Checks And Balances Problems

[england66]

Can anybody give me an example of an issue where deadlock or blocks ended up been put on a potential new law. Perhaps due to disagreement between governmental departments etc: Thank you.

[england66]

I mean in the USA by the way

[SteveA]

The ideal is that these conflicts should only result in a disability for government force to be used but oftentimes the courts make incorrect resolutions that instead allow disagreements to result in enforcement or other active government roles.

The idea is that 1) The legislative branch writes laws. 2) The executive/police branch should only enforce existing laws and 3) The judicial branch can only stop police action and no initiate it.

So under this scenario, any one of these 3 branches can stop law enforcement. Either the 1) legislator never writes a law or it repeals a law or 2) enforcement/police choose to not enforce a law or 3) jurors or judges can acquit someone if it appears they are either not guity or some constitutional right is violated.

The judicial branch gets most the flak because they're the last check in the system. Ideally the legislation would never write bad or unconstitutional laws and the police should ignore bad laws and the courts should never convict anyone of a violation for a bad crime or unconstitutional law.

But many times judges will simply imagine new non-existant laws when they make their rulings and assign police to enforce them. One specific example of this was in New Hampshire where someone bought some land and began development of a large store on it. Someone took them to court over this, though there were no laws regarding zoning restrictions for this. The judge called a town meeting and had everyone vote on whether or not they wanted the person to be allowed to develop on this land and then the judge ordered the police to stop the development. The police in this case didn't enforce an existing law but simply acted upon the judges decision and the legislature was left entirely out of the loop. Maybe this isn't the best example as it's possible this was a temporary injunction but it gives you the general flavor or how laws can be effectively written by judges when they command police action to do act on a non-existant law. It does take police compliance though. Alternately you can have something where enforcement acts independently and doesn't involve the judicial branch, as in the NSA spying Bush ordered or holding captives secretly or denying them a trial etc.

Ultimately the issue is whether or not enforcement actions occur without the consent of the other 2 branches. Judges and legislators alone have little of any physical power and so this is why corruption in the executive branch is such a potential problem. If the legislature alone decides to write a lot of bad laws, many people including police will simply ignore them or the courts can easily acquit people of bogus laws. Alternately the most corruption in the judicial system can do is disable much of enforcement efforts and though that's a problem it still doesn't result in tyranny, but when the executive/police/enforcement side of things become corrupt and ignore laws or judicial rulings, there's little physical ability for anyone else to stop this. The primary protection we have against this in the U.S. though is a historical reliance on local police for enforcement instead of centralized police coordination so this helps limit problems in that area, though it seems there's federal pressures to centralize control of police resources. Not a great idea, IMO.

[england66]

What about an example where by a party had deliberately blocked something passing unneccaserily for political reasons.

[Osborn F Enready]

Assault Weapons Ban
Social Security Reform
Tax Cuts

[Plasma Snake[D]]

What are we, doing your homework

[leftcider]

Quote by: Plasma Snake[D] What are we, doing your homework

Sounds like it...

[england66]

Yes you are actually.

[xyzer]

england66..Laws are drafted by Congress.The Executive Branch can have input and influence in this..Oftimes there are different versions from the Senate e and House of Representatives. They are then sent to a committee to try to reconcile differences. They can either die there, be sent back to either house for reconsideration or be sent on with differences reconciled. thus a bill will have to pass both houses to be sent forward for signature. By the way the House of Representatives is the only one that can originate spending legislation.

Interestingly, though the excutive branch(President) signs and carries out the provisions of this legislation he has no line item veto power. He can make a signing statement indicating how he/she will carry out the provisions or in fact tailor conditions in the execution of the law.This might lead to court action but in some cases Presidents have gotten away with it. e.g Roosevelt during wartime

Does that answer you question?.

[Matt W]

Quote by: england66 Yes you are actually.

There are many, many wonderful search engines out there. Or libraries. Or private tutors. Have fun using them.