Where real power resides the three branches of American system of governance
One concept in governance unique to a democratic system such as the US is the separation of power into three co-equal branches, the executive, legislative and the judiciary. But on the question of balancing power, are these branches of government really equal Considering the traits and functions of each branch could give us an idea on how the balance of power is being played out.
Congress drafts the law to guide the development of the country and by theory should be the most powerful because of its collective mandate from the people. It could even impeach a president and more important it could change the rules on system of governance. Representatives to Congress have more grass roots exposure and hence as an institution could rally support in a more expansive and representative manner than any sitting president.
The executive branch meanwhile, implements the law and the president more or less functions like a chief-executive-officer but the role has been magnified by a clause on another presidential function, that of the commander-in-chief. The president is expected to lead the country especially at times and period of great uncertainties. The executive branch, which included federal agencies including law enforcement, unlike the other two branches, is encapsulated in the persona of the president, elected every four years. Congress and the judiciary have no equivalent persona and more or less perceived as a collective unit. This somehow trumps the power of Congress, as when the situation gets critical, it is the president who usually takes over the role of keeping the country together.
The judiciary, the third branch is powerful because it is the keeper of the law and this branch of government has the last say on anything pertaining to the law and its implementation. In societies based on the rule of the law, judges occupy position of power in society. This power is negated in some ways because it is manifested after an act has been committed and the court is tasked to establish the constitutionality or legality of said action. Hence, the Supreme Court for example, is really out of the loop of governance but functions more as an arbiter between Congress and the President.
While it is difficult to compare powers of the three branches as these are different and unique to each branch, we can see how external or environmental factors such as the political parties and public opinion exert an influence in tilting the balance in favor of one branch over the other with respect to question of power. The public especially in societies with strong representative mechanisms such as political parties, e.g., Democratic and the Republican parties lobby and advocacy groups such as the green lobby could give added premium to a branch of government. The unpopularity of the war on Iraq for example dismantled the Republican hold on the White House. Though at the onset, then Pres. Bush was able to rally support for the war efforts playing on the 911 attack to push his anti-terrorism program, which included toppling Saddam Hussein. When the intelligence gaffe that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, which was the pretext of going to Iraq, the public support waned and consequently Congress shifted its sight to eventual pull out from Iraq placing the presidency of Mr. Bush into a defensive position.
There are accounts, which place premium on flexibility as a measure of power. The president for example could use tactics as signing statements or clarification on what the president would do or how he treats such a legislation he signed, which as pointed out by Examiner.com, had been used extensively by then Pres. Bush to circumvent immediate implementation of certain laws which not to his list of priorities. It is not however, only the president who has a trick or two when it comes to exercise of power, representatives could use filibustering techniques to scuttle issues and make it difficult if not impossible for a president to secure necessary legislation such as budget allocation for his programs. Another point which limits the presidents power is that a president for example, no matter how popular and powerful to a point that he could get what he wanted would still have to go after two terms. That is the law.
On the whole, when it comes to balance of power, we can say that because of the nature of leadership and succession in governance, the pendulum shifts as to which is more powerful in shaping national priorities at certain times. The president sometimes appeared as the most powerful but this could be more due to the president as a symbol of the country as head of state but a president under the American system would still have to answer to where real power resides to his constituency and to his political party, to the American people.
Congress drafts the law to guide the development of the country and by theory should be the most powerful because of its collective mandate from the people. It could even impeach a president and more important it could change the rules on system of governance. Representatives to Congress have more grass roots exposure and hence as an institution could rally support in a more expansive and representative manner than any sitting president.
The executive branch meanwhile, implements the law and the president more or less functions like a chief-executive-officer but the role has been magnified by a clause on another presidential function, that of the commander-in-chief. The president is expected to lead the country especially at times and period of great uncertainties. The executive branch, which included federal agencies including law enforcement, unlike the other two branches, is encapsulated in the persona of the president, elected every four years. Congress and the judiciary have no equivalent persona and more or less perceived as a collective unit. This somehow trumps the power of Congress, as when the situation gets critical, it is the president who usually takes over the role of keeping the country together.
The judiciary, the third branch is powerful because it is the keeper of the law and this branch of government has the last say on anything pertaining to the law and its implementation. In societies based on the rule of the law, judges occupy position of power in society. This power is negated in some ways because it is manifested after an act has been committed and the court is tasked to establish the constitutionality or legality of said action. Hence, the Supreme Court for example, is really out of the loop of governance but functions more as an arbiter between Congress and the President.
While it is difficult to compare powers of the three branches as these are different and unique to each branch, we can see how external or environmental factors such as the political parties and public opinion exert an influence in tilting the balance in favor of one branch over the other with respect to question of power. The public especially in societies with strong representative mechanisms such as political parties, e.g., Democratic and the Republican parties lobby and advocacy groups such as the green lobby could give added premium to a branch of government. The unpopularity of the war on Iraq for example dismantled the Republican hold on the White House. Though at the onset, then Pres. Bush was able to rally support for the war efforts playing on the 911 attack to push his anti-terrorism program, which included toppling Saddam Hussein. When the intelligence gaffe that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, which was the pretext of going to Iraq, the public support waned and consequently Congress shifted its sight to eventual pull out from Iraq placing the presidency of Mr. Bush into a defensive position.
There are accounts, which place premium on flexibility as a measure of power. The president for example could use tactics as signing statements or clarification on what the president would do or how he treats such a legislation he signed, which as pointed out by Examiner.com, had been used extensively by then Pres. Bush to circumvent immediate implementation of certain laws which not to his list of priorities. It is not however, only the president who has a trick or two when it comes to exercise of power, representatives could use filibustering techniques to scuttle issues and make it difficult if not impossible for a president to secure necessary legislation such as budget allocation for his programs. Another point which limits the presidents power is that a president for example, no matter how popular and powerful to a point that he could get what he wanted would still have to go after two terms. That is the law.
On the whole, when it comes to balance of power, we can say that because of the nature of leadership and succession in governance, the pendulum shifts as to which is more powerful in shaping national priorities at certain times. The president sometimes appeared as the most powerful but this could be more due to the president as a symbol of the country as head of state but a president under the American system would still have to answer to where real power resides to his constituency and to his political party, to the American people.
