Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone have a look at my 10 markers on SOP.

    What is separation of powers (10 marks)

    The Founding Fathers intended a constitution where there was to be little tyranny and for the “whims of the day” to be avoided this was clearly seen prior to the Constitution being set up where British colonies ruled US states. They believed that one branch of government should not be overpowering therefore they created three branches of government which would have their own rights. This is found in Article 1 where legislature has powers such as Art 1 Section 8 where they can provide for the common defence, Article 2 talks about executive powers such as the Presidential terms and Article 3 mentions that the Judiciary can act as “Guardians” of the Constitution. They opted for this system due to following the works of Montesquieu who in his books of authority e.g. Spirit of Law (1948) mentions that “when the executive and legislature are together in one branch there can be no liberty.”

    However many argue that the theory is actually “shared powers” which is put forward by Neustadt. He argues that the branches are interdependent shown by Obama in 2008 who had to give up his seat in Congress to run for Presidency likewise John Kerry did the same in 2004. Also due to checks and balances it is argued that each branch can excise power on one another. For example one check that Congress has on the Executive is blocking legislation such as Obama’s proposed plans to close Guantanamo Bay which is being rejected by the Republican Senate. A check that executive has on Congress is vetoing which was commonly seen under Clinton were he used line item vetoes and Bush where he vetoed legislation against stem cell research. Finally the judiciary has a check over the executive and legislature and that is the power of judicial review which was established under the Marbury VS Madison case in 1803. Examples of intervention were seen in 1954 in the Brown VS Board case where they declared it was unconstitutional for blacks to be separate but equal. This later led to the process of de-segregation where in 1957 Eisenhower bought the troops in the Little Rock school. Therefore to say that the USA has a separation of powers system is not entirely accurate if that was the case then legislation would be impossible to pass but shared powers is more accurate as there needs to be more Compromise by all the branches as Alistair Cooke once said.

    In conclusion, the separation of powers system is more argued to be a system of “shared powers” this has prevented one branch to be overpowering as in the case with the UK where Lord Hailsham in 1976 argues that the UK has an elective dictatorship which describes how powerful the executive branch is. Nevertheless in the USA it can also be argued that separation of powers is not always guaranteed because many theorists such as “Schlezzinger” has argued of the imperial Presidency suggesting that in the USA, a strict separation of powers is very difficult to achieve.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ineedtorevise127)
    what would you say in an essay for the judiciary "how independent are justices in the USA."
    Seems unlikely, as judicial independence has come up as a 10 mark in the past (see the mark scheme) but you'd want to talk about judicial activism (i.e. the SC using their position to make social change and not deferring to the other branches of government) under the Warren and Burger courts.

    Then you'd want to discuss judicial review and the extent to which that gives the judiciary independence from the other branches of government due to their power to review both the executive and legislature (at state and federal level).

    Precedent-establishing rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and Roe v. Wade are good examples of judicial independence. You could also talk about the Rehniquist court's ruling on Bush v. Gore (2000) as an example of independence, as the SC was the only branch of government in a position to settle the dispute.

    However you might want to talk about how there is a lack of independence from presidential appointments of all federal judges, and the Senate's confirmation. However that could be counter-argued with Eisenhower saying that nominating Warren to the Court was the biggest mistake he ever made, as he exemplified the independence of justices once they are appointed.

    That's just how I'd go about it
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    What do you think will come up for the executive?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Could an essay come up on what is the demerits and merits of Federalism?
    If so what would you write?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ineedtorevise127)
    Can someone have a look at my 10 markers on SOP.

    What is separation of powers (10 marks)

    The Founding Fathers intended a constitution where there was to be little tyranny and for the “whims of the day” to be avoided this was clearly seen prior to the Constitution being set up where British colonies ruled US states. They believed that one branch of government should not be overpowering therefore they created three branches of government which would have their own rights. This is found in Article 1 where legislature has powers such as Art 1 Section 8 where they can provide for the common defence, Article 2 talks about executive powers such as the Presidential terms and Article 3 mentions that the Judiciary can act as “Guardians” of the Constitution. They opted for this system due to following the works of Montesquieu who in his books of authority e.g. Spirit of Law (1948) mentions that “when the executive and legislature are together in one branch there can be no liberty.”

    However many argue that the theory is actually “shared powers” which is put forward by Neustadt. He argues that the branches are interdependent shown by Obama in 2008 who had to give up his seat in Congress to run for Presidency likewise John Kerry did the same in 2004. Also due to checks and balances it is argued that each branch can excise power on one another. For example one check that Congress has on the Executive is blocking legislation such as Obama’s proposed plans to close Guantanamo Bay which is being rejected by the Republican Senate. A check that executive has on Congress is vetoing which was commonly seen under Clinton were he used line item vetoes and Bush where he vetoed legislation against stem cell research. Finally the judiciary has a check over the executive and legislature and that is the power of judicial review which was established under the Marbury VS Madison case in 1803. Examples of intervention were seen in 1954 in the Brown VS Board case where they declared it was unconstitutional for blacks to be separate but equal. This later led to the process of de-segregation where in 1957 Eisenhower bought the troops in the Little Rock school. Therefore to say that the USA has a separation of powers system is not entirely accurate if that was the case then legislation would be impossible to pass but shared powers is more accurate as there needs to be more Compromise by all the branches as Alistair Cooke once said.

    In conclusion, the separation of powers system is more argued to be a system of “shared powers” this has prevented one branch to be overpowering as in the case with the UK where Lord Hailsham in 1976 argues that the UK has an elective dictatorship which describes how powerful the executive branch is. Nevertheless in the USA it can also be argued that separation of powers is not always guaranteed because many theorists such as “Schlezzinger” has argued of the imperial Presidency suggesting that in the USA, a strict separation of powers is very difficult to achieve.
    To be honest, if you produced this answer in an actual exam then not only would you not get 10/10 you'd seriously hurt your chances of even finishing the paper well. Your answer is far too long, with very little focus.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atkin94)
    To be honest, if you produced this answer in an actual exam then not only would you not get 10/10 you'd seriously hurt your chances of even finishing the paper well. Your answer is far too long, with very little focus.
    what would it be out of 10 roughly?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You'd probably get 5 max, they'd mark you that low because there are so many things wrong with your answer, no offence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ineedtorevise127)
    Can someone have a look at my 10 markers on SOP.

    What is separation of powers (10 marks)

    The Founding Fathers intended a constitution where there was to be little tyranny and for the “whims of the day” to be avoided this was clearly seen prior to the Constitution being set up where British colonies ruled US states. They believed that one branch of government should not be overpowering therefore they created three branches of government which would have their own rights. This is found in Article 1 where legislature has powers such as Art 1 Section 8 where they can provide for the common defence, Article 2 talks about executive powers such as the Presidential terms and Article 3 mentions that the Judiciary can act as “Guardians” of the Constitution. They opted for this system due to following the works of Montesquieu who in his books of authority e.g. Spirit of Law (1948) mentions that “when the executive and legislature are together in one branch there can be no liberty.”

    However many argue that the theory is actually “shared powers” which is put forward by Neustadt. He argues that the branches are interdependent shown by Obama in 2008 who had to give up his seat in Congress to run for Presidency likewise John Kerry did the same in 2004. Also due to checks and balances it is argued that each branch can excise power on one another. For example one check that Congress has on the Executive is blocking legislation such as Obama’s proposed plans to close Guantanamo Bay which is being rejected by the Republican Senate. A check that executive has on Congress is vetoing which was commonly seen under Clinton were he used line item vetoes and Bush where he vetoed legislation against stem cell research. Finally the judiciary has a check over the executive and legislature and that is the power of judicial review which was established under the Marbury VS Madison case in 1803. Examples of intervention were seen in 1954 in the Brown VS Board case where they declared it was unconstitutional for blacks to be separate but equal. This later led to the process of de-segregation where in 1957 Eisenhower bought the troops in the Little Rock school. Therefore to say that the USA has a separation of powers system is not entirely accurate if that was the case then legislation would be impossible to pass but shared powers is more accurate as there needs to be more Compromise by all the branches as Alistair Cooke once said.

    In conclusion, the separation of powers system is more argued to be a system of “shared powers” this has prevented one branch to be overpowering as in the case with the UK where Lord Hailsham in 1976 argues that the UK has an elective dictatorship which describes how powerful the executive branch is. Nevertheless in the USA it can also be argued that separation of powers is not always guaranteed because many theorists such as “Schlezzinger” has argued of the imperial Presidency suggesting that in the USA, a strict separation of powers is very difficult to achieve.


    It really is too long. For the 10 markers spend 8-10 mins.... You should just point out the three branches of gov in the into and say why they wanted it- Prevent tyranny

    Second para - Just mention one power for congress- Power to declare war which acts as a check on the presidents commander in chief- Therefore separation of powers brings a system of checks and balances..... Mention the presidents check on congress and finally the Supreme courts check on the other two.- Maybe mention 2 examples or really briefly sum it up

    Now in ur final conclusion in about 3/4 sentences just mention the point you made about separate branches sharing powers- These questions don't look for much debate and want a simple explanation

    Your knowledge on the subject is good u just need to select point carefully and not show that u want to throw everything u no into a 10 marker.... Hope it helpes...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I read some advice from the exam board that the average 30 mark answers should be about 750 words, so a 10 mark would be less than 300 words probably.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's not a question on checks and balances. The theory behind the principle of separation of powers is that each of the functions of government (passing, executing and enforcing laws) should be exercised by different branches of government ie Legislative (Article 1 - Congress), Executive (Article 2 - President) and the Judiciary (Article 3 - Supreme Court). To focus the entirety of your question on listing powers by which these branches can check the others is going to seriously hurt your potential marks for this and all the other questions considering the amount of time you spent on it. Not to mention the small parts where you do talk about the separation of powers shows a real lack of knowledge, I fear for you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scatach)
    Seems unlikely, as judicial independence has come up as a 10 mark in the past (see the mark scheme) but you'd want to talk about judicial activism (i.e. the SC using their position to make social change and not deferring to the other branches of government) under the Warren and Burger courts.

    Then you'd want to discuss judicial review and the extent to which that gives the judiciary independence from the other branches of government due to their power to review both the executive and legislature (at state and federal level).

    Precedent-establishing rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and Roe v. Wade are good examples of judicial independence. You could also talk about the Rehniquist court's ruling on Bush v. Gore (2000) as an example of independence, as the SC was the only branch of government in a position to settle the dispute.

    However you might want to talk about how there is a lack of independence from presidential appointments of all federal judges, and the Senate's confirmation. However that could be counter-argued with Eisenhower saying that nominating Warren to the Court was the biggest mistake he ever made, as he exemplified the independence of justices once they are appointed.

    That's just how I'd go about it
    This is widely considered to be one of the least "independent" rulings of the court. The conservative justices sided with Bush whilst the liberals with Gore. The partisan affiliations were seen to cloud the outcome of the decision. In the words of a Harvard law professor;

    "[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atkin94)
    It's not a question on checks and balances. The theory behind the principle of separation of powers is that each of the functions of government (passing, executing and enforcing laws) should be exercised by different branches of government ie Legislative (Article 1 - Congress), Executive (Article 2 - President) and the Judiciary (Article 3 - Supreme Court). To focus the entirety of your question on listing powers by which these branches can check the others is going to seriously hurt your potential marks for this and all the other questions considering the amount of time you spent on it. Not to mention the small parts where you do talk about the separation of powers shows a real lack of knowledge, I fear for you.
    How is this helping anyone?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He may reconsider his entire approach to this exam, knowing a random person on the internet is fearful of his future when taking into account his current approach. This will lead to him roughly spending the next 20 hours, non-stop revising, potentially resulting in 2 or 3 marks more than he would have originally received resulting in the potential of gaining 2 or 3 marks than he would have originally needed, resulting in the uni placement he would have originally failed to achieve and culminating in the life he may otherwise never of had.

    You're welcome.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bord3r)
    How is this helping anyone?
    Everyone has been really harsh! We should encourage and help! I think your answer was good and you just need to reduce the amount of background info Talking about Montesquieu is a great idea, in the mark sheme it mentions this and says that higher candidates wrote this! I'll get back to you and help rather than be harsh when I get home good luck!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bord3r)
    This is widely considered to be one of the least "independent" rulings of the court. The conservative justices sided with Bush whilst the liberals with Gore. The partisan affiliations were seen to cloud the outcome of the decision. In the words of a Harvard law professor;

    "[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath."
    While it may have been a partisan ruling (as are rulings on issues nowadays), it's certainly the court showing that they are independent in the sense that if they were being judicially restrained, they would defer to the other branches of government; by stepping into a federal election, surely they were undertaking judicial activism and thus showing independence from the other branches? By deciding the outcome of the election, I'm not sure how the SC could not be seen as an independent branch of government.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atkin94)
    He may reconsider his entire approach to this exam, knowing a random person on the internet is fearful of his future when taking into account his current approach. This will lead to him roughly spending the next 20 hours, non-stop revising, potentially resulting in 2 or 3 marks more than he would have originally received resulting in the potential of gaining 2 or 3 marks than he would have originally needed, resulting in the uni placement he would have originally failed to achieve and culminating in the life he may otherwise never of had.

    You're welcome.
    Ok how are you feeling for exam tomorrow?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    what would you write about a question thats says the demerits and merits of federalism?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scatach)
    While it may have been a partisan ruling (as are rulings on issues nowadays), it's certainly the court showing that they are independent in the sense that if they were being judicially restrained, they would defer to the other branches of government; by stepping into a federal election, surely they were undertaking judicial activism and thus showing independence from the other branches? By deciding the outcome of the election, I'm not sure how the SC could not be seen as an independent branch of government.
    They stepped in, stopping the recounts, thus allowing Bush to win the Presidency. They could of either not heard the case at all or ruled in favour of Gore, allowing a full recount to take place. It is not a good example of judicial independence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atkin94)
    He may reconsider his entire approach to this exam, knowing a random person on the internet is fearful of his future when taking into account his current approach. This will lead to him roughly spending the next 20 hours, non-stop revising, potentially resulting in 2 or 3 marks more than he would have originally received resulting in the potential of gaining 2 or 3 marks than he would have originally needed, resulting in the uni placement he would have originally failed to achieve and culminating in the life he may otherwise never of had.

    You're welcome.
    Well I can't argue with that logic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bord3r)
    They stepped in, stopping the recounts, thus allowing Bush to win the Presidency. They could of either not heard the case at all or ruled in favour of Gore, allowing a full recount to take place. It is not a good example of judicial independence. In fact the 2012 mark scheme explicitly lists Bush v. Gore as an example of "9 politicians in robes".
    I don't want to keep disagreeing, but my point is that because they were being judicially active (as to be restrained they would have needed to defer to the other branches, which they did not with the ruling) they were therefore being independent.

    Judicial independence, from my understanding, isn't whether the court issues partisan rulings or not: if they are being judicially active by stepping into an election dispute, they clearly signal that they are an independent branch of government. A court can still be partisan (as it will always be) while remaining independent from the other branches.

    The nine politicians in robes question would list Bush v. Gore as an example of them effectively deciding the election and doing so on a partisan basis: that doesn't mean that they are not an independent branch.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.