A Separation of Powers exists in most democratic countries (indeed, those without a meaningful separation of powers are often criticised as being faux-democratic) in order to ensure that all three branches of government - the judiciary, the legislature and the executive - can operate independently, but also with oversight from eachother.
Two recent issues have prompted this question:
One is the fact that Supreme Court nominations, which are currently within the remit of the president to make, and the legislature to approve or disapprove, are seen as having a far-reaching and long term effect on what type of government the United States can have going into the future, and are thus regarded as a huge election issue (one of the primary arguments from both sides in 2016 was that, with several seats on the Supreme Court likely to become vacant during this and the next presidential term, which side triumphed in that particular election would be able to cement either a left or right wing influence on the court for years, if not decades, to come).
The second issue is the discussion this week over the Mueller report, and whether or not it should be released - and, more recently, whether or not the Executive (in this case the White House) should have the right to see it before the Legislature, and indeed potentially make redactions to it so that the full version can never be seen by the legislature.
Are these two issues (and any others which you'd like to reference) indicative of a Separation of Powers working exactly as it is intended to work, or are they indicative of a Separation of Powers which needs some redesigning in order to make it work as intended? For example, is the gifting of Supreme Court nominations to the president of the day a violation of the separation of powers concept, in that it would appear to give the executive a degree of direct control over the judiciary in a way which has very meaningful effects on future governments and their freedom in legislative scope? Or if you take the second example I raised, should one branch of government have the power to potentially deny another branch of government access to parts of a legal document prepared for the government as a whole - particularly when the branch of government with that power may be the branch under investigation in the aforementioned legal document?
I do realise that changing the US Constitution in any way is extremely rare and a very complicated, difficult process by design. I a
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Can you explain the theoretical separation of powers in Judaism.
King / High Priest / Prophet / Av Bais Din / Chaver of Sanhedrin. / the people acting together.
I am interested to know what is clear, what is unclear, and where power overlaps. And If there are mechanisms to deal with conflicts.
One thing that confuses me as an American is how separation of powers works in parliamentary countries. In America, our chief of state, the President, is head of the executive branch and does not directly take part in the legislative process other than being allowed to introduce new bills to Congress. The President cannot tell what bills Congress can or cannot vote on, can't suspend it, can't dictate the national budget, and his/her vetoes can be overridden by a 2/3 majority. Also, Congress has the power to impeach the President if he/she commits heinous acts worthy of removal from office. Those are some of the obvious checks that I know our legislative body has against the power of the executive. In your country, from what I understand, the Prime Minister participates actively in the legislative process by debating in Parliament with all the other ministers and voting on bills. And yet, he/she is also able to direct the agenda of Parliament itself and of the various government ministries that take care of the British public and carry out and enforce the laws of the UK, and they can appoint heads of said ministries. And they can suspend Parliament, as Boris Johnson controversially did recently. Please correct me if I am wrong on any of these. So is the PM a legislator as well as the chief executive? And what legal checks are there to keep the Prime Minister from absolutely taking over Parliament?
