Do you think the Legislative branch is too strong?

Re: Do you think the Legislative branch is too strong?

While Congress can overturn decisions made by the other branches, in order to do so it must have a 2/3 majority in favor of a certain decision. When you have 300 million+ people in a country all divided between two major parties, getting a 2/3 majority on anything the other branches would reject is nearly impossible.

For this reason, I actually consider the judicial branch the branch with the most practical power. Since there are only 9 justices, it's much easier to get a majority to think a certain way, and therefore easier to hand down a ruling (which is equivalent to law for all intents and purposes). Even though Congress could overturn the decision, it would need a 2/3 majority, which is ridiculously difficult for the reasons stated above.

Of course, the Supreme Court can't do anything it wants, simply because the more ridiculous a ruling is, the easier it is for Congress to get a majority to overturn it. If the Court abolished free speech, it wouldn't matter whether Congress was 51% Democrat or Republican--well over 2/3 of them would vote to overturn the decision.

So while the legislative branch has the most theoretical power, power is spread very well practically.

Re: Do you think the Legislative branch is too strong?

Ah, Ok, thats pretty cool.

I didn't think the Judicial branch could work like that.
Now I see, Thanks.

Yeah, 300 million people would be difficult.
And I Considered the Supreme court the weakest.

Whats funny is that people think that our president can declare war!

Re: Do you think the Legislative branch is too strong?

Of course it is. We shouldn't have a legislative branch.

Re: Do you think the Legislative branch is too strong?


There is so much more involved to what you said it's rediculous. First off, the Supreme Court has nothing to do with what laws are passed. They only determine what the law means. If a law says "People have the right to kill people in self-defense." It is the Supreme Court's decision to decide what is "self-defense." As far as the whole 2/3 majority thing, there is a whole precurser to that part. Also, congress doesn't veto anything. Only the president does. The whole overturning part comes in when the president does actually decide to veto a law/bill. Then congress comes together to determine whether or not to overturn a veto. That takes 2/3 the majority. I could go on, but i think that's enough.

BTW, all branches of the government have too much power. The Founding Fathers would be turning over in their graves if they saw how much control the government has today. However all branches of the government are necessary.

Re: Do you think the Legislative branch is too strong?

Of course there is, why do you think the Constitution is as long as it is?

Yes, but their ruling has the force of law, which is what "which is equivalent to law for all intents and purposes" was supposed to mean. If they decide that you can kill if someone's pointing a gun at your friend, then that might as well be a law, seeing as how the "self-defense" clause now includes that implication.

And if you're referring to my whole "abolition of free speech" example, then I figured it was obvious that anyone interested in abolishing it would have to bring a case to court and deal with any rulings, appeals, etc. until it got to the Supreme Court. That's why I said in my final statement, that "power is spread very well practically."

I didn't use the word "veto" anywhere in my post.

Yes...that's exactly what I said...

You'll have to elaborate on this for me.

Re: Do you think the Legislative branch is too strong?

The legislative branch has way too much power, but coequally the majority of the people are stupid, don't challenge their beliefs, and hold biases when they do "challenge" their beliefs.

Our current Congress. (Hint: Not a reference to House of Leaves).

To be completely fair, I think that the judicial branch is the least corrupt and most unbiased group in government.

Spot on.

Not really.

Re: Do you think the Legislative branch is too strong?

I think I'm missing something. And the question was "Does the legislative branch have too much power," implying that the current Congress (and legislative branch in general) is the one in question.

I happen to agree (once again, "practically, power is spread very well"), but that doesn't change the fact that the system makes it relatively easier for the judicial branch to effect changes.

Re: Do you think the Legislative branch is too strong?

Our current Congress is pretty democratic. The demise of one party in power (see: George Bush) often leads to the rise of another. It's a common trend in history and someone like you should see this, no? And now that it seems like the republicans have no chance at winning, well, our country is pretty much going to be ****ed by democrats. Not that neocons are much better, but still, there's no balance, the one you stress.

If SCHIP doesn't pass Congress, there's no doubt that it'll be proposed once again when there's a democrat in office. Or, they'd try to push for all-out socialization.

Re: Do you think the Legislative branch is too strong?

This is true, however the Democratic majority in Congress isn't anywhere near the 2/3 required to overturn a decision made by the other branches. Even when you factor in Democrats and Republicans who vote against the majority of their party, I doubt you'd be able to get a 2/3 majority on anything particularly party-specific.

I do agree with you that, assuming a Democrat is elected president in '08, the Democratic party will have a very large advantage over the Republican party in our national government, eliminating a balance between the two parties. However, that's still in the future, and the current Congress is offset by the fact that we have a Republican as president right now, so right now it doesn't have too much power.

Remember, I take "current" in this context to mean "right this second."