How is power divided in the United States government? - Belinda Stutzman

Article II of the United States Constitution allows for three separate branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial), along with a system of checks and balances should any branch get too powerful. Belinda Stutzman breaks down each branch and its constitutionally-entitled powers.

Lesson by Belinda Stutzman, animation by Johnny Chew.

[camilorivera]

4 minutes from this channel summarized what a whole year of class tried to teach me. Awesome video!

[el-ybgf]

im just gonna help out the students by explaining the roles of each branch and who is in

legislative: comprised of 100 U.S. senators and 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives (this is better known as the U.S. congress). The primary function of the legislative branch is to make laws but its also responsible for approving federal judges & justices, passing the national budget, and declaring war. Each state gets 2 senators and a certain amount of representatives depending on how many people live in that state

executive: leaders of this branch are the President & Vice President who are responsible for enforcing the laws that congress sets forth. The President works closely with a group of advisors known as the Cabinet (these appointed helpers assist the President in making important decisions within their area of expertise; such as defense, the treasury, and homeland security). This branch also appoints government officals, commands the armed forces, and meets with leaders of other nations. The executive branch employs over 4 million people to get everything done

judicial: comprised of all the courts in the land (from the federal district courts to the U.S. supreme court); these courts interpret our nations laws and punishes those who break them. The highest court, the Supreme Court, settles disputes among states, hears and appeals from state and federal courts, and determines if federal laws are constitutional. There are 9 justices on the Supreme Court and unlike any other job in our government, supreme court justices are appointed FOR LIFE, OR for as long as they want to stay.

[thedudeeatsugar]

Shout out to people watching this for virtual Social Studies

[COFR]

As a Briton, I've often looked on with a little confusion when discussions happen Statesside surrounding the different branches of power. Other explanations have tended to be convoluted but this was at once concise and informative.

Many thanks!

[bellei]

‘Depends on an informed citizenry’ well that’s your first problem

[Hami]

Thanks for much needed context, now I can go back to my house of cards episode XD

[marcelh]

This must have helped thousands of American primary school kids do their homework in under for minutes... But it also helped a European grown understand the news about America. Thank you!

[tankersmit]

Great video, the clearest and easiest to understand...that I have seen on youtube! (Practicing my civics test for Us Citizenship). Thank you!!

[isaabdullah]

" Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Action

"Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases." John Adams

[ToneB]

"Democrats and republicans
Are two fangs on the same snake."

Dr. Valentine

[yahsaves]

You forgot the 4th branch of government: "The US Media".

[theman]

as a non-American this video was so helpful to understand the basics. thanks.

[iicherryxsoda]

Anyone watching this on Election Day 2020?

[Polar-]

Usually I’m not a huge fan of history but this really helped me thank you! 👍

[espressothoughts]

A slight mention of John Locke's influence on this would have been nice

[anjalisharmapusa]

Simply wow... Part of my syllabus and so simply explained by your team. Thank you. 🙌

[oneboy]

This is easier to learn than school lectures

[digaddog]

I'd like to mention something that I wasn't aware of for quite some time, not every democracy uses separation of powers like we do. This has arguably created more stable systems, more democratic systems in some places.

1. Parliamentary versus presidential:
America uses a presidential system where we vote (indirectly) for the chief executive. Parliamentary systems instead work through giving the legislature power over the chief executive. If a vote of no confidence reaches majority, the chief executive must resign.

2. Bicameral systems:
There are four general types of bicameral systems, which are found by every combination of answers to these questions: are the chambers given equal power? Are they dominated by the different party? If you're answer to one of these is no, then you live in either weak or insignificant bicameral system. Some bicameral systems have taken so much power, usually from the upper house, that the upper house is practically just ceremonial.

3. The sliding scale:
Let's take a political system and a character we'll refer to as "the representative." The representative wants to change something. How difficult is it for the representative to do so? Let's say the scale goes from 0-1, where 0 denotes perfect electocracy, where the elected serves as a practical dictator. 1, then, denotes perfect necrocracy, where the system is so thoroughly tied to the rules of the dead that you have no legitimate route to change the system. Neither of these systems are preferable, so there must be some sweet spot between them. I have reason to suspect that we are far too close to 1. First off, look at the constitution. The constitution is do hard to change that we've decided to just let the justices reinterpret it. I also notice that no civil rights movement has succeeded without, to put it lightly, a little trolling.

4. The blind spot of separation of powers:
I think we give George Washington too much credit for prophesying the rise of political parties. Political parties are natural, and the system he made only exacerbated the problem by his distrust in the common people. Its like if Lenin said, "haha i sure hope that our belief in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, democratic centralism, and the vanguard party wont hurt the very workers we claim to protect that would be crrraaazzzyyy, " and then we treat him like the messiah when the USSR did those human rights violations. Except Washington was a lot less bad and had better intentions.

As it stands, if we want a law passed, then the president and both houses must align. We believed at the time that these powers would serve as separate institutions at opposite ends, but the real division is between parties. So, we have two options: the parties are aligned or unaligned. If the parties are aligned, then the system is not much different than if there were no checks and balances at all. If the parties are unaligned, then it is near impossible for any legislation to get through. Well, that's how it should work in theory anyway. This is just a rough outline of the issue

5. Presidential approaching dictatorship:
Under presidentialism, if a president, the most powerful person in the country, starts encroaching their powers, you can't get rid of them easily. You could try impeaching them, but historically impeachment has always occurred on party lines. Many political scientists argue that presidential systems tend towards authoritarianism, which you might see in FDR or Donald Trump. This is because the system is winner takes all, where the winner can keep executive power unchallenged within this theater for four whole years. Not to mention, under parliamentary system the cabinet is often a combination of political parties, to reach 50%+1 votes.

[ultra]

Made in 2013 but looks like Donald Trump

[jazleenconcepcion]

this is so old and my teacher making me watch this in 2020