few actually.

How many times has the veto or the threat of a veto been used to alter congressional legislation?

Quite a few actually.

The system is functioning just fine. I believe your problem is actually with the people representing us, not the system of checks and balances itself.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 



The system is functioning just fine. I believe your problem is actually with the people representing us, not the system of checks and balances itself.


Uh, I'm sure you didn't think this through before you wrote it................?

Nothing is worth the paper it's written on, unless it's respected and enforced. When greed has become the primary force, all else is merely an annoyance which is easily overcome when the price is right.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


You claim that the system of checks and balances is working just fine, and that you want to see "actual proof" of politicians and the courts being bought-and-paid-for, yet you claim that "campaign contribution lists" do not count.

Then you cite issues of this administration vs. congress or the courts, completely leaving out how things always seem to swing in favor of multinational corporations and against the individual citizens.

What a shock that you are trying to show that our system is pristine and not corrupted by money from campaign contributions and lobbyists.

The proof is in the pudding, and not in the propaganda.

When BP can tell the EPA to piss off.....when AIPAC tells our congress what to do and how much money to give them......when courts always side with corporations.....when the two party system puts on a dog-and-pony-show to make us think they're debating something hotly, when the fix is already in the bag.....when Monsanto can have a "Monsanto protection act" and do what they want here in the States, even as other countries have driven them out for peddling poisons instead of healthful foods.....when the health insurance companies can write Obamacare and the courts agree that citizens can be forced to buy a private product under the guise of a "tax"....and you STILL cannot see the corruption...then you're a lost cause, and all the proof in the world isn't going to be enough for you.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 


Here:

www.themoneymasters.com...


Hmm...yeah, I can't really find the original source either. So I suppose you can take it with a grain of salt.
edit on 1-6-2013 by Lunarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 


It's a good thing you brought this up because actually I can't really find a source on this other then this:

The Creature from Jekyll Island' (American Opinion Publishing), p. 218

by G. Edward Griffin

So this quote could actually be completely made up. This is really odd too because this quote is thrown around quite a bit.

Though, at least we have Rockefeller to tell us something in his own memoirs here:

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
-David Rockefeller, “Memoirs of David Rockefeller” p.405






top topics



 
8

log in

join