checks and balances essay conclusion

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Checks and Balances

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 27, 2023 | Original: November 17, 2017

The system of checks and balances in government was developed to ensure that no one branch of government would become too powerful. The framers of the U.S. Constitution built a system that divides power between the three branches of the U.S. government—legislative, executive and judicial—and includes various limits and controls on the powers of each branch.

Separation of Powers

The idea that a just and fair government must divide power between various branches did not originate at the Constitutional Convention , but has deep philosophical and historical roots.

In his analysis of the government of Ancient Rome , the Greek statesman and historian Polybius identified it as a “mixed” regime with three branches: monarchy (the consul, or chief magistrate), aristocracy (the Senate) and democracy (the people). These concepts greatly influenced later ideas about separation of powers being crucial to a well-functioning government.

Centuries later, the Enlightenment philosopher Baron de Montesquieu wrote of despotism as the primary threat in any government. In his famous work “The Spirit of the Laws,” Montesquieu argued that the best way to prevent this was through a separation of powers, in which different bodies of government exercised legislative, executive and judicial power, with all these bodies subject to the rule of law.

The U.S. System of Checks and Balances

Building on the ideas of Polybius, Montesquieu, William Blackstone, John Locke  and other philosophers and political scientists over the centuries, the framers of the U.S. Constitution divided the powers and responsibilities of the new federal government among three branches: the legislative branch , the executive branch and the judicial branch .

In addition to this separation of powers, the framers built a system of checks and balances designed to guard against tyranny by ensuring that no branch would grab too much power.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” James Madison  wrote in the Federalist Papers , of the necessity for checks and balances. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty is this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”

Checks and Balances Examples

Checks and balances operate throughout the U.S. government, as each branch exercises certain powers that can be checked by the powers given to the other two branches.

• The president (head of the executive branch) serves as commander in chief of the military forces, but Congress (legislative branch) appropriates funds for the military and votes to declare war. In addition, the Senate must ratify any peace treaties.
• Congress has the power of the purse, as it controls the money used to fund any executive actions.
• The president nominates federal officials, but the Senate confirms those nominations.
• Within the legislative branch, each house of Congress serves as a check on possible abuses of power by the other. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have to pass a bill in the same form for it to become law.
• Veto power. Once Congress has passed a bill, the president has the power to veto that bill. In turn, Congress can override a regular presidential veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
• The Supreme Court and other federal courts (judicial branch) can declare laws or presidential actions unconstitutional, in a process known as judicial review.
• In turn, the president checks the judiciary through the power of appointment, which can be used to change the direction of the federal courts
• By passing amendments to the Constitution, Congress can effectively check the decisions of the Supreme Court. But an amendment must either be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the  House of Representatives  and the  Senate , or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. Either way, a proposed amendment only becomes part of the Constitution when ratified by legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of the states (38 of 50 states).
• Congress (considered the branch of government closest to the people) can impeach both members of the executive and judicial branches.

Checks and Balances in Action

The system of checks and balances has been tested numerous times throughout the centuries since the Constitution was ratified.

In particular, the power of the executive branch has expanded greatly since the 19th Century, disrupting the initial balance intended by the framers. Presidential vetoes—and congressional overrides of those vetoes—tend to fuel controversy, as do congressional rejections of presidential appointments and judicial rulings against legislative or executive actions. 

Executive orders, official directives issued to federal agencies by the president, are powers afforded to the executive branch that do not require congressional approval. They are not directly provided for in the U.S. Constitution, but rather implied by Article II, which states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Executive orders can only push through policy changes; they cannot create new laws or appropriate funds from the United States treasury. 

Overall, the system of checks and balances has functioned as it was intended, ensuring that the three branches operate in balance with one another.

Roosevelt and the Supreme Court

The checks and balances system withstood one of its greatest challenges in 1937, thanks to an audacious attempt by Franklin D. Roosevelt to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices. After winning reelection to his second term in office by a huge margin in 1936, FDR nonetheless faced the possibility that judicial review would undo many of his major policy achievements.

From 1935-36, a conservative majority on the Court struck down more significant acts of Congress than any other time in U.S. history, including a key piece of the National Recovery Administration, the centerpiece of FDR’s New Deal .

In February 1937, Roosevelt asked Congress to empower him to appoint an additional justice for any member of the Court over 70 years of age who did not retire, a move that could expand the Court to as many as 15 justices.

Roosevelt’s proposal provoked the greatest battle to date among the three branches of government, and a number of Supreme Court justices considered resigning en masse in protest if the plan went through.

In the end, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote an influential open letter to the Senate against the proposal; in addition, one older justice resigned, allowing FDR to replace him and shift the balance on the Court. The nation had narrowly averted a constitutional crisis, with the system of checks and balances left shaken but intact.

The War Powers Act and Presidential Veto

The United States Congress passed the War Powers Act on November 7, 1973, overriding an earlier veto by President Richard M. Nixon , who called it an “unconstitutional and dangerous” check on his duties as commander-in-chief of the military. 

The act was created in the wake of the Korean War and during the Vietnam War and stipulates that the president has to consult Congress when deploying American troops. If after 60 days the legislature does not authorize the use of U.S. forces or provide a declaration of war, soldiers must be sent home.

The War Powers Act was put forth by the legislature to check the mounting war powers exercised by the White House. After all, President Harry S. Truman had committed U.S. troops to the Korean War as part of a United Nations “police action.” Presidents Kennedy , Johnson and Nixon each escalated the undeclared conflict during the Vietnam War .

Controversy over the War Powers Act continued after its passage. President Ronald Reagan deployed military personnel to El Salvador in 1981 without consulting or submitting a report to Congress. President Bill Clinton continued a bombing campaign in Kosovo beyond the 60-day time in 1999. And in 2011, President Barack Obama initiated a military action in Libya without congressional authorization. In 1995, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on an amendment that would have repealed many of the Act’s components. It was narrowly defeated.

State of Emergency

The first state of emergency was declared by President Harry Truman on December 16, 1950 during the Korean War. Congress did not pass The National Emergencies Act until 1976, formally granting congress checks on the power of the president to declare National Emergencies. Created in the wake of the Watergate scandal , the National Emergencies Act included several limits on presidential power, including having states of emergency lapse after a year unless they are renewed.

Presidents have declared almost 60 national emergencies since 1976, and can claim emergency powers over everything from land use and the military to public health. They can only be stopped if both houses of the U.S. government vote to veto it or if the matter is brought to the courts.

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.

Checks and Balances, The Oxford Guide to the United States Government . Baron de Montesquieu, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . FDR’s Losing Battle to Pack the Supreme Court, NPR.org . State of Emergency, New York Times , Pacific Standard , CNN . 

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Constitution — The Constitution’s Checks and Balances

The Constitution’s Checks and Balances

• Categories: Constitution

About this sample

Words: 582 |

Published: Dec 12, 2018

Words: 582 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1466 words

1 pages / 587 words

1 pages / 740 words

1 pages / 484 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Constitution

With all of the racial issues going on around the world, there has been an abundance of issues regarding freedom of speech. The first amendment of the Constitution declares that all citizens of the United States has the freedom [...]

Sovereign states all over the world are governed by a constitution, which underpins the laws of the country. Most countries have a written constitution such as USA, Canada and France while the UK, Israel and New Zealand [...]

Judicial History: North Carolina inmates sued in federal district court. The inmates alleged that the state’s failure to accommodate them with legal research facilities revoked them access to the courts in infringement of the [...]

The United Kingdom (UK) has a great cultural diversity and is considered one of the biggest financial and service centers that the world relies on. The UK is often seen as the doorway to the rest of the European countries and is [...]

A written constitution is a formal document defining the nature of the constitutional settlement, the rules that govern the political system and the rights of citizens and governments in a codified form. The UK's constitution [...]

In the United States, it is illegal for anyone under the age of twenty-one to consume alcohol. Strict laws are enforced in order to restrict any individual under twenty-one from having access to these toxins. Serving time in [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Separation of Powers with Checks and Balances

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judicia[l] in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self–appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny” (James Madison, Federalist No. 51 , 1788).

James Madison theorized that as it is the Constitution that grants each branch its power, honorable ambition that ultimately serves the highest interests of the people could work to maintain the separation.

The Founding Fathers were well-acquainted with a long-held tenet of government: the accumulation of power by a single person or body of government is the greatest threat to liberty. In fact, a celebrated feature of the Constitution, the separation of powers doctrine, developed over the course of many centuries.

As early as 350 B.C., Greek philosopher Aristotle observed in the  Politics  that every government, no matter its form, performed three distinct functions: “the deliberative, the magisterial, and the judicative.” In modern terminology these activities correlate, respectively, to the legislative (law-making), executive (law-enforcing) and judicial (law interpretation) functions of government. While Aristotle identified these basic powers common to all governments, he did not necessarily suggest that they should be exercised by entirely different branches.

The principle that major governmental functions should be divided into different branches would be advanced centuries later. The French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu, “[t]he oracle…the celebrated Montesquieu,” as James Madison referred to him, advocated three distinct and separate branches in which the general powers of government should be lodged. While John Locke made the case for separating the legislative and executive powers, Montesquieu provided the Founders with a convincing defense for an independent judiciary:

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty… Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression. There would be an end to everything, were the same man, or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals” (Baron de Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws , 1748).

It was Montesquieu’s vision of a truly separated, tripartite system that the Founding Fathers would come to adopt at the Constitutional Convention. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution vests legislative powers in a Congress of the United States, itself separated into a House of Representatives and a Senate. Article II, Section 1 vests executive authority in a President of the United States. Article III, Section 1 vests judicial authority in a single Supreme Court of the United States and “in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

During the ratification debates from 1787 to 1788, some critics charged that upon close inspection the separation of powers in Articles I-III of the Constitution were not as complete as Montesquieu appeared to advocate and would tend toward an accumulation of power in one branch or another over time. The president, for example, has the power to accept or reject a bill duly passed by Congress, a seemingly legislative power. For its part, the Senate may approve or reject a presidential appointment to his own branch, a seemingly executive power.

The Constitution’s critics were right; the Framers did not propose a “pure” separation of powers. Madison retorted that a “pure” separation of powers was neither what Montesquieu intended nor practical:

“[Montesquieu] did not mean that these [branches] ought to have no partial agency in, or no control over, the acts of each other. His meaning…can amount to no more than this, that where the whole power of one [branch] is exercised by the hands that hold the whole power of another, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted. [T]here is not a single instance in which the several [branches] of power have been kept absolutely separate and distinct” (James Madison, Federalist No. 47 , 1788).

The French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu advocated three distinct and separate branches in which the general powers of government should be lodged.

Implicit in Madison’s argument was an interesting challenge to the very doctrine of separation of powers: what will prevent the accumulation of power in the absence of pure separation? The answer was to be found in a unique feature of the Constitution: the pairing of separated powers with an intricate system of checks and balances designed to give each branch fortifications against encroachments by the others. The “Madisonian Model,” as it is now generally called, gave genuine and practical life to both the observation of Aristotle and the vision of Montesquieu.

At the heart of the Madisonian Model is ambition. A desire for power, influence, and authority is embedded deeply in human nature. For many people, the very word “ambition” smacks of greed, corruption, or a win-at-all-cost mentality.

Madison saw it differently. Ambition, if properly harnessed by good judgment and rooted in an appreciation for the benefits of constitutional republicanism, could work to advance the public good. It could be beneficial not only to the effective separation of powers but to limited government and liberty itself. In  Federalist No. 51 , James Madison stated:

“The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same [branch], consists in giving to those who administer each [branch], the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others…Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place” (James Madison, Federalist No. 51 , 1788).

In our system of separated powers, each branch of government is not only given a finite amount of power and authority but arrives at it through entirely different modes of election. Madison theorized that as it is the Constitution that grants each branch its power, honorable ambition that ultimately serves the highest interests of the people could work to maintain the separation. In other words, since Congress is not dependent on the presidency or the courts for either its authority or its election to office, members will jealously guard its power from encroachments by the other two branches and vice versa. For Madison, this organization of powers answered the great challenge of framing a limited government of separated powers: “first enabl[ing] the government to control the governed…and in the next place, obling[ing] it to control itself” (James Madison,  Federalist No. 51 , 1788).

What does Madison’s theory look like in practice? While it is the legislative branch that makes law, the president may check Congress by vetoing bills Congress has passed, preventing them from being enacted. In turn, Congress may enact a law over the president’s objection by overriding his veto with a vote of two-thirds of both the House and Senate. The Supreme Court can then check both branches by declaring a law unconstitutional (known as judicial review), but the Supreme Court itself is checked by virtue of the fact the president and Senate appoint and approve, respectively, members of the Court. Furthermore, both the president and federal judges are subject to impeachment by Congress for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” (United States Constitution: Article II, Section 4).

The President may check Congress by vetoing bills Congress has passed. Congress may override the president’s veto with a vote of two-thirds of both Houses. The Supreme Court can then check both branches by declaring a law unconstitutional.

By and large, Madison’s model remains constitutionally intact, but many people wonder if our system still balances power, in reality and in practice, to the extent that he envisioned. Our checks and balances system reflects an understanding about republican government, held by many Founders, that the legislative branch should be the superior branch and, therefore, most in need of restraint. They reasoned that this is the case because “We the People” govern ourselves through the laws we give ourselves through our elected representatives in the legislative branch.

“The legislative [branch] derives superiority… [i]ts constitutional powers [are] more extensive, and less susceptible to precise limits… [it] is not possible to give each [branch] an equal [number of checks on the other branches]” (James Madison, Federalist No. 48 , 1788).

Some observers maintain that this conception of the legislative as the predominant branch is obsolete in modern times. The executive and judicial branches have expanded their powers beyond the Founders’ expectations over time (i.e. executive orders, the role of the Supreme Court as the arbiter of laws at every level, not just the federal level.) Is Madison’s assumption of legislative superiority true today? If you were asked to pick a branch to describe as “most powerful” would your answer mirror Madison’s?

Despite disagreement as to how well it has worked, one characteristic of the checks and balances system cannot be denied: it encourages constant tension and conflict between the branches. That conflict, however, is frequently beneficial, and our Constitution smiles upon it.

Related Content

The Founders understood the principle expressed by the British historian, Lord Acton, “All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Through the complex system of checks and balances developed in the U.S. Constitution, they sought to assure that no person or branch of government could exercise unrestrained power. As James Madison advocated in Federalist No. 51, ambition should counteract ambition in a fashion that advances the public good.

System of Checks and Balances Essay (Critical Writing)

The president heads the American Presidential system of government. He/she is both the head of state and government. The president has powers to appoint officials to key government positions and to declare a state of emergency. The constitution grants the head of state several powers in order to drive the government well.

Everybody in the country turns to the government in case anything goes wrong. The government therefore has a sole responsibility of protecting the lives and properties of individuals. The government ensures that an individual exercises his/her rights and duties without interruption.

For this case, the government has powers over the activities and actions of individuals. Even though an individual has rights as articulated in the bill of rights, such rights and freedoms must be exercised in accordance with the constitution.

This means that individuals have duties apart from rights. The main duty of an individual is to pay taxes and to obey the law always. Democracy is achieved when rights and duties are observed carefully.

The government is divided into three major arms, each charged with a responsibility. The three exist to serve citizens in the most cost effective way. Governmental powers are shared among the three wings. This is important because power corrupts and in some cases corrupts absolutely.

The two chambers of parliament that is, the senate and the congress checks on the excess of the president and his/her team. The president cannot appoint officials to important constitutional offices without approval by either chamber.

This is important because the head of state is always at toes knowing that he/she is being watched. The legislature hence acts as people’s watchdog because it instructs the executive to publicize expenditures and in extreme cases orders audit of accounts.

From the above analysis, it does not mean that the executive arm of government is irrelevant. The president must sanction all bills before they can be applied or implemented. The civil service is supposed to offer free services to people, especially during the times of calamities.

A state is said to be strong when its government is strong. Weak governments cannot manage the affairs of the state well. Such governments usually have weak foreign policies, which makes a state not to achieve external interests. The US is strong and viewed as a world power mainly because of its strong institutions. Strong institutions guarantee justice and equality within a state (Sabato 17).

In other words, it can be summarized that whereas the legislature makes laws, the executive arm implements them. This process is a continuous dialectic implying that one cannot be separated from the other. The two are intricately tied together although the executive have more powers especially during natural disasters (Beeman 37).

The last but most important arm of government is the judiciary. The agency comprises of judges and the court system charged with the responsibility of arbitration. The judiciary from time to time is invited to interpret some clauses of the constitution, particularly during conflicts.

The judiciary ensures that justice is administered properly and no abnormality goes on in government. The members of the judiciary advice the president on the best ways possible as regards to policy implementation. It does not mean that the judiciary is powerful than the other two arms.

In fact, the president with endorsement from the legislature appoints members of the judiciary. The judiciary in turn has its freedoms since it is sovereign. No person can influence the judiciary to favor one party during arbitration.

Works Cited

Sabato, Larry. American Government: Roots and Reform ( 11th ed). Virginia: Longman, 2011.

Beeman, Richard. “The Varieties of Deference in Eighteenth-Century America,” Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 3 (2), 2005.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, March 28). System of Checks and Balances. https://ivypanda.com/essays/system-of-checks-and-balances/

"System of Checks and Balances." IvyPanda , 28 Mar. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/system-of-checks-and-balances/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'System of Checks and Balances'. 28 March.

IvyPanda . 2019. "System of Checks and Balances." March 28, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/system-of-checks-and-balances/.

1. IvyPanda . "System of Checks and Balances." March 28, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/system-of-checks-and-balances/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "System of Checks and Balances." March 28, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/system-of-checks-and-balances/.

• Plato’s “Apology” Review
• Labor Law Arbitration Analysis
• How Pushkin Illustrates the Theme of Corruption in the "The Queen of Spades?"
• Arbitration and Its Role in Dispute Resolution
• The Witty Worm Software Virus and How to Address It
• Obedience to Authority in Milgram’s Study
• Plato's Apology: Is Socrates Guilty?
• Arbitration in the UAE, Its Pros and Cons
• Aspects of the International Arbitration
• Discussion of Greed in "The Devil and Tom Walker" and "The Mulatto"
• The comparison between National Rifle Association and the American Association of Retired People in regard to power
• National Debt Continues to Grow in U.S.A
• The Deputy Minister’s Day
• Regulation of Harmful Substances in Canada
• Ben Ali: Tunisian Revolution

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, how checks and balances work in the us government.

General Education

If you’ve tuned into the news lately, you’ve seen the checks and balances system of government at work. Whether it’s courts striking down executive orders or governors vetoing legislation , checks and balances are constantly working to keep the United States government functioning.

But what are checks and balances, exactly? And how do they help make democracy work?

Although it’s important for everyone to understand the checks and balances system, it’s especially critical for you to understand if you’re taking a government course. Additionally, since a system of checks and balances plays an essential role in the U.S. federal government, the concept will also be a heavy contender for an AP exam free response question.

That’s a lot to cover, huh? Not to worry, though! By the end of this guide, you’ll have all the information you need to

• Answer the question, “What are checks and balances?”
• Write your own checks and balances definition
• Identify pros and cons of a checks and balances government
• Explain various checks and balances examples
• Analyze real-life examples of checks and balances

Let’s get going!

What Are Checks and Balances? Definition and History

A system of checks and balances places limitations and controls on the power and responsibility of each branch of government. You probably already know that the United States government isn’t the only government in the world that depends on a system of checks and balances to function properly, but for our purposes, we’re going to focus on how the system of checks and balances functions in the United States’ form of government.

To really understand why checks and balances are such a big deal in the United States government, we need to start with the following:

• Where the idea of checks and balances comes from
• How checks and balances fit into the United States’ form of government

Understanding the history and background of our checks and balances government will lay the foundation for a checks and balances definition that you can use on the AP exam.

Where the Idea of Checks and Balances Comes From

Two key influences shaped the Founders’ decision to build a system of checks and balances into the United States Constitution:

• The Founders’ experiences with the government of Great Britain
• The writings of the eighteenth century French political philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu

The overbearing behavior of the English monarchy inspired the thirteen colonies to declare independence and influenced the Founders to form a government system that was built on the ideas of liberty and freedom. They wanted to form a government in the United States that guarded against the kind of overreach they’d witnessed in the English government.

That’s where the writings of Baron de Montesquieu came in. Montesquieu originated the political doctrine of separation of powers within a government. (Spoiler alert: checks and balances are the result of this idea!) In his The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu argued for a constitutional government comprised of three separate branches . And these separate branches, Montesquieu argued, should have specific abilities to check the powers of the other branches.

In other words, Montesquieu imagined a balanced government where no one branch was more powerful than the other.

Montesquieu’s philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the U.S. Constitution and the Founders’ establishment of the three branches: the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. The Founding Fathers believed that implementing a system like this in the United States would help keep government power in check and allow citizens to have more freedom.

A Constitutional Democracy: The Vehicle for a System of Checks and Balances

The Founders’ vision for a government that separated powers took the form of a constitutional democracy . A constitutional democracy is a political system in which the federal government gets its authority to govern from the people. (Actually, you can learn tons more about it means to be a democracy in this article !) But in general, constitutional democracies like the United States are designed to do two things.

First, their primary job is to protect the fundamental rights of every citizen, regardless of economic status, race, or class. Second, constitutional democracies limit the amount of government power through a series of limits established by the United States Constitution, which are more commonly referred to as “checks and balances.” These checks and balances include things like:

• Separation and sharing of powers among the different branches of government
• Giving adequate power to different branches to check the powers of other branches
• Protection of individual rights by due process of law.
• Elections at frequent intervals that enable changes in leadership and transfer of governmental authority.

So what’s important for you to remember about this description of a constitutional democracy? The big takeaway is that the system of checks and balances was written into the U.S. Constitution because the Founders knew it would be essential to the proper functioning of the United States’ form of government.

But implementing a system of checks and balances doesn’t end with writing it into the Constitution--that’s just the beginning. The Constitution holds the three branches of the U.S. federal government responsible for adhering to the system of checks and balances.

To add to your working checks and balances definition, we’ll explain the three branches of the federal government and how they work within the system of checks and balances next.

The 3 Branches of the United States Federal Government

Checks and balances can work in many different ways and hold varying levels of importance in a government that employs such a system. In the U.S. Constitution, the three branches of the federal government were designed to operate separately and independently, but to be equal. In other words, no single branch should have more power than either of the others.

Here’s how the system of checks and balances works in practice in the United States : one branch is given the power to take a given action, and another branch (or branches) is given the responsibility to confirm the legality and appropriateness of that action. That’s just a fancy way of saying that every time one branch makes a decision, it’s the responsibility of the other branches to evaluate it.

The system of checks and balances facilitates a reciprocal relationship between the different branches of the U.S. federal government. The three branches need each other—under the Constitution, the federal government couldn’t fulfill its duties to the people without the proper function of each individual branch.

To understand how the three individual branches work independently and together in a system of checks and balances, let’s define and examine each branch next.

The U.S. Capitol  building

The Legislative Branch

The legislative branch of the federal government is established by Article One of the Constitution and is known as the United States Congress. Congress is in charge of creating laws and is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The legislative branch is big: there are 100 members of the Senate, called Senators, and 435 members of the House of Representatives, called U.S. Representatives or Congresspersons.

As the biggest branch of the federal government, Congress has a lot of responsibilities , which include:

• Passing bills
• Broad taxing and spending power
• Regulating interstate commerce
• Controlling the federal budget
• Borrowing money on the credit of the United States
• Sole power to declare war and to support and regulate the military
• Overseeing and making rules for the government and its officers to follow
• Defining the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary by law in cases not specified by the Constitution
• Ratifying treaties
• Sole power of impeachment and trial of impeachments

You might be gathering from the list of responsibilities above that the legislative branch’s overarching responsibility is creating, providing for, and controlling: they draft laws, pass bills, make rules, declare things, and make sure that the other branches are following the rules. In other words, they legislate .

The U.S. White House

The Executive Branch, Defined

The executive branch of the federal government is established by Article Two of the Constitution and is made up of the president, the vice president, the Cabinet, executive departments, independent agencies, and other boards, commissions, and committees.

When we hear the word “executive,” a powerful individual in a well-tailored suit might pop into our minds. Just because the President of the United States is the head of the executive branch doesn’t mean they’re a lone wolf, though . All of the other members of the executive branch support and advise the president, and actually do a lot of the work in the executive branch.

The Cabinet is comprised of the vice president and the heads of the fifteen executive departments. These department heads have titles like “secretary,” “director,” or “administrator,” and they’re in charge of everything from the Department of Homeland Security, to the Department of Transportation, to the Department of Education.

For example, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury are both heads of their respective departments and members of the president’s Cabinet. The Secretary of State advises the president on foreign affairs, and the Secretary of the Treasury advises the president on economic affairs.

The Cabinet may also be asked to advise the president on responsibilities or decisions that pertain to executive checks on the other two branches, or the executive branch’s response to checks initiated by the other two branches on the executive branch. This is one key way that the president receives both support and accountability in carrying out the duties of the executive branch.

Now that you know who makes up the executive branch, let’s look at the executive branch’s key responsibilities :

• The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces
• Executes the instructions of Congress
• May veto bills passed by Congress
• Executes the spending authorized by Congress
• Declares states of emergency, publishes regulations and executive orders
• Makes executive agreements and signs treaties
• Makes appointments to the federal judiciary, federal executive departments, and other posts
• Can grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

You’re probably gathering from this list that the executive branch’s main role is to implement and enforce federal laws . It’s called the “executive” branch for a reason, right? The executive branch executes: it makes sure that the right stuff gets done . It puts plans into action and carries out different laws and orders.

The U.S. Supreme Court building

The Judicial Branch, Defined

The judicial branch is established by Article Three of the Constitution, and it’s the judicial branch’s job to evaluate, interpret, and apply laws. The judicial branch is made up of three different courts: the Supreme Court, the Appellate Courts, and the District Courts. Let’s look at what each of the three courts within the judicial branch can do.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States and is the head of the judicial branch . It’s made up of one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. Appointments to the Supreme Court are made for life, so when the President nominates justices and the Senate approves them, it’s a really big deal.

The Appellate Courts

The Appellate Courts--also called courts of appeals--are the intermediate courts of the U.S. federal court system. There are thirteen of them, and they serve as a sort of go-between for the Supreme Court and the more numerous District Courts. The Appellate Courts hear appeals from the District Courts and, when appropriate, appeals court decisions to the Supreme Court.

The District Courts

The District Courts are the final component of the judicial branch. The District Courts are where federal trials happen , which is a big responsibility, as there are 94 juridical districts in the United States. Their jurisdiction covers both civil and criminal federal cases.

The Judicial Branch’s Responsibilities

Now that you know about the different courts that make up the judicial branch, here are the primary responsibilities of the judicial branch :

• Determining which laws Congress intended to apply to any given case
• Determining how Congress meant the law to apply to disputes
• Determining how a law acts to determine the disposition of prisoners
• Determining how a law acts to compel testimony and the production of evidence
• Determining how laws should be interpreted to assure uniform policies through the appeals process
• Reviewing the constitutionality of laws through judicial review

You can probably tell from the language used in the list of responsibilities above that the Judicial branch’s primary responsibility is dealing with interpretation : the Judicial branch interprets laws, policies, cases, testimony and evidence through the Constitution.

The system of checks and balances works like gears in a machine. It takes the work of all three branches of government in unison to keep the country running. 

How Does the Checks and Balances System Work in the United States?

Now you know about the three branches of government: who the key players are, what they do, and why they do it. Examining the checks and balances that are assigned to each individual branch is the next step to getting you better acquainted with how each branch works.

When we described the responsibilities of each branch in the previous sections, we were simultaneously describing how they check the other branches of the federal government. But we think it might be easier to envision how those responsibilities function explicitly as checks and balances if we place them side by side in a table. If you’re a visual learner, this is for you!

Looking at all of the checks and balances in one place can also help you think critically about the reciprocal relationship between the different branches and the specific ways that they work together on different topics, issues, and areas of the federal government.

To give you a better idea of how the branches work together to check each other, we’ve laid out the different checks and balances in a table below. Each row explains how the branches of government check and balance each other around a specific topic.

Let’s take a look:

Checks and Balances of the 3 Branches of Government

Whew! That’s a lot of checks and balances and political jargon. Let’s make sense of all this info by identifying some pros and cons of how the powers and responsibilities are distributed in the U.S.’s version of the system of checks and balances.

5 Pros and Cons of a Checks and Balances System

Now you have a visual for how checks and balances are assigned and distributed among the three different branches of the U.S. federal government. But what does this all mean?

First, it’s important to recognize that the different branches of the federal government aren’t in some kind of antagonistic relationship because of the system of checks and balances. They don’t act like rival sports teams (usually)! Instead, t he powers and responsibilities assigned to each branch were intricately coordinated by the writers of the Constitution so the government would operate collectively in the best interest of the people.

But it’s a fact of political life that no government system is perfect in practice. On the AP exam, you might be asked to explain or analyze an instance in which the system of checks and balances didn’t do its job, or perhaps to analyze a situation when the system of checks and balances worked to the advantage of U.S. citizens.

In order to do this, you’ll need to understand some of the pros and cons of the U.S.’s checks and balances system so you can give a stellar checks and balances definition and analyze and explain checks and balances examples on your own.

Check out our list of 5 pros and cons of checks and balances below  to help grow your understanding of how the system can work in action.

Pro: They Keep a Single Group From Grabbing too Much Power

We’re bringing this one up again because it’s the main concept behind implementation of a system of checks and balances: checks and balances guard against tyranny and abuse of power by preventing an individual or small group within the government from seizing too much power.

We see this exemplified best in the relationship between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches where creating and passing laws is concerned. The legislative branch can propose bills or laws, the executive branch can veto them, the legislative branch can override the executive veto through a two-thirds vote, and the judicial branch can declare laws unconstitutional.

In the process of passing legislation, then, no one individual or branch can grab an undue amount of power, and that’s one of the things that the system of checks and balances does best. It distributes power as evenly as it can among the different branches of the government.

Pro: They Get the Government to Self-Regulate

What’s key in thinking about checks and balances as an important way to prevent tyranny is that they make the government to check itself and limit its own influence. Though it isn’t fun to think about the possibility of our government becoming tyrannical, the system of checks and balances prevents any self-interested minority within the government from grabbing too much power and acting only in the interests of its group.

On the flip side, smaller factions or groups in the minority within the government are always going to keep a close eye on the group that’s in the majority. They’ll be eager to make sure the majority group aren’t getting up to any funny business. If there are corrupt practices going on in the majority, the minority groups in the government will certainly call those out.

Political parties are a classic example of how self-regulation can occur in the government. For instance, when the Republican party holds the majority in the House or the Senate, the Democrats in the House and the Senate are extra vigilant about keeping the Republican majority in check.

Loyalty to political parties presents plenty of challenges to the system of checks and balances, but the inherent competition between the different political parties represented within the legislative branch can often serve to check the power of self-interested groups .

Pro: They Provide Constitutional Support for Disagreements Between the Branches

Checks and balances enable the three branches of government to disagree. In a system that separates power among different institutions comprised of many different people, multiple minds work to interpret the Constitution. And when multiple minds are doing that interpreting, disagreements about what is and is not constitutional can arise.

That might seem antagonistic and counterproductive to getting things done in the government, but the ability for the different branches to disagree is in the interest of the liberty of the people .

When the different branches of the government have the opportunity to work through disagreements about various decisions that affect the people, decisions are made more deliberatively. And the government has the power to make huge decisions, so the slower pace of decision-making enabled by the system of checks and balances can help ensure that these decisions are the best ones.

Con: They Can Complicate Policymaking

The flip side of constitutional support for disagreements among the different branches is that policymaking can be much more time consuming. One branch can propose a law, another can veto it, and another can say that that law violates the Constitution, and so on.

Sometimes the three branches won’t agree and a stalemate will ensue . . . meaning no policy changes occur, or they’re put off for a long time. This can be a good thing in some cases, especially when there is a majority in the House and the Senate who only have the interests of one political party or ideology in mind in policymaking.

But sometimes the people want change, and the main thing standing in the way of changes occurring is the different branches’ uses of the system of checks and balances.

Con: The System Doesn’t Always Work as Originally Intended

Interpreting the Constitution has proven tricky as the United States has grown and changed. For example, the writers of the Constitution couldn’t have predicted the United States’ massively expanding population, the technological revolution, or global conflicts like World War I and World War II..

All of these changes affect the way the Constitution is interpreted--which includes how checks and balances are understood and implemented. This has led to internal conflicts within the three branches of government. There have been points in history where different branches have tried to expand their power beyond what was originally outlined in the Constitution, and sometimes, the branches have succeeded. For example, to defend the U.S. and its economy against fascist foreign powers, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal restructured the federal government and greatly expanded executive powers.

So why is this a “con,” exactly? Remember: the system of checks and balances exists to make sure that no one branch of government is stronger than the other. When one branch tries to expand its power, it runs the risk of throwing the “balance” part of the “checks and balances” process out of equilibrium. That opens up a chance for an overreach of power, which can potentially put citizens’ freedoms at risk.

Former President Bill Clinton, who was the President of the United States from 1993–2001

What Are Checks and Balances Like in Action? 

To really hone your understanding of checks and balances, examples are essential! Checks and balances can play out in interesting ways in real-life situations, so we’re going to summarize and break down one example for you to reference here.

The example we’re going to look at is the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 , which led to a Supreme Court case involving President Bill Clinton in 1998 . This example is kind of a doozy—the checks and balances enacted by all three branches in this situation played out over a decade . . .  and the Line Item Veto Act still failed to win approval in Congress and become law.

Let’s get into the details of the Act and the case and see what it can teach us about checks and balances.

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996: Background

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 allowed the president—Bill Clinton, at that time—to veto parts of bills selectively, rather than vetoing bills in their entirety. The main purpose of this Act was to give the president more control over the details of the federal budget--a power that was constitutionally reserved for Congress .

Congress successfully passed this legislation in 1996. How did that happen? Well, in the federal midterm elections of 1994, Republicans took over the House and the Senate from Democrats. This was seen as a pretty big upheaval. It’s even been called the “ Republican Revolution !”

The Republicans also succeeded in taking the majority in Congress by making a pretty hefty campaign promise to the American people in the form of the “ Contract with America .” The Contract with America was basically a long list of actions the Republican candidates promised to take if they gained control of Congress.

The Line Item Veto Act was a key piece of the Contract with America. The American people liked this Act because it promised to ensure congressional fiscal conservatism. In fact, they had that in common with then-President Clinton: the only provision in the Contract with America that he was willing to support was the Line Item Veto Act.

Since Republicans controlled Congress, and since the president supported the Line Item Veto Act, it passed both the legislative and executive branches without being vetoed or rejected. And then things started to get a bit ugly.

The Judicial Branch Acts

In the time that the Line Item Veto Act was law, President Clinton did a lot of line item vetoing. In fact, he applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times.

Does that sound like a lot? It did to the people who were affected by the president’s line-item vetoes, and that’s where the checks and balances started coming into play.

When the Act was passed in 1996, lots of Democrats broke with President Clinton to oppose it. A congressman even sued to prevent use of the line-item veto. At the time, the Supreme Court held that the congressman’s case lacked standing because he couldn’t give any specific examples of how the Line Item Veto Act was causing harm to people.

But when President Clinton began using the line-item veto a little more liberally, more people filed suit. Since Clinton was making ample use of his new power, this time, the plaintiffs had specific examples of how the line-item veto was causing harm. The City of New York itself and several other healthcare organizations alleged fiscal injury from President Clinton’s cancellation of various provisions from Acts that were passed in 1997.

The case— Clinton v. City of New York —went before the District Court, and the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. This time, the Court held that the Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional. The District Court then used its power to appeal to the Supreme Court. The case was headed to the highest federal court in the United States.

In 1998, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Line Item Veto Act violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution , which outlines a specific practice for enacting a statute that the Act did not follow.

The Supreme Court used their power of interpretation to rule that the Constitution expressly prohibited the actions that the Act enabled the President to take. The majority of the Supreme Court, in other words, believed that the Act violated principles of the separation of powers and threatened individual liberty by giving the President the power to reward or favor certain groups and punish others.

Former President George W. Bush, who was President of the United States from 2001–2009

The Legislative Branch Acts

In 2006, the Line Item Veto Act came up again. That year, President George W. Bush asked Congress to enact legislation that would return the line item veto power to the executive branch, and announced his intent to make this request in his State of the Union Address . In March 2006, President Bush sent a legislative proposal to Congress and urged its prompt passage.

Anticipating dissent from some members of Congress and the Supreme Court, members of President Bush’s Cabinet argued that his version of the Act was different from the Line Item Veto of Act of 1996 because the new proposal would seek congressional approval of all line-item vetoes, instead of giving the executive unilateral authority for such vetoes.

Many members of Congress didn’t buy this argument. Some still believed that the legislation would take away parts of Congress’s constitutional power and give it to the executive branch instead.

After hearing arguments from constitutional law experts about the constitutionality of the bill, t he House Budget Committee approved the proposed Act through a majority vote. The full House of Representatives voted and approved the same bill soon after, but it failed to win approval in the Senate.

But because the Act didn’t win full approval by Congress, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 didn’t become law.

Summary of the 4 Checks and Balances Involved in This Example

If you were paying attention, you may have picked out some of the checks and balances that were involved in the whole scenario surrounding the Line Item Veto Act. To help you out, here’s a list of the checks and balances that we found playing a role in this legislation :

• The legislative branch wrote and enacted a law: the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996.
• The judicial branch determined whether that law was unconstitutional in 1998.
• The executive branch influenced the legislative branch with its proposed agenda in the State of the Union address in 2006, when President Bush announced his plan to attempt to pass the Legislative Line Item Veto Act.
• The legislative branch rejected the Legislative Line Item Veto Act by a vote in 2006.

The Line-Item Veto Act of 1996 is a great example of how we can understand the federal government’s powers as being both divided and shared . In some aspects of this case, branches used their powers to work together to keep another branch from doing something that was not constitutional and that potentially threatened the liberty of the people.

By checking each other in this case, the different branches also defended their own constitutional powers by preventing the executive branch from claiming powers that the Constitution assigned to the legislative branch.

This example shows how real-world cases of checks and balances in action have a lot of layers: there’s a lot to analyze and unpack, and sometimes who’s right and who’s wrong isn’t easily defined. That’s why it’s important to look at both the big picture situation and all of the details, which is key to making sense of checks and balances in action!

What's Next?

This is just an overview of how checks and balances work within the United States government. (We know...it’s a lot!) There’s a lot more to learn about how each individual branch checks the other. A good place to start is learning more about how the Executive branch checks the Judicial branch .

The AP U.S. Government exam is about more than just how the federal government works, though. That’s why we’ve developed the best 5-step guide to help you prepare .

Once you’ve worked your way through that, it’s time to drill deeper into the material you need to know to ace the exam. Here’s a list of the best AP U.S. Government notes on the internet , and here’s a step-by-step guide to acing the AP U.S. Government’s FRQs .

Ashley Sufflé Robinson has a Ph.D. in 19th Century English Literature. As a content writer for PrepScholar, Ashley is passionate about giving college-bound students the in-depth information they need to get into the school of their dreams.

Student and Parent Forum

Our new student and parent forum, at ExpertHub.PrepScholar.com , allow you to interact with your peers and the PrepScholar staff. See how other students and parents are navigating high school, college, and the college admissions process. Ask questions; get answers.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

Balancing Power: Ensuring Checks and Balances in Government

This essay about the mechanisms that prevent any branch of government from becoming too powerful in a democratic system. It explores the role of checks and balances, federalism, staggered terms, and the clear delineation of powers in maintaining equilibrium among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. By distributing authority and responsibilities among multiple levels of government and implementing systems of accountability, the Constitution safeguards against the concentration of power and ensures the preservation of democratic principles and the rule of law.

How it works

Within a democratic framework, the partitioning of authority among the triad of governmental branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—stands as imperative, thwarting any singular branch’s ascent to excessive power. This distribution, codified within the Constitution, functions as a bulwark against despotism and misuse of authority. Yet, what mechanisms exist to avert one branch’s encroachment upon the others, thereby ensuring a harmonious coexistence?

Foremost, the framework of checks and balances assumes a pivotal role in preserving equilibrium amidst governmental branches.

Each branch retains the prerogative to scrutinize the powers wielded by its counterparts, thus forestalling the dominance of any singular branch. For instance, the President possesses the authority to veto legislation ratified by Congress; however, Congress reserves the ability to override the veto through a two-thirds majority vote. Correspondingly, the judiciary retains the jurisdiction to deem congressional enactments or presidential initiatives unconstitutional, thereby circumscribing their authority.

Additionally, the tenet of federalism, which apportions authority between the federal government and state entities, constitutes another deterrent against power consolidation. By endowing specific powers upon the federal domain while allocating others to states, the Constitution ensures the absence of unchecked dominion. This allocation of authority empowers states to function as bastions of democratic experimentation, pursuing diverse policies and strategies commensurate with their distinct requisites and inclinations.

Moreover, the system of staggered tenures and periodic elections serves to forestall the centralization of authority within any singular branch. By subjecting elected officials to recurrent electoral campaigns, constituents retain the ability to hold them accountable for their deeds and decisions. This electoral mechanism emerges as a potent deterrent against governmental functionaries, motivating them to prioritize the welfare of their constituents over personal interests.

Furthermore, the Constitution confers upon each branch explicit powers and responsibilities, delineated in precise terms to forestall encroachments upon one another’s jurisdiction. For instance, the President assumes the mantle of enforcing laws sanctioned by Congress, while Congress wields the authority to enact legislation, and the judiciary interprets such enactments. This demarcation of authority ensures that each branch operates within its designated ambit, forestalling any single branch’s assumption of undue supremacy.

In summation, the prevention of any single governmental branch’s ascension to excessive power hinges upon a delicate equilibrium of checks and balances, federalism, staggered tenures, and precise delineation of authority. Through the dispersal of authority among myriad branches and tiers of governance, the Constitution insulates against power consolidation, upholding democratic principles, accountability, and the rule of law. As the cornerstone of American governance, this framework ensures the absence of unchecked dominion by any singular branch, thereby safeguarding the liberties and rights of the populace.

Cite this page

Balancing Power: Ensuring Checks and Balances in Government. (2024, Mar 02). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/balancing-power-ensuring-checks-and-balances-in-government/

"Balancing Power: Ensuring Checks and Balances in Government." PapersOwl.com , 2 Mar 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/balancing-power-ensuring-checks-and-balances-in-government/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Balancing Power: Ensuring Checks and Balances in Government . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/balancing-power-ensuring-checks-and-balances-in-government/ [Accessed: 23 Apr. 2024]

"Balancing Power: Ensuring Checks and Balances in Government." PapersOwl.com, Mar 02, 2024. Accessed April 23, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/balancing-power-ensuring-checks-and-balances-in-government/

"Balancing Power: Ensuring Checks and Balances in Government," PapersOwl.com , 02-Mar-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/balancing-power-ensuring-checks-and-balances-in-government/. [Accessed: 23-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Balancing Power: Ensuring Checks and Balances in Government . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/balancing-power-ensuring-checks-and-balances-in-government/ [Accessed: 23-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Government

Essay On Checks And Balances In American Politics

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Government , United States , Management , Politics , Law , President , Elections , America

Words: 3250

Published: 03/08/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Introduction

One of the earliest tenets of the American government is the need for checks and balances in order to maintain a sense of equality and fairness in the choices being made for the American people. The US Constitution implements the separation of powers and checks and balances through the use of various overriding powers that each branch of government has over the other. For example, while Congress can approve a bill for legislation, the president has the opportunity to veto it if he does not like it. Congress, meanwhile, can impeach the president if they feel he is not performing according to his duties. This was enacted by the founders of the Constitution in order to make sure no one part of the government had too much power. Without the principle of checks and balances, in theory, one person or branch of government could have unilateral and unjust authority over the entire nation, passing policy and operating on principles that the people do not agree with (Wood, 1969). While the system of checks and balances as it exists in America today was created ostensibly to facilitate safeguards against this kind of tyranny, it can be argued that the system itself is broken. The American system of checks and balances is far from perfect, and the prevailing scholarship on this system within American politics paints a conflicting picture regarding whether or not checks and balances works as a truly functioning and effective system. The following outlines the major scholarship on these two sides of the argument, acknowledging the existence of flaws within the separation of powers while still presenting arguments for its continued effectiveness.

Madison and the Principle of Checks and Balances

In order to examine the effectiveness of checks and balances in practice, it is important to evaluate the ideals of its principle at the time of its creation. James Madison, in Federalist Paper #51, notes that “men are not angels” – in essence, men behave imperfectly and are prone to weakness and immorality due to their very nature (Madison). This simple fact necessitates the presence of a government in the first place; a larger body must govern us because we cannot govern ourselves as individuals. At the same time, this creates a dilemma: the system we put in place to protect us from individual greed is itself run by individuals – they can use this power against the people for their own ends. To that end, the separation of powers in the Constitution is meant to lessen the power any one individual has within the government – with each branch providing checks and balances to the other, these groups can keep a watchful eye on each other to ensure that the duties of government are conducted fairly. As Madison writes, “ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” thus necessitating the self-enforcing nature of these structures (Madison). Those who look for power are prevented from attaining too much due to federalism and the separation of government competencies within the branches of government. Factionalism is also reduced, as dividing authority in this way: "will render an unjust combination of a majority on the whole very improbable, if not impracticable” (Madison). As long as the majority of people uphold the ideals of “justice and the general good,” it would be possible to prevent tyranny, checks and balances giving them the power to do so (Madison). Madison’s treatise on the necessity of checks and balances serves as the ideal philosophy by which to employ it; its effectiveness in enacting these ends, however, is debatable.

The Broken System of Checks and Balances

Despite Madison’s idealism regarding the ability for checks and balances to see to the greater good, there are many political scholars who see the system (as it is currently applied in modern America) as fundamentally broken. The uniquely problematic nature of the president’s role in the separation of powers allows for many possible problems with America’s system of checks and balances. Shugart & Haggard (2001) discuss the concept of presidentialism when referring to the powers of the executive branch in government – this is typically characterized by a separation of purpose between branches. Four dimensions of presidential regimes include the cabinet being accountable to the president, the electable nature of the president, the presence of fixed terms, and the president having veto powers; these factors affect “the degree of separation of power within a regime,” and are a substantial metric for determining the effectiveness of America’s checks and balances (Shugary & Haggard 2001, 71). However, because of the lengthy procedure that involves punitive measures such as impeachment against executives who have overstepped their bounds, it is extremely difficult for legislature to fight against an incredibly powerful executive branch if a unity of purpose is not found (Shugart & Haggard, 2001)). In essence, having a government that is divided by party (e.g. Democrat, Republican) or constituency (e.g. state or district vs. federal issues) can create vast potential for balkanization and gridlock. In order to reach compromises in order to move forward, a broad consensus must often be reached instead of a true, detailed enactment of a specific party agenda – this has the effect of watering down legislation and decreasing its efficiency (Shugart & Haggard, 2001). The most substantial argument against the current American system of checks and balances is the corruption that has been levied against it in its present form. Wilson (1885) provided some of the earliest criticism of the American system of checks and balances, noting that they have become ineffective due to the change in the condition of government. Federal power over state power, for instance, is not given the appropriate checks, with policy, commerce and political sentiment giving the federal government greater power, as it grows further with each decision on state government jurisdictions. While the Supreme Court theoretically has the power to check this growth of federal power, the judicial branch frequently shies away from taking stands on the conflicts between political branches, particularly those between the legislative and executive branches (Fisher, 1990). Fisher (1990) argues that the intrusion of the other two branches on each other is insufficiently checked by the judiciary, as the Supreme Court often takes a ‘functional approach’ to ensure that they do not have to become too deeply involved in setting rigid boundaries between powers (58). There is also a tremendous lack of faith in the ability for the branches of government to truly balance each other out – the executive branch has been shown to be unable to stop funds from being appropriated by Congress, which in turn has shown an ineffectiveness in stopping the executive from exercising his authority over the military and withholding important information from the legislature and judiciary alike (Levi, 1976). Because of this inequality of the ‘organs’ of government, it is impossible for all branches to have equal checks and balances over the other, making the system ineffective and prone to loopholes (Levi, 1976). The legislature is said to have a substantially imbalanced role in the system of checks and balances, as their laws provide the framework for the government as a whole – the executive and the judiciary have only a limited ability to veto or revise laws they deem unconstitutional or not in service of their interests (Katyal, 2006). America’s broken and ineffective application of its current separation of powers can be personified in the relatively unchecked power of the office of the president, according to Fisher (2005). Despite the volumes of intellectual support Fisher cites in favor of the presidential power to possess war powers, for example, Fisher has noticed an overall trend in the president’s increased ability to declare war and command the military without authorization or consultation from congress (Fisher, 2005). Historical precedent for this unchecked power goes back to Harry Truman’s declaration of the Korean War in 1950, in which he ignored the opportunity to consult Congress for statutory support, thus violating the “the intent of the UN Charter and the explicit language of the UN Participation Act” (Fisher 2005, 592). This showcases a distinct preference for the executive branch in the current separation of powers, allowing the president to be decisive without honoring the constitutional deference to Congress and the people America’s checks and balances seemingly require. Fisher’s exploration of both sides of the scholarly debate on presidential powers establishes a distinct debate between the intellectual justifications of the president as the gatekeeper of national interest, and those who are concerned with the increased power and decreased accountability of the presidency as just one part of a complex system of government. The executive authority of the president, scholars like Fisher, DeConde (2000), and others argue, should be questioned more frequently in light of scandals like Vietnam and Watergate, instead of viewing those instances as rare aberrations in the otherwise-unimpeachable status of the presidency.

Arguing for the Maintenance of Checks and Balances

While these problems with the systems of checks and balances are certainly valid, there are also scholars who maintain that the system still works, even if it does not work as effectively (or in the same way) that Madison envisioned. Olson (2000), for example, argues for the ‘invisible hand’ of the free market as a means to maintain the system of checks and balances and vice versa through a framework that provides protection of contract and property rights (Y) through a regime’s possibility of survival (X1) and the regime’s stake in the nation’s market (X2). The democratic principles that lie behind the system of checks and balances provide effective external benefits of protecting property rights and contracts, as "Democratization is an act of subjecting all interests to competition, of institutionalizing uncertainty" (Przeworski 1991, 14). This in turn prevents the rise of autocrats (if applied properly), leaving the invisible hand to force governments to become kind by creating a self-sustaining system from which it can feed and maintain itself. Without the system of checks and balances to protect the people, governments would be able to squeeze the life out of their population far more quickly than it could sustain itself , which would soon lead to the end of the government as well as the country (Przeworski, 1991). By maintaining checks and balances, the ‘invisible hand’ allows the balance of benefit and cost to remain steady. Others argue that the system of checks and balances is still effective, because the powers involved are not separated, but instead shared, thus encouraging collaboration and leading to decisions based on consensus. While Cohen, McCubbins and Rosenbluth (1995) would argue that this leads to less decision-making, Neustadt (1960) believes this simply allows the branches of government to be forced to work together to enact change. The president is but one of several different branches in control of the bureaucracy, even providing the White House Staff with their own independent powers (Neustadt 1960, 34-36). Because of the separation of powers, this requires the president and other branches of government to collaborate and persuade the others to help them despite their own institutional positions: "Yet nobody and nothing helps a President to see, save as he helps himself" (Neustadt 1960, 127). This particularly benefits the president, as he is able to leverage bargaining power due to the sheer number of favors he can trade in exchange for following his lead on his decisions. This may seem like a violation of the system of checks and balances – after all, it unfairly places the president on a higher level of influence than the other branches. However, because of the ability for bargaining to actually pass legislation through, it may be one way to overcome the gridlock that is often levied against the government due to the increased veto powers each branch possesses. Samuels & Shugart (2003) further this argument by saying that presidentialism, while having the potential for impeding accountability, actually provides a strong framework and separation of purpose for voters to determine exactly how responsible each branch is for dictating policy (33). The current presidentialism of the separation of powers, then, helps to enforce mandate representation in which the president simply enacts policies and interests shared by voters (Samuels & Shugart, 2003). While this may not be the exact type of democracy that Madison envisioned, it is theoretically an effective means of enacting and changing policy. The concept of constitutional precommitment furthered by Holmes (1995) notes that, while the creation of the Constitution legally binds future generations to rules created by the framers of the Constitution hundreds of years ago, the separation of powers acts as an effective method of providing positive constitutionalism (the ideal that creating fundamental laws in an ineffable document serves to protect freedoms). Holmes holds up the First Amendment as proof of this, as uncritical action is guarded against by framing free speech as a method of political revision. Also, the difficult (but achievable) process of amendment allows voters and Congress to have a method of asserting the nation’s will without making it too easy to facilitate the destruction of rights. In essence, Holmes (1995) argues that the gridlock that checks and balances creates in government is good, as the protections the current state of law provides should be protected through the difficulty of the legislative process. Furthermore, a government divided by checks and balances provides ample opportunity for the politics of delegation to act as an equalizing force in American politics (Persson, Roland & Tabellini, 1997). According to Volden (2002), checks and balances do not encourage delegation, but rather discourage it. Three primary implications he outlines in his work include the dependence of delegation on the structure and location of particular government agencies, which will then receive disproportionate support from the president if their agendas are aligned with his (126). Executives will often fight to maintain power that has been delegated to them when under a more unified government in the past, particularly when the bureaucracy’s and executive’s politics coincide. This concept relies heavily on the constant shifting of the government between unified and divided stances; while delegation occurs more often under a unified government, if policies change and political viewpoints become more divided, there are systems in place to maintain the status quo, thus reducing radicalism and extremism within party politics. Divided governments are much more willing to provide discretionary leeway for moderate agencies: "Here, legislators and the executive would both rely upon the discretionary authority of the centrist agency to moderate extreme shocks” in the government’s priorities and politics (Volden 2002, 126). Each branch of government has their own methods of maintaining the status quo if they prefer it; the executive can veto bills to prevent discretionary reductions, while the legislature is able to provide concessions in policy to incentivize executive approval of said reductions. The fluid nature of the politics and policies of each branch of government, and even individual actors, necessitates this need to negotiate and facilitate concessions between legislators and the executive.

The separation of powers enacted by the three branches of the American government was meant, at the outset, to restrain the potential for tyranny and the imposition of one perspective over the whole of government. Today, the separation of powers do not work out as well in practice. Because of the checks and balances that have been established, and partisan politics which lie along ideological lines and party affiliation, political gridlock occurs, wherein nothing gets done and sides must negotiate and delegate with each other to get results. Instead of making sure no one gets too much power, the system of checks and balances simply works to allow legislators on both sides of the aisle to block efforts by the other side to get things done merely to score political points. While the separation of powers is good in theory, the current polarizing partisanship of Congress and the tendency towards presidential gridlock makes it hard to get things accomplished within government. That being said, there are still many reasons to maintain a sense of faith in the system of checks and balances as a whole. A system of checks and balances, when performed ideally, is encouraged by the ‘invisible hand’ of the free market, preventing the government from growing too powerful, or any one perspective from taking hold and crushing the people. It is possible to think of the separation of powers instead as a sharing of powers, thus enabling the branches of government to negotiate with each other to create a consensus, then pass and enforce public policy. While the issue of inequality of organs still exists, due to the inability to evenly divide the powers of government, America’s existing system of checks and balances is ultimately preferable to a parliamentary system, in which control is far too centralized to address Madison’s fears of “too much ambition.”

Ackerman, Bruce. "The new separation of powers." Harvard Law Review(2000): 633-729. Calabresi, Steven G. (2008). "The Great Divorce: The Current Understanding of Separation of Powers and the Original Meaning of the Incompatibility Clause". University of Pennsylvania Law Review 157: 134–137 Cohen, McCubbins, and Rosenbluth. 1995. The political economy or nuclear power: A US-Japan comparison. In Structure and Policy in Japan and the United States, eds. Cowhey and McCubbins. Fisher, Louis. (1990). Separation of Powers: Interpretation Outside the Courts. Pepperdine Law Review 18(57): 57. Fisher, Louis. (2005). The Law: Scholarly Support for Presidential Wars. Presidential Studies Quarterly 35(3): 590. Hamilton, Jay, and Madison. 1787. The Federalist Papers. Holmes. 1995. Precommitment and the paradox of democracy. In Passions and Constraints, pp134-77. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Katyal, Neal Kumar. "Internal Separation of Powers: Checking Today's Most Dangerous Branch Levi, Edward H. "Some Aspects of Separation of Powers." Columbia Law Review (1976): 371- 391. Neustadt. 1960. Presidential power. Olson. 2000. Power and prosperity. New York: Basic Books. Persson, Torsten, Gerard Roland, and Guido Tabellini. "Separation of powers and political accountability." The Quarterly Journal of Economics (1997): 1163-1202. Przeworski. 1991. Democracy and the market: Political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press. Redish, Martin H., and Elizabeth J. Cisar. "" If Angels Were to Govern": The Need for Pragmatic Formalism in Separation of Powers Theory." Duke Law Journal (1991): 449-506. Segal, Jeffrey A. "Separation-of-powers games in the positive theory of congress and courts." American Political Science Review (1997): 28-44. Shugart and Carey. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shugart. 1999. Presidentialism, parliamentarism, and the provision of collective goods in less- developed countries. Constitutional Political Economy 10:53-88. Shugart and Haggard. 2001. Institutions and Public Policy in Presidential Systems. In Presidents and Parliaments, Haggard and McCubbins, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternlight, Jean R. "Rethinking the Constitutionality of the Supreme Court's Preference for Binding Arbitration: A Fresh Assessment of Jury Trial, Separation of Powers, and Due Process Concerns." Tul. L. Rev. 72 (1997): 1. Strom. 2001. Agency and Parliamentary Democracy. in Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. Strom, Muller, and Bergman, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Volden. 2002. A formal model of the politics of delegation in a separation of powers system. AJPS 46 (1):111-133. Wilson. 1885. Congressional Government. Wood. 1969. The creation of the American republic. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2681

This paper is created by writer with

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Tracking critical thinkings, detection critical thinkings, device critical thinkings, idea critical thinkings, mail critical thinkings, minimum critical thinkings, ai college essays, free research paper on data analysis, managing inventory related risk report sample, mini case final project research paper examples, court critical thinking, free research paper on memory and learning, example of research paper on zazou subculture, a rose for emily essay example 2, comparative leadership analysis essays examples, should women stay home to care for their kids essay examples, sustainable development goals in nepal essay, example of research paper on possible apasia treatment, aging population essay example, good example of essay on psychological profiles and behavior in the workplace, good example of research paper on global warming 2, sample essay on we real cool by gwendolyn brooks, example of essay on coldplays hymn for the weekend, royal canadian mounted police essays, bursa essays, ordinary annuity essays, portage essays, photographic memory essays, hypnotic state essays, trust corporation essays, carteret essays, sayyid qutb essays, ruhollah khomeini essays, darwan essays, chugs essays, shafer essays, boyers essays, leuven essays, leeuwen essays, aslo essays, jenne essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

1 minute read

Checks And Balances, The Federalist Papers: The History Of Federalism, Supreme Court Tilting Toward States' Rights?Conclusion

A principle of government that defines the relationship between the central government at the national level and its constituent units at the regional, state, or local levels. Under this principle of government, power and authority is allocated between the national and local governmental units, such that each unit is delegated a sphere of power and authority only it can exercise, while other powers must be shared.

The term federalism is derived from the Latin root foedus , which means "formal agreement or covenant." It includes the interrelationships between the states as well as between the states and the federal government. Governance in the United States takes place at various levels and branches of government, which all take part in the decision-making process. From the U.S. Supreme Court to the smallest local government, a distribution of power allows all the entities of the system to work separately while still working together as a nation. Supreme Court justice HUGO L. BLACK wrote that federalism meant

a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate State governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways. ( Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37, 91S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 [1971])

The Constitution lists the legislative powers of the federal government. The TENTH AMENDMENT protects the residual powers of the states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Federalism is the oldest form of government in the United States. The timelessness of the Constitution and the strength of the arguments presented by The Federalist Papers offer a clue to its endurance: the Founders wrote the Constitution so that it would always remain open to interpretation. Federalism's AMBIGUITY has contributed to its longevity.

CROSS-REFERENCES

Constitution of the United States ; Original Intent .

Additional topics

• Federalism and State Powers - Further Readings
• Federalism - Checks And Balances
• Federalism - The Federalist Papers: The History Of Federalism
• Federalism - Supreme Court Tilting Toward States' Rights?
• Federalism - Judicial Review
• Federalism - Separation Of Powers And The Plain Statement Rule
• Federalism - Further Readings
• Other Free Encyclopedias

Law Library - American Law and Legal Information Free Legal Encyclopedia: Ex proprio motu (ex mero motu) to File

Advertisement

Supported by

news analysis

Why Did Modi Call India’s Muslims ‘Infiltrators’? Because He Could.

The brazenness of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vilification of India’s largest minority group made clear he sees few checks at home or abroad on his power.

• Share full article

Modi Calls Muslims ‘Infiltrators’ in Speech During India Elections

Prime minister narendra modi of india was criticized by the opposition for remarks he made during a speech to voters in rajasthan state..

I’m sorry, this is a very disgraceful speech made by the prime minister. But, you know, the fact is that people realize that when he says the Congress Party is going to take all your wealth and give it to the Muslims, that this is just a nakedly communal appeal which normally any civilized election commission would disallow and warn the candidate for speaking like this.

By Mujib Mashal

Reporting from New Delhi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, his power at home secured and his Hindu-first vision deeply entrenched, has set his sights in recent years on a role as a global statesman , riding India’s economic and diplomatic rise. In doing so, he has distanced himself from his party’s staple work of polarizing India’s diverse population along religious lines for its own electoral gain.

His silence provided tacit backing as vigilante groups continued to target non-Hindu minority groups and as members of his party routinely used hateful and racist language , even in Parliament, against the largest of those groups, India’s 200 million Muslims. With the pot kept boiling, Mr. Modi’s subtle dog whistles — with references to Muslim dress or burial places — could go a long way domestically while providing enough deniability to ensure that red carpets remained rolled out abroad for the man leading the world’s largest democracy.

Just what drove the prime minister to break with this calculated pattern in a fiery campaign speech on Sunday — when he referred to Muslims by name as “infiltrators” with “more children” who would get India’s wealth if his opponents took power — has been hotly debated. It could be a sign of anxiety that his standing with voters is not as firm as believed, analysts said. Or it could be just a reflexive expression of the kind of divisive religious ideology that has fueled his politics from the start.

But the brazenness made clear that Mr. Modi sees few checks on his enormous power. At home, watchdog institutions have been largely bent to the will of his Bharatiya Janata Party, or B.J.P. Abroad, partners increasingly turn a blind eye to what Mr. Modi is doing in India as they embrace the country as a democratic counterweight to China.

“Modi is one of the world’s most skilled and experienced politicians,” said Daniel Markey, a senior adviser in the South Asia program at the United States Institute of Peace. “He would not have made these comments unless he believed he could get away with it.”

Mr. Modi may have been trying to demonstrate this impunity, Mr. Markey said, “to intimidate the B.J.P.’s political opponents and to show them — and their supporters — just how little they can do in response.”

The prime minister sees himself as the builder of a new, modern India on the march toward development and international respect. But he also wants to leave a legacy that is distinctly different from that of the leaders who founded the country as a secular republic after British colonial rule.

Before joining its political offshoot, he spent more than a decade as a cultural foot soldier of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or R.S.S., a right-wing organization founded in 1925 with the mission of making India a Hindu state. The group viewed it as treason when an independent India agreed to a partition that created Pakistan as a separate nation for Muslims, embraced secularism and gave all citizens equal rights. A onetime member went so far as to assassinate Mohandas K. Gandhi in outrage.

Over his decade in national power, Mr. Modi has been deeply effective in advancing some of the central items of the Hindu-right agenda. He abolished the semi-autonomy of the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir. He enacted a citizenship law widely viewed as prejudiced against Muslims. And he helped see through the construction of a grand temple to the Hindu deity Ram on a plot long disputed between Hindus and Muslims.

The violent razing in 1992 of the mosque that had stood on that land — which Hindu groups said was built on the plot of a previous temple — was central to the national movement of Hindu assertiveness that ultimately swept Mr. Modi to power more than two decades later.

More profoundly, Mr. Modi has shown that the broader goals of a Hindu state can largely be achieved within the bounds of India’s constitution — by co-opting the institutions meant to protect equality.

Officials in his party have a ready rebuttal to any complaint along these lines. How could Mr. Modi discriminate against anyone, they say, if all Indian citizens benefit equally from his government’s robust welfare offerings — of toilets, of roofs over heads, of monthly rations?

That argument, analysts say, is telling in showing how Mr. Modi has redefined democratic power not as leadership within checks and balances, but as the broad generosity of a strongman, even as he has redefined citizenship in practice to make clear there is a second class.

Secularism — the idea that no religion will be favored over any other — has largely been co-opted to mean that no religion will be allowed to deny Hindus their dominance as the country’s majority, his critics say. Officials under Mr. Modi, who wear their religion on their sleeves and publicly mix prayer with politics, crack down on public expressions of other religions as breaching India’s secularism.

While right-wing officials promote conversion to Hinduism, which they describe as a “return home,” they have introduced laws within many of the states they govern that criminalize conversion from Hinduism. Egged on by such leaders, Hindu extremists have lynched Muslim men accused of transporting cows or beef and hounded them over charges of “love jihad” — or luring Hindu women. Vigilantes have frequently barged into churches and accosted priests they believe have engaged in proselytizing or conversion.

“What they have done is to create a permissive environment which encourages hate and valorizes hate,” said Harsh Mander, a former civil servant who is now a campaigner for social harmony.

In reference to Mr. Modi’s speech on Sunday, he added: “This open resort to this kind of hate speech will only encourage that hard-line Hindu right in society.”

Tom Vadakkan, a spokesman for the B.J.P., said the prime minister’s comments on Muslims had been misinterpreted. Mr. Modi, Mr. Vadakkan said, was referring to “intruders” or “illegal migrants” who the party claims are being used by the political opposition to “redefine the demography.”

Privately, Western diplomats in New Delhi do little to hide their discomfort with some of Mr. Modi actions as a democratic ally, from the targeting of minorities to his crackdowns on opposition and dissent. But they acknowledge that he is exploiting a particularly open season in the global order, with many of their own capitals providing a less positive example than they once did, and with so much focus on China and trade deals.

Mr. Markey, the Washington-based analyst, said the U.S. government was holding back from voicing concerns publicly for several reasons beyond its national interest in having India serve as an economic and geopolitical counterweight to China.

The United States, he said, realizes the growing limits of its public criticism in changing partner nations’ behavior. That was demonstrated most recently by the repeated instances in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel ignored President Biden’s demands that the Israeli military change its conduct within the war in Gaza.

Criticism of Mr. Modi, Mr. Markey added, could also backfire for U.S. politicians who “do not want to get crosswise with Indian diaspora groups.”

But Mr. Modi may not remain immune as he pursues closer partnerships with the United States in areas like joint weapons manufacturing, transfer of high technology and sharing of intelligence.

“My sense is that Washington’s increasing discomfort with Modi’s domestic politics is gradually lowering the ceiling of potential U.S. cooperation with India,” Mr. Markey said. “The question is just how far Washington is willing to trust India. Will India be treated as an ally in everything but name, or as a partner more like Vietnam or Saudi Arabia?”

Hari Kumar contributed reporting.

Mujib Mashal is the South Asia bureau chief for The Times, helping to lead coverage of India and the diverse region around it, including Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan. More about Mujib Mashal