CAP 8 Frenos y contrapesos PDF

## 9. Frenos y contrapesos: combinar medios institucionales y móviles personales ### La clave del constitucionalismo moderno: El sistema de frenos y contrapesos - The great contribution of American constitutionalism to the history of this discipline is, without a doubt, the system of checks and ba...

## 9. Frenos y contrapesos: combinar medios institucionales y móviles personales ### La clave del constitucionalismo moderno: El sistema de frenos y contrapesos - The great contribution of American constitutionalism to the history of this discipline is, without a doubt, the system of checks and balances. One of the most important elements- if not the most important- of those that were exported to the rest of the region and from there across the sea, and - Many other fundamental and still characteristic elements of world constitutionalism (separation of powers; the three main branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial) were already part of the heritage by then, with contributions such as John Locke or Montesquieu. ### Checks and balances as a complement to the separation of powers - Checks and balances should be understood as a different, complementary, and corrective tool of the separation of powers. - This last notion aims for the power not to be concentrated, that different functions are in different hands (the Executive with the management task, the Legislative with the obligation of making law, and the Judicial and the powers. - During much time, in the United States, the proposal of the separation of powers prevailed. - The idea of strict separation derived from the French Revolution, and it had reached United States through writings and radical politics, such as Thomas Paine - However, different reasons (which included the fear of dangers, pressures and excesses from the Legislative) - In the United States, the Constitution ended up promoting a different dynamic among the different branches of power, which consisted in a system of checks and balances ### The main quotes about the importance of checks and balances * **James Madison, *The Federalist* No. 51:**<br> The greatest security against the concentration of power in a single department resides in giving to those who administer each department the means of constitutional defense against the invasion of the others. The protection, in this case as in all others, should correspond to the risk involved. Ambition should be set to counter ambition. Human interests should be linked to the constitutional rights of office. * **Alexander Hamilton, in a speech on June 18th, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention**: In every community where industry is encouraged, there will be a division between the few and the many. ### Principles behind checks and balances - The premise is to prevent mutual oppression. - To give equivalent power to majorities and minorities, to prevent one group from overrunning the other. ### The system of checks and balances as a tool to manage ambition - The idea is that those who administer the branches of the government are to be provided with both the constitutional tools and personal motives necessary to resist the attacks by the others. - They are the ones who are to be provided with the constitutional tools of government. They are the ones who are to be provided with both the constitutional tools and personal motives necessary to resist the attacks by the others. - The system uses the personal motives. - The system uses the personal motives (for example, self-interest or ambition) - The system uses the personal motives (for example, self-interest, ambition,or ego) - The system promotes the use of these motivations (which are not attractive) - They are provided with the constitutional tools for government: the veto for the president, invalidation of law for judges, insistence for legislators, etc. ### Checks and balances as a tool to prevent abuses - The system of checks and balances can help prevent abuses. - It can help prevent abuses (for example, the issuance of paper money) - It can help prevent abuses (for example, the issuance of paper money) ### The key to prevent civil war: the necessity of “encapsulating” the government - The system of checks and balances was made to prevent civil war. - It aimed to prevent civil war, and - The system aimed to prevent social strife, and - The result was the greatest good. - The result is a balance of power between the factions of government. - The result was the greatest good, - The result was the greatest good. - The system of checks and balances can ensure the protection of minorities. - The system provides the mechanism for promoting civil concord. - The system provided the mechanism for promoting civil concord. ### The main problems with the system of checks and balances - The system is inefficient and undemocratic. - The system is inefficient and undemocratic, - The system is inefficient and undemocratic. - The system is inefficient and undemocratic. - It is difficult to understand why the system of checks and balances is still considered the main tool of the US government. - The system is undemocratic. - The system is inefficient. It - The system is inefficient. It relies on the egoism of each branch and - The system fails to promote civil virtue. ### The limits of checks and balances system. - The main drawback of the system: It does not stop a powerful elite from taking over the entire system. - This means that it cannot be applied to modern scenarios, as the system is unable to control a strong elite. - The system fails to promote civic virtue. - The system is undemocratic: - The system is undemocratic. It aims to prevent abuses from the majority, but not the abuses by the majority. - The system is undemocratic. It aims to prevent abuses from the majority and minority, but not the abuses by the majority. - There are numerous, serious problems with the system of checks and balances. - It should be reviewed and changed as soon as possible. ### The importance of dialogue - The system of checks and balances does not provide real protection for a healthy democracy. - The system of checks and balances is an effective tool for stopping abuses, but it is not a good tool for promoting dialogue. - The system of checks and balances is a good tool to avoid the horrors of civil war, but it is not a good tool for promoting dialogue. - The dialogue of checks and balances can be a means of preventing civil war, but not a good tool for promoting dialogue. - The system of checks and balances was created to stop conflicts, not to promote dialogue. - The system can create serious problems for a democratic society. - The system of checks and balances was created to stop conflicts, and not to promote dialogue. - The system of checks and balances is inefficient and undemocratic. - The system is inefficient and undemocratic. It aims to prevent abuses from the majority and minority, but not the abuses by the majority. - The system is not enough to ensure a healthy democracy. - The system of checks and balances is a good tool to avoid the horrors of civil war, but it is not a good tool for promoting dialogue. ### The key to a healthy democracy: checks and balances should promote a healthy dialogue - Checks and balances should encourage the dialogue between branches of government and between citizens and the government. - The system of checks and balances should encourage civic dialogue and should not prevent it, as the system of checks and balances does not always do. - The system of checks and balances was created to stop conflicts, and not to promote dialogue. ### The need for a new approach - The system of checks and balances is not the ideal system for a healthy democracy. - The system of checks and balances is not the ideal system for a healthy democracy. - There is a need for a new system that promotes dialogue and civic virtue in a democracy. - This system should be a system that is more democratic and more efficient. - Checks and balances are necessary for a healthy democracy, but they are not enough. - The system of checks and balances is not enough to ensure a healthy democracy. - It is a system that is not a healthy tool for a democracy. - We need a new system that promotes dialogue and a new system that is more democratic and more efficient. - The system is undemocratic. It aims to prevent abuses from the majority and minority, but not the abuses by the majority.