Skip to main content

Separation of Powers and Political Incentives

The topic of separation of powers has become a bigger issue in recent years due to Trump’s administration. Besides a majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate opposing Trump’s administration, the Judiciary Committee, however, has taken more of an interest in impeaching Trump. This may impede the Legislative branch’s ability to vote on that type of situation. As it is the Legislative branch's job to make laws and impeach federal officials, it makes House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler’s speech that much more interesting. Nadler expresses the opinion of the Judiciary Committee’s panel by stating, "Frankly, we are concentrating our resources on determining whether to impeach the president. Personally, I think the President ought to be impeached but we have to concentrate on that for the next few months." This is concerning questions of the sexual assault allegations made against Brett Kavanaugh in October during his confirmation to the Supreme Court. Recently a new corroboration has come to the forefront as New York Times reporters find that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a fellow classmate. Although this allegation has not been verified and has sparked this new investigation against him. In either case, this is deemed a Legislative Branch’s issue since it is the only branch authorized to make the final decision on it as stated in the constitution. The only way this can become a Judicial issue is if any part of the investigation is found to be unconstitutional in the process of gathering information for the impeachment, not the ‘trial’ of impeachment, itself. Anything else would be a violation of the separation of powers as stated previously. Specifically legislative interference, in which a branch of government impedes another branch’s power. Regarding this topic, most members of congress agree with wanting Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, but not for the reasons people may think. Bernie Sanders, along with democrats Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have also called to have an investigation into the accusations against Kavanaugh. However, they do not have the feelings of the public in mind, or in other terms a trustee approach to the situation. Sanders, Warren, and Kamala only express this much interest due to being presidential candidates. Trying to appeal to the public for their own political gain which results in an increase in approval ratings, which gives them more incentive to please the public than speak on ideals that are best for citizens. As all political scientists know, people are more likely to respond to incentives than anything else. It is essentially about picking the right groups to appeal to receive more traction in any type of election. Sanders, Warren, and Kamala are appealing to other democrats and women who have experienced sexual assault. Although Kavanaugh’s impeachment would play a factor in important judicial decisions, it doesn’t help the citizen’s expressed issues. The main issues the American people are more focused on currently are healthcare, education, gun control, etc. These issues are to be resolved by the legislative branch so, drawing unnecessary attention to the Judicial branch will provide no beneficial opinions of public policy. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Proposition DD: Let the Bets Flow

On November 5 th , 2019, one of the two measures placed on the ballot in Colorado was Proposition DD, giving the electorate a referendum on the legality of sports betting within the state; it also would impose a tax upon the net revenue of those establishments accepting such bets, the majority of which would provide funding for the Colorado Water Plan and the remainder of which would be used to regulate sports betting and provide services for gambling addiction. Since 1992, gambling on the outcome of most sporting events had been outlawed nationally under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, though with the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association , this Act was deemed unconstitutional, and state legislatures became free to legislate regarding sports betting and its legality. Proposition DD was put to a public ballot under the provisions of the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution, a ‘Taxpayer Bill of Rights’ ...
2 comments
Read more

The Proponents of Proposition DD

Proposition DD and its proponents One of the most significant and noteworthy results of the recent elections in Colorado was the passing of Proposition DD. A legislative proposition is a proposal placed on the ballot by the state legislature itself. The legislature in Denver referred the measure with House Bill 1327 during the spring season, with easy bipartisan support. [1] The proposition however did not receive such widespread support from the public, only narrowly passing, and being too close to call on election night. This is illustrated below. [2] The passage of Proposition DD legalised gambling on sports events, beginning in six months’ time; making Colorado the nineteenth state to legalise sports betting. Colorado’s seventeen casino operators will be eligible to apply for licenses for both physical and online sportsbooks, with the Colorado Division of Gaming being tasked to regulate the market. [3] ‘Yes on Proposition DD’ raised about $2.83 million for ca...
Post a Comment
Read more

Immigration Visas and Polarization

Megan King  The story I decided to investigate in National News is , “ Federal Judges Block Trump Policy Targeting Legal Immigrants on Public Benefits ” by Claire Hansen demonstrates how difficult the policymaking procedure can be. In regard to the separations of powers, this ideology does give each branch equal representation, which in this case was to block a new policy. In this situation, three judges filed lawsuits because the new policy the Government was going to implement that visas could be denied if they think that immigrants who are going to use public benefits. It is known as the “public charge” policy which is basically, “any individual who is deemed likely to accept a benefit is considered a public charger” which was just another attempt from the Trump Administration desiring to stop immigration (Hansen). There has already been policies in place that set up circumstances that Immigration Courts and the Government have set up to deny immigration residence just in...
2 comments
Read more