checks and balances essay

• 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.

This Is How FDR Tried to Pack the Supreme Court

When his New Deal legislation kept getting struck down, FDR proposed a law targeting justices over the age of 70.

War Powers Act

What Is the War Powers Act? The War Powers Act—officially called the War Powers Resolution—was enacted in November 1973 over an executive veto by President Richard M. Nixon. The law’s text frames it as a means of guaranteeing that “the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply” whenever the American armed […]

All Amendments to the US Constitution

Since the Constitution was ratified in 1789, hundreds of thousands of bills have been introduced attempting to amend the nation's founding document. But only 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been ratified.

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

Explore the Constitution

The constitution.

• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects
• Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, historic document, federalist 51 (1788).

James Madison | 1788

On February 8, 1788, James Madison published Federalist 51—titled “The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments.” In this famous Federalist Paper essay, Madison explained how the Constitution’s structure checked the powers of the elected branches and protected against possible abuses by the national government. With the separation of powers, the Framers divided the powers of the national government into three separate branches: a legislative branch (called Congress), an executive branch (led by a single President), and a judicial branch (headed by a Supreme Court). By dividing political power between the branches, the Framers sought to prevent any single branch of government from becoming too powerful. At the same time, each branch of government was also given the power to check the other two branches. This is the principle of checks and balances. Madison and his fellow Framers assumed that human nature was imperfect and that all political elites would seek to secure greater political power. As a result, the Framers concluded that the best way to control the national government was to harness the political ambitions of each branch and use them to check the ambitions of the other branches.

Selected by

The National Constitution Center

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. . . .

It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. . . .

In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. . . . It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. . . .

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

Explore the full document

Modal title.

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

Separation of Powers: A System of Checks and Balances

Because, 'All Men Having Power Ought be Mistrusted'

• U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights
• History & Major Milestones
• U.S. Legal System
• U.S. Political System
• Defense & Security
• Campaigns & Elections
• Business & Finance
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• B.S., Texas A&M University

The governmental concept of the separation of powers was incorporated into the U.S. Constitution to ensure that no single person or branch of the government could ever become too powerful. It is enforced through a series of checks and balances.

Specifically, the system of checks and balances is intended to make sure that no branch or department of the federal government is allowed to exceed its bounds, guard against fraud, and allow for the timely correction of errors or omissions. Indeed, the system of checks and balances acts as a sort of sentry over the separated powers, balancing the authorities of each branch of government. In practical use, the authority to take a given action rests with one department, while the responsibility to verify the appropriateness and legality of that action rests with another.

History of the Separation of Powers

Founding Fathers like James Madison knew all too well—from hard experience—the dangers of unchecked power in government. As Madison himself put it, “The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.”

Therefore, Madison and his fellow framers believed in creating a government administered both over humans and by humans: “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”

The concept of separation of powers, or “trias politics,” dates to 18th century France, when social and political philosopher Montesquieu published his famed "The Spirit of the Laws." Considered one of the greatest works in the history of political theory and jurisprudence, "The Spirit of the Laws" is believed to have inspired both the United States Constitution and France's Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen.

The model of government conceived by Montesquieu had divided the political authority of the state into executive, legislative, and judicial powers. He asserted that ensuring that the three powers operate separately and independently was the key to liberty.

In American government, these three branches, along with their powers, are:

• The legislative branch , which enacts the nation’s laws
• The executive branch , which implements and enforces the laws enacted by the legislative branch
• The judicial branch , which interprets the laws in reference to the Constitution and applies its interpretations to legal controversies involving the laws

So well-accepted is the concept of the separation of powers that the constitutions of 40 U.S. states specify that their own governments be divided into similarly empowered legislative, executive, and judicial branches. 

Three Branches, Separate But Equal

In the provision of the three branches of governmental power into the Constitution, the framers built their vision of a stable federal government, assured by a system of separated powers with checks and balances.

As Madison wrote in No. 51 of the Federalist Papers , published in 1788, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial 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.”

In both theory and practice, the power of each branch of the American government is held in check by the powers of the other two in several ways.

For example, while the President of the United States (executive branch) can veto laws passed by Congress (legislative branch), Congress can override presidential vetoes with a two-thirds vote from both houses .

Similarly, the Supreme Court (judicial branch) can nullify laws passed by Congress by ruling them to be unconstitutional.

However, the Supreme Court’s power is balanced by the fact that its presiding judges must be appointed by the president with the approval of the Senate.

The following are the specific powers of each branch that demonstrate the way they check and balance the others:

Executive Branch Checks and Balances the Legislative Branch

• President has the power to veto laws passed by Congress.
• Can propose new laws to Congress
• Submits the Federal Budget to the House of Representatives
• Appoints federal officials, who carry out and enforce laws

Executive Branch Checks and Balances the Judicial Branch

• Nominates judges to the Supreme Court
• Nominates judges to the federal court system
• President has the power to pardon or grant amnesty to persons convicted of crimes.

Legislative Branch Checks and Balances the Executive Branch

• Congress can override presidential vetoes with a two-thirds vote from both chambers.
• Senate can reject proposed treaties with a two-thirds vote.
• Senate can reject presidential nominations of federal officials or judges.
• Congress can impeach and remove the president (House serves as prosecution, Senate serves as jury).

Legislative Branch Checks and Balances the Judicial Branch

• Congress can create lower courts.
• Senate can reject nominees to the federal courts and Supreme Court.
• Congress can amend the Constitution to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court.
• Congress can impeach judges of the lower federal courts.

Judicial Branch Checks and Balances the Executive Branch

• Supreme Court can use the power of judicial review to rule laws unconstitutional.

Judicial Branch Checks and Balances the Legislative Branch

• Supreme Court can use the power of judicial review to rule presidential actions unconstitutional.
• Supreme Court can use the power of judicial review to rule treaties unconstitutional.

But Are the Branches Truly Equal?

Over the years, the executive branch has—often controversially—attempted to expand its authority over the legislative and judicial branches.

After the Civil War, the executive branch sought to expand the scope of the constitutional powers granted to the president as Commander in Chief of a standing army. Other more recent examples of largely unchecked executive branch powers include:

• The power to issue executive orders
• The power to declare local and national emergencies
• The power to grant and revoke security classifications
• The power grant presidential pardons for federal crimes
• The power to issue presidential bill signing statements
• The power to withhold information from Congress through executive privilege

Some people argue that there are more checks or limitations on the power of the legislative branch than over the other two branches. For example, both the executive and judicial branches can override or nullify the laws it passes. Though they are technically correct, it is how the Founding Fathers intended the government to operate.

Our system of the separation of powers through checks and balances reflects the Founders’ interpretation of a republican form of government. Specifically, it does so in that the legislative (lawmaking) branch, as the most powerful, is also the most restrained.

As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 48 , “The legislative 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].”

Today, the constitutions of forty U.S. states specify that the state government is divided into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. Illustrating this approach and its inherent separation of powers, the California constitution states, “The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution."

While separation of powers is key to the workings of the American government, no democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. Governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap, being too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized. As a result, there is an inherent measure of competition and conflict among the branches of government. Throughout American history, there also has been an ebb and flow of preeminence among the governmental branches. Such experiences suggest that where power resides is part of an evolutionary process.

• The Three Branches of US Government
• Basic Structure of the US Government
• Constitutional Law: Definition and Function
• U.S. Constitution - Article I, Section 10
• Popular Sovereignty
• Fast Facts About the U.S. Constitution
• U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 8
• Proposed Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
• What Is the Necessary and Proper Clause in the US Constitution?
• What Is Federalism? Definition and How It Works in the US
• Federalism and the United States Constitution
• The 10th Amendment: Text, Origins, and Meaning
• Arguments Against Separation of Church and State
• What Is a Bill of Attainder?
• Preamble to the US Constitution
• Overview of the 27th Amendment

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

checks and balances

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• K12 Education LibreTexts - Checks and Balances
• Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute - Seperation of Powers and Checks and Balances
• checks and balances - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)

checks and balances , principle of government under which separate branches are empowered to prevent actions by other branches and are induced to share power. Checks and balances are applied primarily in constitutional governments. They are of fundamental importance in tripartite governments, such as that of the United States , which separate powers among legislative, executive , and judicial branches.

The Greek historian Polybius analyzed the ancient Roman mixed constitution under three main divisions: monarchy (represented by the consul ); aristocracy (the Senate ); and democracy (the people). He greatly influenced later ideas about the separation of powers .

Checks and balances, which modify the separation of powers, may operate under parliamentary systems through exercise of a parliament’s prerogative to adopt a no-confidence vote in a government; the government, or cabinet, in turn, ordinarily may dissolve the parliament. The British Parliament is supreme, and laws passed by it are not subject to review by the courts for constitutionality. In France, under the Fifth Republic (1958), a Constitutional Council of nine members (appointed for nine years by the president, Senate, and National Assembly) reviews the constitutionality of legislation. The Federal Republic of Germany combines features of parliamentary systems and of federal systems like that of the United States. It vests the right to declare a law unconstitutional in the Federal Constitutional Court (1951).

The framers of the U.S. Constitution , who were influenced by Montesquieu and William Blackstone among others, saw checks and balances as essential for the security of liberty under the Constitution: “It is by balancing each of these powers against the other two, that the efforts in human nature toward tyranny can alone be checked and restrained, and any degree of freedom preserved in the constitution” ( John Adams ). Though not expressly covered in the text of the Constitution, judicial review —the power of the courts to examine the actions of the legislative and the executive and administrative arms of government to ensure that they are constitutional—became an important part of government in the United States. Other checks and balances include the presidential veto of legislation (which Congress may override by a two-thirds vote) and executive and judicial impeachment by Congress. Only Congress can appropriate funds, and each house serves as a check on possible abuses of power or unwise action by the other. Congress, by initiating constitutional amendments , can in practice reverse decisions of the Supreme Court . The president appoints the members of the Supreme Court but only with the consent of the Senate , which also approves certain other executive appointments. The Senate also must approve treaties.

From 1932 the U.S. Congress exercised a so-called legislative veto. Clauses in certain laws qualified the authority of the executive branch to act by making specified acts subject to disapproval by the majority vote of one or both houses. In 1983, in a case concerning the deportation of an alien, the U.S. Supreme Court held that legislative vetoes were unconstitutional (the House of Representatives had overturned the Justice Department’s suspension of the alien’s deportation). The decision affected clauses in some 200 laws covering a wide range of subjects, including presidential war powers, foreign aid and arms sales, environmental protection, consumer interests, and others. Despite the court’s decision, Congress continued to exercise this power, including the legislative veto in at least 11 of the bills it passed in 1984 alone.

Checks and balances that evolved from custom and Constitutional conventions include the congressional committee system and investigative powers, the role of political parties , and presidential influence in initiating legislation.

In one-party political systems, informal, and perhaps even illegal, checks and balances may operate when organs of an authoritarian or totalitarian regime compete for power.

See also Federalist papers ; judicial review ; and powers, separation of .

U.S. Constitution.net

Checks and balances in the constitution, separation of powers.

The U.S. Constitution establishes three branches of government: executive , legislative , and judicial . The President leads the executive branch, enforcing laws, commanding the military, and conducting foreign policy. The legislative branch, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate, makes up Congress. Congress creates laws, declares war, raises and collects taxes, and performs other key functions. The judicial branch, headed by the Supreme Court, interprets the laws and ensures they align with the Constitution through judicial review.

This separation prevents any single branch from overwhelming the others. The President can veto laws passed by Congress, but Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote. The President appoints judges, but these appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.

Chevron Deference allows executive agencies to interpret vague laws, potentially leading to an overreach of executive power. The upcoming Supreme Court case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , may reevaluate Chevron Deference's impact.

The Appointments Clause mandates that officials with significant power must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, ensuring accountability through elected representatives.

In-house tribunals, used by agencies for adjudication, often operate without established rules and lack the impartiality of real courts. Without juries, these tribunals provide no check on judges and prosecutors.

The Major Questions Doctrine reassures us that Congress must clearly authorize significant economic or political regulations. This doctrine was pivotal in Biden v. Nebraska , where the Supreme Court ruled against the Department of Education's attempt to erase student loan debt under the HEROES Act.

Iraq's Constitutional Court has moved away from being a legal safeguard to becoming a political tool, weakening its federal system. This misalignment is evident in the unconstitutional establishment of courts and recent rulings that tilt balance towards dominant factions.

Checks and balances remain central to preventing tyranny. The U.S. Constitution offers mechanisms to pull back on any one branch's power, and it's our responsibility to use these tools well and preserve the intended equilibrium.

The presidential veto allows the President to reject legislation passed by Congress, preventing it from becoming law unless Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate. This ensures that no hasty or ill-considered legislation becomes law without considerable support and deliberation.

Congressional oversight acts as a pivotal check on the executive branch. Through hearings, investigations, and the power of the purse, Congress can monitor, influence, and restrict the activities of the executive branch. The House Oversight and Reform Committee can summon executive officials to testify under oath, ensuring transparency and accountability.

Judicial review allows the judiciary to interpret the Constitution and overturn laws or executive actions that are found to be unconstitutional. By scrutinizing the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary safeguards civil liberties and maintains the integrity of the Constitution.

The Senate's role in confirming presidential appointments prevents any unilateral imposition of power within the executive branch. The power of impeachment and removal exemplifies the reciprocal checks among the branches. The House of Representatives can impeach federal officials, while the Senate conducts the trial and can remove them from office with a two-thirds vote.

The power to declare war is reserved explicitly for Congress, preventing the executive from unilaterally engaging in military conflicts without legislative approval. Beyond these constitutional mechanisms, various laws and regulations further embed checks into the system, such as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 .

Effective checks and balances require active participation and vigilance from all three branches, as well as from the American populace. The Founding Fathers designed this system to be dynamic, adaptable, and resilient, ensuring that no single entity could dominate the governance of the Republic.

Threats to the Separation of Powers

One significant contemporary threat to the separation of powers is executive overreach, exemplified by the growth of the administrative state. Executive agencies have accumulated powers that traditionally belong to the legislative and judicial branches. Chevron Deference, established by the Supreme Court's ruling in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), instructs courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutes within its purview, provided the interpretation is reasonable. 1 While initially intended to expedite the implementation of complex regulations, Chevron Deference has effectively allowed agencies to assume Congress's lawmaking role.

This deference undermines legislative accountability, as lawmakers can vaguely draft laws and leave detailed rules to be interpreted by unelected officials. Justice Neil Gorsuch points out that such deference leads to a troubling abdication of judicial responsibilities. 2 The upcoming Supreme Court case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , presents an opportunity to reassess and possibly overturn this doctrine, reasserting the judiciary's role in maintaining constitutional balance.

Another issue threatening the separation of powers is the rise of in-house tribunals. These quasi-judicial bodies within administrative agencies adjudicate disputes according to agency-specific rules, often bypassing the traditional court system. These tribunals combine prosecutorial and judicial functions in one body, violating the principle of impartiality that upholds the judiciary. Without the established safeguards of procedure and evidence that govern regular courts, these tribunals can become tools of executive overreach.

The absence of a jury in these in-house tribunals further exacerbates the problem. Juries serve as a fundamental check on judicial and prosecutorial power, ensuring that the community has a role in the administration of justice. The removal of this crucial check shifts the balance of power decidedly to the executive, subverting the intended equilibrium among the branches of government.

The Executive's tendency to address major questions of economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization is increasingly prevalent. The Major Questions Doctrine, recently revitalized by the Supreme Court, maintains that issues of substantial importance must be clearly sanctioned by Congress. The Court's decision in Biden v. Nebraska nullified the Department of Education's extensive forgiveness of student loans under a tenuous interpretation of the HEROES Act, 3 underscoring that such significant decisions require unequivocal legislative approval.

These threats to the separation of powers underscore the urgent need to reinforce our constitutional safeguards. Robust checks and balances are essential to prevent any single branch from accumulating excessive power. Vigilance and corrective measures are crucial to preserve the freedoms that the U.S. Constitution protects.

Constitutional Tools to Reinforce Checks and Balances

The Appointments Clause is a cornerstone provision in maintaining the delicate balance of power among the branches of government. It ensures that appointments to positions of significant authority within the federal government receive scrutiny and consent from multiple branches. 1 Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the President nominates officials and the Senate confirms them, creating a dual-consent process that prevents the executive branch from unilaterally filling key positions. This system of checks promotes transparency and accountability, aligning with the republican principles of governance.

The Major Questions Doctrine plays a critical role in preserving the separation of powers by demanding that significant regulatory decisions, especially those of vast economic or political impact, be clearly authorized by Congress. This doctrine asserts that agencies cannot assume broad regulatory authority unless explicitly granted such power by the legislature. This is fundamental in preventing executive overreach, compelling agencies to stay within boundaries set by the legislative branch. In Biden v. Nebraska , the Supreme Court relied on this doctrine to prevent the Department of Education from enacting sweeping student loan forgiveness measures under ambiguous statutory authority, underscoring the necessity of clear legislative instructions for significant regulatory actions. 2

The Constitution's provision for judicial review serves as a vital tool in maintaining the balance of power. Through Marbury v. Madison , the judiciary has the authority to assess the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, ensuring that no branch exceeds its granted powers. This judicial check provides a mechanism for the courts to invalidate laws and actions that transgress constitutional boundaries, preserving individual liberties and preventing tyrannical governance. 3

The Non-Delegation Doctrine stems from the principle that legislative powers granted by the Constitution cannot be transferred to another branch. This Doctrine ensures that Congress cannot delegate its lawmaking responsibilities wholesale to executive agencies, preventing the blurring of lines between the legislative and executive branches. Instances where the Supreme Court has invoked this doctrine, though rare, reflect its potential to curtail excessive delegations of legislative power and reinforce the separation of powers. 4

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 exemplifies a statutory attempt to reassert Congressional authority over military engagements. By requiring the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying military forces and limiting the duration of such deployments without Congressional approval, the Resolution serves as a check on the executive's command as Commander-in-Chief, ensuring that significant military actions reflect collective national will through elected representatives. 5

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 represents another legislative effort to enforce checks on executive power, specifically the President's control over federal funds. By restricting the President's ability to unilaterally withhold appropriated funds, the Act reinforces Congressional authority over the federal budget, ensuring the executive adheres to legislatively determined fiscal policies. 6

The Constitution's explicit provision for the impeachment and removal of federal officials provides a check against abuse of power. This process ensures that high-ranking officials, including the President, are held accountable for "high crimes and misdemeanors." The dual responsibility, with the House of Representatives holding the authority to impeach and the Senate conducting the trial, underscores the seriousness of this tool, ensuring it is exercised judiciously and with broad support. 7

Finally, the requirement for periodic elections serves as the ultimate check in a republican system of government. By mandating regular elections for the House, Senate, and Presidency, the Constitution ensures that those in power remain accountable to the electorate. This electoral mechanism operates as a continuous and dynamic means of checking power, enabling the populace to voice their approval or disapproval of governmental actions. 8

These constitutional tools collectively form a framework designed to maintain a balanced distribution of power among the branches of government. Each tool reflects the philosophical underpinnings of a system built to guard against tyranny, entrusting different powers to different branches and ensuring accountability through a web of checks and balances. This intricate design showcases the foresight of the Founding Fathers, whose commitment to liberty and republicanism continues to guide and protect the governance of the Republic.

Case Study: Iraq's Constitutional Crisis

Iraq presents a sobering case study on the dangers of a collapsing separation of powers, which contrasts with the framework designed by our Founding Fathers. Once envisioned to serve as a federal constitutional democracy, Iraq's current trajectory underscores the necessity of maintaining a rigorous system of checks and balances to safeguard liberty and prevent authoritarianism.

The backbone of any constitutional democracy is its judiciary, designed to act as a bulwark against overreaches by the other branches of government. In Iraq, however, the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) has deviated from this foundational role. Instead of serving as an impartial arbiter, it has morphed into a political instrument that frequently oversteps its boundaries, compromising the principles it was intended to uphold. 9

The FSC was established under Law No. 30 of 2005, intended as a temporary measure preceding the establishment of a permanent court through the Iraqi Constitution. However, the required permanent legislation never materialized, resulting in a court that operates on unstable legal grounds. 10

The 2021 amendment to the FSC's establishment, through Law No. 25 of 2021, aggravated the situation. Passed by a simple parliamentary majority, this amendment violated constitutional mandates requiring a two-thirds supermajority for such changes. This disregard for constitutional processes has weakened the court's authority and underscored its susceptibility to political manipulation. 11

The imbalance is visible in the FSC's recent rulings, which have extended beyond the legitimate scope of legal challenges to serve political ends. The court's decision to declare the Kurdistan Oil and Gas Law unconstitutional reflects a capitulation to political pressures rather than a commitment to legal principles. The court's composition, heavily influenced by dominant political factions, ensures that its rulings often favor the federal government at the expense of regional autonomy, creating a centralization of power. 12

The politicization is evident in the court's inconsistent application of legal principles. In some cases, the FSC has intervened prematurely, striking down legislative drafts before they become law. Conversely, it has allowed clearly unconstitutional statutes to remain unchallenged post-enactment due to political expediency. 13

The absence of a jury system in the court's adjudication process further undermines the judiciary's integrity. Juries serve as a critical check, reflecting community standards and providing a mechanism for public accountability within the judicial process. The FSC's operations, devoid of this check, increasingly resemble unilateral decrees rather than balanced judicial deliberations. 14

The consequences of this erosion are profound. The systemic imbalance has facilitated political factionalism, enabling dominant factions to manipulate legal processes to their advantage. This has included altering electoral outcomes and marginalizing elected officials who do not align with the prevailing political agenda. The resignation of Judge Abdulrahman Zebari, citing the court's overreach and political misuse, highlights the need for reform. 15

Iraq's experience provides a contemporary example of the chaos that ensues when the foundational checks and balances are disregarded. It serves as a cautionary tale, illustrating how the absence of a well-established and respected judicial authority can lead to a concentration of power, exacerbating political instability and undermining democratic governance.

The Founding Fathers of the United States, through the design of our Constitution, sought to prevent such a collapse. By investing in a balanced separation of powers fortified with effective checks and balances, they envisioned a resilient republic where no single branch could dominate the others. The importance of this design ensures the proper functioning of government and protects the liberties of the citizenry from the perils of concentrated authority.

The cautionary example of Iraq underscores the necessity of vigilance in maintaining the integrity of these principles. The United States must remain committed to upholding the checks and balances that are the hallmark of our constitutional republic. This dedication preserves our freedoms and reaffirms the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, whose vision continues to guide and protect our nation.

The preservation of our constitutional republic hinges on maintaining the balance of power envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The mechanisms of checks and balances are vital in preventing tyranny and ensuring that no single branch can dominate. Vigilance in upholding these principles is essential for safeguarding the freedoms that define our nation.

Essay: 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

Separation of Powers with Checks and Balances

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.

Constitutional checks and balances Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The government system comprises of the Judiciary, the Legislature, and the Executive. These are referred to as the arms/branches of the government. The constitution gives powers to these government arms in a complementary way. The government arms are supposed to support each other and check on each other’s excesses. The Legislature is composed of an elected Congress that is given the responsibility of passing laws.

The Executive enforces these laws and jails convicted people. The Judiciary tries people. The grand jury listens to the facts of every case and issues an indictment, while the trial jury convicts people accused of offenses. Therefore, there are limits to the actions of each government branch. Checks and balances ensure that no government branch misuses its power. This paper is an analysis of the checks and balances set up by the Constitution to protect the citizenry from excesses by the arms of government.

As mentioned above, the Legislature plays the role of making laws in the government. It has also been given certain powers by the constitution in order to check the excesses of the Executive. Such powers include the ability to override vetoes by the President if two-thirds of its members accept the override. The Legislature can also influence the amount of funds given to the Executive for delivering services to the citizenry. It can also impeach the President.

The Senate checks Executive powers by approving treaties and appointments by the President. Legislature can also impeach judges, create low categories of courts, and approve judicial appointments. The Executives’ checks over Legislature include its power to recommend legislation, the President’s veto power, power to ask for special Congressional sessions, and power to seek people’s opinions on certain legislations. It also has checks over the Judiciary.

This is because the President, who also appoints federal judges, is responsible for appointing the Supreme Court. The Judiciary checks the excesses of the Executive because of its independence from the Executive. Courts can declare the unconstitutionality of Executive actions. The Judiciary also checks Legislative excesses by declaring the acts of the Legislature as unconstitutional.

The government can properly address the current issue of lack of proper regulation in the banking industry if it implements proper checks and balances. The Executive can propose legislation for regulation. If this legislation contains excesses by the Executive that are unlikely to solve the problem, the Legislature (Congress) can reject it. Otherwise, if the bill originates from Congress, the President can use his veto power to reject the bill if it is passed by the Legislature with some shortcomings.

If the President misuses his veto power, Congress can override the power by a two-thirds vote. If a defective bill becomes law having been passed by the Legislature without checks by the Executive, regardless of the origin of the bill, the Judiciary can declare the bill as unconstitutional during judicial review. This process is meant to ensure that those with power effectively solve problems without misusing such power.

Checks and balances play an invaluable role in governance. They are necessitated by the likelihood of misuse of power vested upon individuals and institutions. If all the governance power and legislative power was bestowed upon a single entity, the citizenry will lose faith in the individuals and institutions. Actually, division of power and establishment of checks and balances was the reason behind having a government made up of several branches/arms.

• Federal Government Spending: Welfare Department
• An Argument against Gun Control
• The Legislative Process in America
• New Constitution of USA in 1787
• Legislative Process in Changing a Bill
• Problems of Climate Change
• Deputy Minister Hiring Decision
• Addressing Barack Obama's Presidency Issues
• Corporate Welfare in the US
• Is America a True Democracy?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, December 19). Constitutional checks and balances. https://ivypanda.com/essays/constitutional-checks-and-balances/

"Constitutional checks and balances." IvyPanda , 19 Dec. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/constitutional-checks-and-balances/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Constitutional checks and balances'. 19 December.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Constitutional checks and balances." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/constitutional-checks-and-balances/.

1. IvyPanda . "Constitutional checks and balances." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/constitutional-checks-and-balances/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Constitutional checks and balances." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/constitutional-checks-and-balances/.

Skip to Main Content - Keyboard Accessible

Checks and balances.

Checks and balances, also known as separation of powers , is a principle in the structure of government in the context of the United States Constitution . This principle ensures that the three branches of government - executive , legislative , and judicial - maintain separate and distinct powers while also providing mechanisms for each branch to limit or check the powers of the others. This system is designed to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power and to promote a balance that protects against tyranny and abuse of power.

[Last updated in July of 2024 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

• the Constitution
• THE LEGAL PROCESS
• legal practice/ethics
• constitutional law
• wex definitions
• constitution

Checks and Balances

Definition of checks and balances, what is checks and balances.

The term “checks and balances” refers to a system in which departments or divisions of a government or company have some control over one another. This helps to ensure that neither department takes to itself more power than originally intended. It also helps prevent costly mistakes resulting from one department’s error, or improper behavior, as another department is tasked with checking on its work. A system of checks and balances is especially important in large organizations, such as corporations and governments, where individuals, such as department heads, make decisions that can have a profound effect on the entire organization.

Checks and Balances in Business

Checks and balances in government.

Examples of Checks and Balances

Checks and balances analogy, checks and balances examples in declaration of war.

The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of its military, though the Supreme Court has made a definitive point that the President is not commander in chief over the country. This issue has come up in times of conflict, as presidents have made decisions on the razor’s edge of whether the nation was at war. In truth, Congress, not the President, has power to declare war on any nation or entity, including al Qaeda and ISIS. The issue of presidential authority in declarations of war, and other important issues related to war and other hostilities offers a prime example of how checks and balances work in limiting presidential power.

Americans Demanding Checks and Balances in Presidential Powers over Terrorism

Related legal terms and issues.

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 Ernest (PhD)

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 / 1445 words

2 pages / 842 words

2 pages / 981 words

2 pages / 819 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 [...]

In the re Delhi Laws Act case, it was for the first time followed by the Supreme Court that except where the constitution has vested power in a body, the way of thinking that one organ should not complete functions which [...]

The history of Hong Kong is a very interesting and unique one. However, due to the limited scope of this paper, only a brief overview will be provided. From 1842 to 1997, Hong Kong was a British colony. Firstly, Britain gained [...]

My right to privacy at home, in my car, and within my emails is one of the most fundamental rights protecting about who I am as a person. One of the amendments that present this right is the Fourth Amendment to the US [...]

The idea of Rule of Law is one of the integral building blocks of a Modern democratic society. Furthermore, the laws are made for the welfare of the people to maintain peace and harmony between the conflicting forces in society. [...]

James Madison of Virginia is historically known for being one of the Founding Fathers of the United States as well as being the individual who drafted the United States Constitution. The Constitution, which was adopted in 1789, [...]

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

Choose Your Test

• Search Blogs By Category
• College Admissions
• AP and IB Exams
• GPA and Coursework

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 .

Trending Now

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?

ACT vs. SAT: Which Test Should You Take?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Get Your Free

Find Your Target SAT Score

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect SAT Score, by an Expert Full Scorer

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading and Writing

How to Improve Your Low SAT Score

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading and Writing

Find Your Target ACT Score

Complete Official Free ACT Practice Tests

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

Get a 36 on ACT English

Get a 36 on ACT Math

Get a 36 on ACT Reading

Get a 36 on ACT Science

How to Improve Your Low ACT Score

Get a 24 on ACT English

Get a 24 on ACT Math

Get a 24 on ACT Reading

Get a 24 on ACT Science

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

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.

Ask a Question Below

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

• Infertility
• Miscarriage & Loss
• Pre-Pregnancy Shopping Guides
• Diapering Essentials
• Bedtime & Bathtime
• Baby Clothing
• Health & Safety
• First Trimester
• Second Trimester
• Third Trimester
• Pregnancy Products
• Baby Names By Month
• Popular Baby Names
• Unique Baby Names
• Labor & Delivery
• Birth Stories
• Fourth Trimester
• Parental Leave
• Postpartum Products
• Infant Care Guide
• Healthy Start
• Sleep Guides & Schedules
• Feeding Guides & Schedules
• Milestone Guides
• Learn & Play
• Memorable Moments
• Beauty & Style Shopping Guides
• Meal Planning & Shopping
• Nourishing Little Minds
• Entertaining
• Personal Essays
• Home Shopping Guides
• Work & Motherhood
• Family Finances & Budgeting
• State of Motherhood
• Viral & Trending
• Celebrity News
• Women’s Health
• Children’s Health
• It’s Science
• Mental Health
• Health & Wellness Shopping Guide
• What To Read
• What To Watch
• Fourth of July
• Back to School
• Breastfeeding Awareness
• Single Parenting
• Blended Families
• Community & Friendship
• Marriage & Partnerships
• Grandparents & Extended Families
• Stretch Mark Cream
• Pregnancy Pillows
• Maternity Pajamas
• Maternity Workout Clothes
• Compression Socks
• All Pregnancy Products
• Pikler Triangles
• Toddler Sleep Sacks
• Toddler Scooters
• Water Tables
• All Toddler Products
• Breastmilk Coolers
• Postpartum Pajamas
• Postpartum Underwear
• Postpartum Shapewear
• All Postpartum Products
• Kid Pajamas
• Play Couches
• Kids’ Backpacks
• Kids’ Bikes
• Kids’ Travel Gear
• All Child Products
• Baby Swaddles
• Eco-Friendly Diapers
• Baby Bathtubs
• All Baby Products
• Pregnancy-safe Skincare
• Diaper Bags
• Maternity Jeans
• Matching Family Swimwear
• Mama Necklaces
• All Beauty and Style Products
• All Classes
• Free Classes By Motherly
• Parenting & Family Topics
• Toddler Topics
• TTC & Pregnancy
• Wellness & Fitness

• Please wait..

Here’s what moms need to know about Project 2025 and how it impacts us all

Scott Olson/Getty

Project 2025 outlines several changes that would greatly impact women and mothers in multiple ways.

By Cassandra Stone August 12, 2024

Throughout the summer, you’ve likely heard the term “Project 2025” pop up regularly in the news and across social media connected to the upcoming presidential election. President Biden, Vice President Harris, and other lawmakers, pundits, and activists have all been referencing the nearly 1,000-page document in recent weeks and warning voters about the potential harm it could cause large portions of the population.

Project 2025 outlines several changes that would greatly impact women and mothers in multiple ways, including access to reproductive care , workplace protections and government assistance requirements.

Here’s what you need to know.

First things first: What is Project 2025?

Essentially, Project 2025 is a 900-page, 30-chapter “Presidential Transition” blueprint developed by over 100 conservative groups and organizations in the United States, primarily led by the Heritage Foundation. It’s designed as a comprehensive plan for implementing conservative policies across the federal government if a Republican president is elected in 2024.

The primary focus of Project 2025 involves a complete overhaul of the federal government—and is drawing significant criticism as a result. Critics argue that the plan represents an extreme ideological agenda that could dramatically alter or dismantle long-standing social programs, environmental protections, and civil rights safeguards. There are also concerns that the proposed changes to agencies like the EPA, Department of Education, and Department of Labor could weaken crucial regulations and protections for workers, students, and the environment.

Additionally, the project’s approach to healthcare reform, including potential changes to Medicare and Medicaid, has raised alarms about reduced access to healthcare for vulnerable populations. This would affect access to prenatal care, postpartum care, and general healthcare for mothers and children.

Another major point of contention is the project’s strategy for rapidly implementing these changes. Critics feel that the speed in which these policies are to be implemented bypasses normal checks and balances and consolidates power. Project 2025 could also lead to a lack of diverse perspectives in policy-making and potentially undermine the independence of federal agencies.

Also, the project’s proposals related to voting rights, immigration, and social programs are seen by many as regressive and potentially discriminatory toward lower-income and birthing populations. Overall, opponents argue that Project 2025 represents a radical departure from established governance norms and could lead to significant social, economic, and political upheaval if implemented.

You can read all about Project 2025 in its entirety here .

View this post on Instagram A post shared by CHAMBER OF MOTHERS (@chamberofmothers)

How do the plans outlined in Project 2025 negatively impact women and mothers?

The biggest key area, arguably, is reproductive rights. The policies outlined call for stricter abortion laws, potentially including a national ban on abortions after a certain gestational age. This could severely limit women’s reproductive choices and access to abortion services—even in cases of medical necessity or pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Project 2025 also suggests reducing federal funding for family planning services, which could limit access to contraception and reproductive health education.

According to Care.com, nearly two-thirds of American families are spending  at least 20% of their income  on child care. In most states, putting a baby in daycare now costs more than in-state college tuition. The conservatives who authored Project 2025 are clear about childcare: parents are on their own.

“Instead of providing universal daycare,” Project 2025 says  on page 486 , “funding should go to parents either to offset the cost of staying home with a child or to pay for familial, in-home childcare.” The plan also calls to eliminate the Head Start program, an early education program that would impact more than 750,000 children.

• The project proposes scaling back federal funding for childcare programs, including potential cuts to programs like the Child Care and Development Block Grant.
• It encourages more reliance on private and faith-based childcare providers rather than government-funded programs.
• The plan suggests reducing federal regulations on childcare providers, arguing that this would lower costs and increase availability.
• Instead of direct funding, Project 2025 favors tax credits or deductions to help families afford child care.
• The project advocates for shifting more control over childcare policies to the state level, reducing federal oversight.
• For any remaining federal assistance programs, there may be stricter work requirements for parents to qualify for childcare support.

Project 2025 proposes major changes to programs like Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. These changes could disproportionately affect women, particularly low-income mothers who rely on these programs for prenatal care, postpartum care, and general healthcare for themselves and their children. The project also suggests rolling back certain mandates for insurance coverage of women’s health services, potentially making it more difficult or expensive for women to access essential care.

Chamber of Mothers reports that Project 2025 details plans to eliminate or reduce the few supports pregnant and postpartum people have, including access to mental health services and limiting access to contraceptives.  Project 2025 lays out details to eliminate or reduce reproductive health, including ways to claw back FDA-approval of some drugs and enact a nationwide abortion ban.

It also recommends the following in regard to healthcare:

• That the next secretary of Health and Human Services eliminates the Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force established by the Biden Administration before the reversal of Roe v. Wade .
• The creation of a “pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• In a section titled “The Family Agenda,” Project 2025 recommends the Health and Human Services chief should “proudly state that men and women are biological realities,” and that “married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them.”
• It would eliminate access to abortion pills, despite the fact that abortion pills accounted for 63% of  abortions  in the U.S. in 2023, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
• Mass data collection on abortions using “every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method.”

Workplace policies

Project 2025’s proposals could have significant impacts on the workplace if implemented. In addition to the immense childcare restrictions mentioned above, the proposal also seeks to reduce labor regulations, union rights, discrimination protections—including those in place to protect vulnerable pregnant and postpartum workers—wage policies, parental leave, and more.

With a focus on “familial, in-home childcare,” that leaves working mothers with very limited options outside of being ejected from the workforce altogether.

Additionally, Project 2025 does not authorize a federal paid leave mandate, nor does it encourage employers to provide paid leave.  Currently, paid leave proposals have depended on the Social Security Administration or the U.S. Department of Labor to administer the program. 

Project 2025 proposes to reduce the size of these agencies, effectively making it more difficult to create and administer new programs. All of these changes, if enacted, could significantly alter the employer-employee relationship and the overall work environment in many industries.

The proposal includes many reforms to food assistance programs and other support systems that many low-income mothers rely on. It’s important to note that these changes, combined with proposed limitations to early childhood education programs and childcare policies, will place additional financial and logistical burdens on mothers—especially those in lower-income brackets.

What can we do?

While this piece only outlines portions of the entirety of Project 2025’s goals and plans, it’s a thorough education on what could lie ahead for women, mothers and other marginalized groups should the anti-democracy plans come to fruition.

You can visit Chamber of Mothers to see what positions are up for election in your state, and also find out if your voter registration is up-to-date by texting MOTHER to 26797 .

Democracy Forward can also send out ways to mobilize and use your voice to educate and help others.

The American Civil Liberties Union has a petition in place to stop Project 2025. You can add your name here .

The National Urban League also offers a variety of ways to inspire community and civil engagement to stop the policies outlined in Project 2025.

Child Learn & Play

The 3 skills your child needs for a successful school year, according to an education expert, new survey shows 2/3 of women in the u.s. fear the danger of abortion bans, children's health, why is there no universal screening test for cmv, giving tablets to toddlers linked to anger issues later in life, study shows, our editors also recommend....

Politics News

‘Where Do the Breasts Go After Top Surgery?’ Pro-Transgender Surgeon Asks While Displaying Them

Politics Analysis

‘IF HE WANTS TO WIN…’ Victor Davis Hanson’s Advice for Trump

  Society News

Who Is Unionizing Alongside a ‘Hate-Fulled, Anti-Israel, Antisemitic’ Activist Group? The List May Surprise You.

Politics Commentary

Biden’s Disappearing Act Reveals the Real Power in Washington

  Politics Commentary

How Ruling Elites Continue to Stifle Debate Over Immigration Policy: The BorderLine

  Security News

NYC on Track to Spend $10 Billion on Illegal Aliens Over 3 Years

   News

Kamala Harris ‘Owns It as Much as Anybody,’ Texas Lawmaker Says of Border Crisis

This Sector Sees Significant Jump in Violent Assaults on Border Patrol Agents

   Economy News

EXCLUSIVE: Biden Admin’s Inflation Reduction Act ‘Disaster’ for Americans, Think Tank Says

  International Commentary

States Should Stop Buying Security Scanners From China’s Nuctech

  Law News

Hunter Biden Lied About Lobbying for Foreign Agent to Protect His Father, Prosecutor Says

EXCLUSIVE: New Platform Aims to Halt CCP Influence on States

BREAKING: Supreme Court Upholds Injunctions Blocking Biden-Harris Admin’s Transgender Title IX Rewrite

   Law News

Kris Kobach: Biden-Harris Admin Has ‘Thumb on the Scales’ in Electioneering Order

   Law Commentary

Questions Remain About How Pro-Hamas Mob Overwhelmed Park Police in DC

  Politics News

Why Michigan Republicans Side With Democrat AG Who Threatened to Prosecute Over Facebook Posts

Think You’ve Been Defrauded by ActBlue? Election Watchdog Wants to Hear From You.

Comer Panel Scrutinizing Claims of Google, Facebook Censoring of Trump Shooting

‘Kindergarten Math’: Georgia Considers Rule to Match Counted Votes With Counted Voters

EXCLUSIVE: Swiss Government Took His Daughter to Transition Her. This Father Is Fighting Back.

Catholic Group Calls Out DOJ’s Double Standard on Prosecuting Abortion Clinic Protesters

  Health Care News

BOMBSHELL FDA Email Turns Transgender ‘Health Care’ Narrative on Its Head

EXCLUSIVE: Top Pediatrician Promoting Trans Procedures for Texas Kids Now High Ranking NIH Official

Education   Commentary

Columbia University President Resigns, but School’s Troubles With Leftist Protesters Far From Over

Education   News

‘Marxist Professors Leaving’: DeSantis Explains How He Saved Education in Florida From Leftist Indoctrination

Economy   Analysis

Why More Americans Have Nowhere to Live

Education   Analysis

Oklahoma Has Best School Choice in America, State Education Chief Says

Economy   News

Recession Fears Loom as Small Business Job Numbers Tank

From liberty to tyranny: how attacks on checks and balances threaten our republic.

If we eliminate the Electoral College, small states can forget ever again having influence in presidential politics. (Douglas Rissing/iStock/Getty Images)

One of the ways our Constitution provides for a “more perfect” union is by establishing a variety of checks and balances on federal government power.

But a nation that can be “more perfect” can also become “less perfect,” and advocates for the elimination of those checks and balances are heating up the water in the proverbial pot.

Frogs, pay attention.

Among the least noted of these safeguards are the distinct methods by which the Founders determined legislative, executive, and judicial branch officials would come to power: House members elected by popular vote; senators elected by their respective state legislatures; presidents sworn in after a vote of the Electoral College; and members of the judiciary appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Thus, not only were checks and balances set up between the different branches of government, safeguards were built into even the way officials in those branches come to power.

Call it checks and balances on checks and balances. Yet, if the imprudent class has its way, all four seats of power in the federal government will become subject to the immediate and passionate will—and potentially, tyranny—of the majority.

In the early years of the 20 th century, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution enabled popular election of senators, eliminating one of those vital safeguards. There has been an ongoing debate about the wisdom of that decision, but by centralizing more power in the federal government and weakening the states, it’s now apparent that the cure has become worse than the disease.

The Senate, with fewer members than the House, longer terms, and designed intent to thoughtfully and deliberately represent the interests of the states, is now subject to the same whims and passions of “the People’s House.”

Today, we’re seeing methods of accession to power in the other three seats of government under assault. The Senate is threatened by demands for proportional representation; the Supreme Court by proposed term limits and loss of independence; and the Electoral College with elimination entirely—and all because agitators don’t like the passing of a certain bill, the outcome of a specific ruling, or the results of a recent election.

Historical ignorance and a lack of appreciation for (or, in some cases, antipathy toward) the delicate balance the Founders built into the Constitution is stoking the fire under the pot.

If the Senate becomes based on proportional representation of the people, rather than equal representation of the states, our “federal” government will be no more than central government.

Not only will small states lose their voice, the upper chamber will, in practice, be no different from the lower.

There’s little point to having two houses of Congress whose only difference is the length of their terms.

If, in a fit of pique, we expand the Supreme Court and put it under the thumb of the legislative branch, the courts will become subject to the fickle will of an injudicious majority—as will our last line of defense, the Bill of Rights, which is already under attack by the Left, who think it’s outdated and counterproductive.

And if we eliminate the Electoral College, small states can forget ever again having influence in presidential politics. All liberal and left-wing candidates will have to do is pander to their base in populous states such as California and New York, and ignore the middle of the country.

Rural voters would become vassals of the urban class, and 50 states will be subservient to a dozen cities.

So, are we in danger of descending into tyranny?

But eliminating these checks and balances would further clear a pathway to it.

The executive branch has been swamped by an unelected and unaccountable “administrative state.” Congress is too timid to assert its authority in providing effective oversight of executive branch abuses. And the independence of the judiciary is being increasingly challenged via threats and intimidation.

All of this has global implications. More than two centuries ago, the Marquis de Lafayette said, “The welfare of America is bound closely to the welfare of all humanity. She is to become the honored and safe asylum of liberty.”

History has proven him prescient. Where would Europe be today had the United States not been around to join the fight against Nazi Germany? Where would the West be today if we hadn’t stood up the Soviet Union? Where will the world be tomorrow if we forsake our asylum of liberty by capitulating to ignorance and irresponsibility?

Those of us who believe in this “last best hope of man on earth” must step up and defend the safeguards that protect us. We must reawaken to the importance of our constitutional checks and balances and advocate against those who—lacking historical perspective—are blind to unintended consequences.

Though they may one day realize the damage they’ve done, regrets from the gulag are especially bitter.

Conservative philosopher Richard M. Weaver said, “The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for.”

The time is past for burying our heads in smartphones and selfish pursuits while our constitutional protections are being dismantled step by step. Once they’re gone, there will be no one to save us.

Related posts:

• ‘MANIPULATION’: Sen. Mike Lee Dismisses Biden’s Calls for Unity After Trump Shot 
• EXCLUSIVE: Democrats’ Gun Control Push After Trump Assassination Attempt Draws Rebuke

Unbowed by Jan. 6 Charges, Republicans Pursue Plans to Contest a Trump Defeat

Mr. Trump’s allies are preparing to try to short-circuit the election system, if he does not win.

Nearly four years ago, Mr. Trump’s attempt to challenge the election results was chaotic and improvised. This year, his allies are systematically searching for any vulnerability in the nation’s election system. Credit... Scott McIntyre for The New York Times

Supported by

• Share full article

By Jim Rutenberg and Nick Corasaniti

• July 13, 2024

The Republican Party and its conservative allies are engaged in an unprecedented legal campaign targeting the American voting system. Their wide-ranging and methodical effort is laying the groundwork to contest an election that they argue, falsely, is already being rigged against former President Donald J. Trump.

The campaign involves a powerful network of Republican lawyers and activist groups, working loosely in concert with the Republican National Committee. Many of the key players were active in Mr. Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

But unlike the chaotic and improvised challenge four years ago, the new drive includes a systematic search for any vulnerability in the nation’s patchwork election system.

Mr. Trump’s allies have followed a two-pronged approach: restricting voting for partisan advantage ahead of Election Day and short-circuiting the process of ratifying the winner afterward, if Mr. Trump loses. The latter strategy involves an ambitious — and legally dubious — attempt to reimagine decades of settled law dictating how results are officially certified in the weeks before the transfer of power.

At the heart of the strategy is a drive to convince voters that the election is about to be stolen, even without evidence. Democrats use mail voting, drop boxes and voter registration drives to swing elections, they have argued. And Mr. Trump’s indictments and criminal conviction are a Biden administration gambit to interfere with the election, they claim.

“As things stand right now, there’s zero chance of a free and fair election,” Mike Howell, a project director at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said at an event this week. “I’m formally accusing the Biden administration of creating the conditions that most reasonable policymakers and officials cannot in good conscience certify an election.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement