Research Checks and Balances in the Trump Presidency

Your Name
Course No.
Professor
11th, December 2017
CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY
1.0 Introduction
The Federal Constitution of the United States has been framed such that all the three arms of government checks on the excesses of the other. These three arms are the executive, legislative and judicial arms. The framers of the American constitution envisaged a scenario where an office bearer of the presidency could overly exercise presidential power, and so are the other arms of government (Balkin 2013). Therefore the constitution has distributed power upon the three branches through a system referred to as checks and balances. This system has been effective since the founding of the American constitution. The system of checks and balance works such that the president can veto a congressional vote, and if he oversteps his constitutional mandate, congress can clip his powers through an impeachment motion (Hayes 2013). On the other hand, the legislature can also limit presidential powers through a judicial review where a Supreme Court justice can declare any law or executive order signed by the president as unconstitutional (Balkin 2013). Likewise, in the event that congress passes a bill that the president deems not fit for the nation, he can veto since all bills must get a presidential ascent before becoming law. The executive also checks on the powers of the judicial arm through appointment of justices. This essay reviews checks and balances under Trump’s presidency. More specifically, the essay will focus on Checks and Balances and Healthcare.
Checks and Balances In The American Constitution
Although the executive would have acted against their interest, the legislature acted in the best interest of the American people. The checks and balances ensure that for the senate to pass any legislation, it should pursue a consultative approach to get the necessary support required for enactment (Balkin 2013). This protects the interests of Americans by ensuring that both the republican and democratic senators participate in the process. Although this was the envisaged scenario by constitutional framers, it can sometimes be defeated through executive veto power. Thus the balance of power ensures that all legislations passed in the Senate and later signed by the president actually represent the interest of the American people (Hayes 2013). The republican HFCA would have nullified the Obama care mandate that every American should have healthcare coverage. Indeed, HFCA would have thwarted the dream of American to getting universal health care coverage. Its failure was an indicator that the constitutional doctrine of balance of power and checks and balances was effective in limiting presidential powers thereby protecting the interest of Americans (Balkin 2013). A congressional budget office report indicated that the repeal of affordable Care Act through legislation of HFCA would have rendered over 16 million Americans uninsured. Moreover, it also estimated that enactment of HFCA would have increased insurance premium by 20%. Besides, HFCA excludes Medicaid cuts which would have hurt millions of Americans currently on Medicaid.
Checks and balances are meant to protect the interest of the American people by en...