The term “Separation of Powers” was coined by the 18th century philosopher Montesquieu. Separation of powers is a model that divides the government into separate branches, each of which has separate and independent powers. By having multiple branches of government, this system helps to ensure that no one branch is more powerful than another. Typically, this system divides the government into three branches: the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. The United States federal government and forty states divide their governments into these three branches.
In the federal government, Article 1 of the United States Constitution establishes the Legislative Branch, which consists of Congress. Congress, in addition to other enumerated responsibilities, is responsible for creating laws. As a general rule, the nondelegation doctrine prohibits the Legislative Branch from delegating its lawmaking responsibilities. Congress can, however, provide agencies with regulatory guidelines if it provides them with an “intelligible principle” to base their regulations on. For more information on the Legislative Branch, refer to “Congress.”
Article 2 of the United States Constitution establishes the Executive Branch, which consists of the President. The President approves and carries out the laws created by the Legislative Branch. For more information on the Executive Branch, refer to “Executive Branch.”
Article 3 of the United States Constitution establishes the Judicial Branch, which consists of the United States Supreme Court. The Judicial Branch interprets the laws passed by the Legislative Branch. For more information on the Judicial Branch, refer to “Judiciary.”
Separation of Powers in the United States is associated with the Checks and Balances system. The Checks and Balances system provides each branch of government with individual powers to check the other branches and prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. For example, Congress has the power to create laws, the President has the power to veto them, and the Supreme Court may declare laws unconstitutional. Congress consists of two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives, and can override a Presidential veto with a 2/3 vote in both houses.
The Checks and Balances System also provides the branches with some power to appoint or remove members from the other branches. Congress can impeach and convict the president for high crimes, like treason or bribery. The House of Representatives has the power to bring impeachment charges against the President; the Senate has the power to convict and remove the President from office. In addition, Supreme Court candidates are appointed by the President and are confirmed by the Senate. Judges can be removed from office by impeachment in the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. In this way, the system provides a measure, in addition to invalidating laws, for each branch to check the others.
Always a good reminder!
I defederated my instance from Hexbear. What does this have to do with them?
A response to a recent thread in which Biden and the Democrats were blamed for allowing Manchin to be a spoiler vote against a bill to keep child poverty rates lower. Apparently, the consensus from the majority of hexbear participants is that Democrats should become Republicans and behave like authoritarians to keep members in line.
You are scoffing at people for wanting the government to help its citizens. I think your priorities are skewed if you value politeness and decorum over actually, meaningfully improving the lives of real people. And it should surprise no one when people with the inverse priorities — wanting to help others and not caring so much about politeness and decorum — come into this thread and are not very polite or decorus toward a perspective they think hurts people.
You’re kidding, right? They’re shitting on the only people in government trying to help people, because…I honestly don’t know why, and I stopped caring after the sixth troll.
Hexbear argues that the Democrats could help a lot more people if they were more forceful. The counterargument appears to be “but if they were forceful, they would be using the same tactics as the Republicans.” That just seems like the wrong set of priorities to me.
Oh, yeah. I mean their political goal is to destroy the entire system so I wouldn’t say they’re engaging in political discussions with anything approaching good faith. They’re actually more aligned with the “freedom” caucus of the Republican party, in that they’re trying to intentionally create mistrust in and hatred of the government to justify replacing it with something much much worse.
They also aren’t engaging in discussions in general in good faith since they explicitly spend most of their time harassing other instances’ members by memeing and dunking on them.
While I get why you posted this they just don’t care. The point of their interactions isn’t to discuss or convince, but to make you angry and eventually get you to leave. Don’t give in.
Gotta put out the honey to attract the flies. I can’t block them if I don’t know who they are, and I don’t have any other options.
Disfederation! Talk to your admins, I believe in you.
I can ask them. We’ll see!
They’re a toxic cesspool that brigades other communities and comment with bad-faith arguments and bigotry. Not much else to know really.
Oh I know, just not sure why the OP posted this primer in particular for them.