Separation of Powers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

NOTES NOTES NOTES Separation of Powers The delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 knew that they needed to create a stronger government than the Articles of Confederation. But they didn’t want the government to be too powerful either! So, how much power should the government have? The delegates created the idea of separation of powers. This meant that the federal government would be divided into three separate branches and each branch would have separate responsibilities. Use your prior knowledge of vocabulary to answer the following questions: 1. What are the three branches of our government? LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, JUDICIAL 2. What is the responsibility of each branch? LEGISLATIVE: makes the laws EXECUTIVE: carries out (enforces) the laws JUDICIAL: makes sure the laws are fair 3. Why do you think the framers (writers) of the United States Constitution separated the powers of the new national government into three branches? They wanted to make sure that no part of the government would become too powerful (didn’t want the president to be like King George III and didn’t want Congress to be like Parliament) Who’s Got The Power? Directions: Complete the chart below by identifying which branch of government possesses each of the powers. Use the link found on my eboard (the URL is http://mrkash.com/activities/images/branches.jpg ) Power Branch of Government (legislative, executive or judicial?) Write laws legislative Declares laws unconstitutional judicial Signs bills into law executive Coins money legislative Nominates justices to the Supreme executive Court Declares war legislative Vetoes bills passed by Congress executive Interprets/Makes meaning of laws judicial Serves as commander-in-chief of the executive army and navy (sends troops overseas) Issues a pardon executive Overrides a presidential veto legislative Approves amendments to the legislative Constitution Makes treaties executive Impeaches/Removes the president legislative Who’s Got The Power? Answer Key Power Branch of Government (legislative, executive or judicial?) Introduces laws legislative Declares laws unconstitutional judicial Signs bills into law executive Coins money legislative Nominates justices to the Supreme Executive (with Legislative Court approval) Declares war legislative Vetoes bills passed by Congress executive Interprets/Makes meaning of laws judicial Serves as commander-in-chief of the executive army and navy (sends troops overseas) Issues a pardon executive Overrides a presidential veto legislative Approves amendments to the legislative Constitution Makes treaties executive Impeaches/Removes the president legislative Legislative Executive Judicial Branch Branch Branch .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

War and the Constitutional Text John C
War and the Constitutional Text John C. Yoo∗ In a series of articles, I have criticized the view that the original under- standing of the Constitution requires that Congress provide its authorization before the United States can engage in military hostilities.1 This “pro- Congress” position ignores the constitutional text and structure, errs in in- terpreting the ratification history of the Constitution, and cannot account for the practice of the three branches of government. Instead of the rigid proc- ess advocated by scholars such as Louis Henkin, John Hart Ely, Louis Fisher, Michael Glennon, and Harold Koh,2 I have argued that the Constitu- tion creates a flexible system of war powers. That system provides the president with significant initiative as commander-in-chief, while reserving to Congress ample authority to check executive policy through its power of the purse. In this scheme, the Declare War Clause confers on Congress a ju- ridical power, one that both defines the state of international legal relations ∗ Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) (on leave); Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice. The views expressed here are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Justice. I express my deep appreciation for the advice and assistance of James C. Ho in preparing this response. Robert Delahunty, Jack Goldsmith, and Sai Prakash provided helpful comments on the draft. 1 See John C. Yoo, Kosovo, War Powers, and the Multilateral Future, 148 U Pa L Rev 1673, 1686–1704 (2000) (discussing the original understanding of war powers in the context of the Kosovo conflict); John C.
[Show full text]
Prince Edward Island and Confederation 1863-1873
CCHA, Report, 28 (1961), 25-30 Prince Edward Island and Confederation 1863-1873 Francis William Pius BOLGER, Ph.D. St. Dunstan’s University, Charlottetown The idea of Confederation did not receive serious consideration in Prince Edward Island prior to the year 1863. Ten more years elapsed before the subject of union with the British North American Colonies moved into the non-academic and practical sphere. The position of the Island in the Confederation negotiations illustrated in large measure the characteristics of its politics and its attitude to distant administrations. This attitude might best be described simply as a policy of exclusiveness. The history of the Confederation negotiations in Prince Edward Island consisted of the interplay of British, Canadian, and Maritime influences upon this policy. It is the purpose of this paper to tell the story of Confederation in Prince Edward Island from 1863 to 1873. The policy of exclusiveness, which characterized Prince Erward Island’s attitude to Confederation, was clearly revealed in the political arena. The Islanders had a profound respect for local self-government. They enjoyed their political independence, particularly after the attainment of responsible government in 1851, and did not wish to see a reduction in the significance of their local institutions. They realized, moreover, that they would have an insignificant voice in a centralized legislature, and as a result they feared that their local needs would be disregarded. Finally, previous frustrating experience with the Imperial government with respect to the settlement of the land question on the Island had taught the Islanders that it was extremely hazardous to trust the management of local problems to distant and possibly unsympathetic administrations.
[Show full text]
What Was the Iroquois Confederacy?
04 AB6 Ch 4.11 4/2/08 11:22 AM Page 82 What was the 4 Iroquois Confederacy? Chapter Focus Questions •What was the social structure of Iroquois society? •What opportunities did people have to participate in decision making? •What were the ideas behind the government of the Iroquois Confederacy? The last chapter explored the government of ancient Athens. This chapter explores another government with deep roots in history: the Iroquois Confederacy. The Iroquois Confederacy formed hundreds of years ago in North America — long before Europeans first arrived here. The structure and principles of its government influenced the government that the United States eventually established. The Confederacy united five, and later six, separate nations. It had clear rules and procedures for making decisions through representatives and consensus. It reflected respect for diversity and a belief in the equality of people. Pause The image on the side of this page represents the Iroquois Confederacy and its five original member nations. It is a symbol as old as the Confederacy itself. Why do you think this symbol is still honoured in Iroquois society? 82 04 AB6 Ch 4.11 4/2/08 11:22 AM Page 83 What are we learning in this chapter? Iroquois versus Haudenosaunee This chapter explores the social structure of Iroquois There are two names for society, which showed particular respect for women and the Iroquois people today: for people of other cultures. Iroquois (ear-o-kwa) and Haudenosaunee It also explores the structure and processes of Iroquois (how-den-o-show-nee). government. Think back to Chapter 3, where you saw how Iroquois is a name that the social structure of ancient Athens determined the way dates from the fur trade people participated in its government.
[Show full text]
Splitting Sovereignty: the Legislative Power and the Constitution's Federation of Independent States
Splitting Sovereignty: The Legislative Power and the Constitution's Federation of Independent States JAMES T. KNIGHT II* ABSTRACT From the moment the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended and the Framers presented their plan to ªform a more perfect Union,º people have debated what form of government that union established. Had the thirteen sepa- rate states surrendered their independence to form a new state stretching from New England to Georgia, or was their individual sovereignty preserved as in the Articles of Confederation? If the states remained sovereign in some respect, what did that mean for the new national government? I propose that the original Constitution would have been viewed as establish- ing a federation of independent, sovereign states. The new federation possessed certain limited powers delegated to it by the states, but it lacked a broad power to legislate for the general welfare and the protection of individual rights. This power, termed ªthe legislative powerº by Enlightenment thinkers, was viewed as the essential, identifying power of a sovereign state under the theoretical framework of eighteenth-century political philosophy. The state constitutions adopted prior to the national Constitutional Convention universally gave their governments this broad legislative power rather than enumerate speci®c areas where the government could legislate. Of the constitutional documents adopted prior to the federal Constitution, only the Articles of Confederation provides such an enumeration. In this note, I argue that, against the background of political theory and con- stitutional precedent, a government lacking the full legislative power would not have been viewed as sovereign in its own right.
[Show full text]
The 2017 ITUC Global Rights Index the WORLD's WORST
THE WORLD'S WORST COUNTRIES FOR WORKERS The 2017 ITUC Global Rights Index | 4 The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) is a confederation of national trade union centres, each of which links trade unions of that particular country. It was established on 1 November 2006, bringing together the organisations which were formerly affiliated to the ICFTU and WCL (both now dissolved) as well as a number of national trade union centres which had no international affiliation at the time. The new Confederation has 340 affiliated organisations in 163 countries and territories on all five continents, with a membership of 181 million, 40 per cent of whom are women. It is also a partner in “Global Unions” together with the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD and the Global Union Federations (GUFs) which link together national unions from a particular trade or industry at international level. The ITUC has specialised offices in a number of countries around the world, and has General Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. The 2017 ITUC Global Rights Index | 6 Foreword .............................................9 ASIA .................................................. 70 Bangladesh ....................................... 71 Part I ..................................................13 Cambodia .......................................... 71 The 2017 Results ...............................14 China ................................................ 72 The ITUC Global Rights Index ...............19 Fiji
[Show full text]
The Delegation of Federal Power to International Organizations: New Problems with Old Solutions, 85 Minn
Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 2000 The elegD ation of Federal Power to International Organizations: New Problems with Old Solutions Julian G. Ku Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Julian G. Ku, The Delegation of Federal Power to International Organizations: New Problems with Old Solutions, 85 Minn. L. Rev. 71 (2000) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/591 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Delegation of Federal Power to International Organizations: New Problems with Old Solutions Julian G. Kut ITihe World Trade Organization exercises a supranational authority in conflict with our forefathers' vision of an America forever sovereign and independent. -Patrick J. Buchanan' [The American people] see the UN aspiring to establish itself as the central authority of a new international order of global laws and global governance. This is an international order the American people will not countenance. 2 -Senator Jesse Helms It is tempting to brush off such concerns about the growing power of international organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and United Nations (UN) as demagogic and paranoid. At the core of their concerns is a conviction that some large measure of power and authority held by the United States government has been impermissibly transferred to remote and unaccountable international organizations in violation of basic constitutional principles or American "sovereignty." Messrs.
[Show full text]
The Modern Concept of Confederation Santorini, 22
Santorini 22 – 25 September 1994 CDL-STD(1994)011 Or. Engl. Science and technique of democracy No. 11 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) The modern concept of confederation Santorini, 22-25 September 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Opening session ..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Introductory statement by Mr Constantin ECONOMIDES ..................................................... 3 Historical Aspects ...........................................................................................5 Conceptual Aspects .......................................................................................39 a. The classical notions of a confederation and of a federal state - Report by Professor Giorgio MALINVERNI ................................................... 39 b. The modern concept of confederation - Report by Gérald- A. BEAUDOIN .......................................................................................................... 56 c. Towards a new concept of confederation - Report by Professor Murray FORSYTH ..................................................................................... 64 d. A new concept of confederation - Intervention by Mr Maarten Theo JANS ................................................................................................... 76 Examples of present and possible applications ................................................77 a. International and constitutional law aspects of the preliminary agreement concerning the establishment
[Show full text]
The Historical Experience of Federalism in East Central Europe
The Historical Experience of Federalism in East Central Europe Vojtech Mastny The prospect of the admission of the formerly communist countries of East Central Europe into the European Union has cast the historical experience of the peoples of the area with federalism into a new and potentially disturbing light. How well has that experience prepared them for membership in the 20th century’s most successful confederation and likely the centerpiece of the emerging post-Cold War international order on the Continent? In particular, how has the fate and impact of federalist ideas and institutions in the region influenced the candidates’ readiness to enter an interstate structure which requires from its members a substantial surrender of sovereignty? And how has their historical experience shaped their aptitude at the kind of international cooperation that is indispensable to keep the EU functioning? In assessing the record of federalism in East Central Europe, too narrow a definition of the term ought to be resisted. The primary subject of this inquiry is interstate federalism, which is distinguished from the intrastate variety by both its motives and its thrust; rather than to curb the excesses of centralism and state power, it aims to contain nationalism and prevent international anarchy. Yet the overwhelming majority of the historical antecedents have been federations as vehicles for the assertion of group rights within states rather than for the preservation of peace between states. Downgrading the importance of the former in favor of the latter would result in a badly distorted picture. Rightly or wrongly, the distinction between the two types of union - federation (Bundesstaat) and confederation (Staatenbund) - has often been blurred in peoples’ minds.
[Show full text]
Federalism and International Relations
FEDERALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HONOURABLE PAUL MARTIN SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS @ en,...'ll (;(opp4flu m"'" A'llii&Me by .o~ill'h>m tlto Q11ec11'•l'6nkr, OU&w.1, """ 0.1 .,..lOll.,,.in • O n l<llon Oc.n-..mm<nl """'•h<~J": I'IAollrAlf I 7)$ 8.:it~lll01 Sltfft .. ~ '.;.l«ff... \'lco Bui~iolll. I Ill Sl. C&lbtti~ Sl;l'ffi W& (lt'l ....... l>o1h' ~Ed$. Cortlol!r Mact'C:ntit..,d Rllltw 1(\111).. ' 1(0 za• v~.str«• Wl-n(l Mo.U C«<IV ~in~ 4'19 Po:on.J~ A•'l'.nfll: Y.o.,.C!OO.'Vla ~ Or.n•ilf• Sl-1 01' lht<lollllo )'Cur I>Ooll;..., Pn.;.: '0<11d.(f lilOGiiR JJUl.IAMEL. F.R.S.C. Qu-"1 p,..,,.. ..., c.,nlnllla o( S.Uiar.c.,. (ltlll'""• o,,,,p "" TABLE OF CONTENTS PAOfl Preface. .............................................. ................................................................. 5 Chapter l t.'TROOUC:.:ttOI'II, ........ .............. .,,. .. , ........... ,• ., .•.,,. .. , ................................... 7 foreign Policy as an &pression of the-National Jnterest.............. 7 Tbe 0eveiOpl11ent of Foreign Relations since Confederation........ 1 (i) TraditionsJ Diplomacy a nd Modern Diplomacy.................. 7 (ij) Tile Auainmenc of Canadian So,·ereignty aod its Implica- tions............................ ... ................ ............ .......... ....... 8 foreign PoJicy and Canadian Fcde-raljsm. ............... ............ .. 9 rr T HE Fa>uRAL R.ES-PoNstatt.~\·...... ...... ................. ................................. 11 (A) 1'be Treaty-Making Power.......................................................... I I (i) The Principles of InternatiooaJ Law................................ J 1 (ii) The Constitutions of Federal States................................ 12 (iii) The Canadjan Constitution............................................... 13 (B) Membership aod Pat•ticipa'lion il'l ltllernation:tl Organizations 16 (C) The Accl'editat.io rr. of Diplomatic &voys and the Role or Diplomatic I\iissions.................................
[Show full text]
Federalism, Separation of Powers, and Individual Liberties
Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 40 Issue 6 Issue 6 - November 1987 Article 5 11-1987 Federalism, Separation of Powers, and Individual Liberties Dennis G. LaGory Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Fourth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Dennis G. LaGory, Federalism, Separation of Powers, and Individual Liberties, 40 Vanderbilt Law Review 1353 (1987) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol40/iss6/5 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Federalism, Separation of Powers, and Individual Liberties* I. INTRODUCTION: GOALS AND GOVERNMENT We the People of the United States, in Order to . .secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitu- tion for the United States of America.' The Framers began the Constitution with this statement of purpose because the philosophical tradition that spawned their po- litical temperament viewed the preservation of liberty as the chief objective of government.2 This tradition hypothesized that man, prior to the formation of organized society, lived in a state of per- fect freedom and equality.' In this state, all men possessed natural liberty. According to William Blackstone, one of the eighteenth century's most respected
[Show full text]
Stories of Confederation Reference Guide
Library and Archives Canada, C-000733 Stories of Confederation Reference Guide Use this reference guide in tandem with our online educational package. Find it at historymuseum.ca/teachers-zone/stories-of-confederation. Act of Union, 1840 Passed by the British Parliament in July 1840 and proclaimed in February 1841, the Act of Union brought Upper and Lower Canada (present-day Ontario and Quebec) together under a single assembly and government, as recommended in the Durham Report. The two were now called the United Province of Canada, and were subdivided into Canada West and Canada East. Each region received an equal number of seats in the assembly; English became the sole official language. British Empire The term British Empire refers collectively to Britain’s overseas territories and colonies. At its height in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the British Empire spanned the globe, and came to be known as “the empire on which the sun never sets.” Britain supported Confederation because it believed that a single dominion would be easier to defend, and less costly to administer, than several small, separate colonies. British North America British North America refers collectively to the British colonies and territories of northern North America. The term was used mostly between 1783 and 1867, but it has a longer history. British North America The British North America Act was a law passed by the British Parliament Act, 1867 to create the Dominion of Canada as a domestically self-governing federation. The Act divided law-making powers between one federal parliament and several provincial legislatures, and it outlined the structure and operations of both levels of government.
[Show full text]
The Irish Opposition to English Oppression Under the Protector
Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1946 The Irish Opposition to English Oppression Under the Protector Margaret E. McVey Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation McVey, Margaret E., "The Irish Opposition to English Oppression Under the Protector" (1946). Master's Theses. 286. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/286 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1946 Margaret E. McVey ,... THE IRISH OPPOSITIOWTO ENGLISH OPPRESSION UNDER THE PROTECTOR by MargaretE. McVey A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Loyola University June 1946 VITA Margaret E. McVey was born in Chioago, Illinois, July 6, 1908. She was graduated from The Immaoulata, Chioago, Illinois, June, 1926, and reoeived a teaohers oertifioate from Chioago Normal College, Chioago, Illinois, June, 1929. The Baohelor of Arts degree with a major in Philosophy was oonferred by Loyola University, June, 1934. From 1935 to the present the writer has been engaged in teaohing in a Chioago elementary sohool. For the past five years she has been
[Show full text]