What is a real world example of checks and balances?

checks and balances, principle of government under which separate branches are empowered to prevent actions by other branches and are induced to share power. Checks and balances are applied primarily in constitutional governments. They are of fundamental importance in tripartite governments, such as that of the United States, which separate powers among legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

The Greek historian Polybius analyzed the ancient Roman mixed constitution under three main divisions: monarchy (represented by the consul); aristocracy (the Senate); and democracy (the people). He greatly influenced later ideas about the separation of powers.

Checks and balances, which modify the separation of powers, may operate under parliamentary systems through exercise of a parliament’s prerogative to adopt a no-confidence vote in a government; the government, or cabinet, in turn, ordinarily may dissolve the parliament. The British Parliament is supreme, and laws passed by it are not subject to review by the courts for constitutionality. In France, under the Fifth Republic (1958), a Constitutional Council of nine members (appointed for nine years by the president, Senate, and National Assembly) reviews the constitutionality of legislation. The Federal Republic of Germany combines features of parliamentary systems and of federal systems like that of the United States. It vests the right to declare a law unconstitutional in the Federal Constitutional Court (1951).

The framers of the U.S. Constitution, who were influenced by Montesquieu and William Blackstone among others, saw checks and balances as essential for the security of liberty under the Constitution: “It is by balancing each of these powers against the other two, that the efforts in human nature toward tyranny can alone be checked and restrained, and any degree of freedom preserved in the constitution” (John Adams). Though not expressly covered in the text of the Constitution, judicial review—the power of the courts to examine the actions of the legislative and the executive and administrative arms of government to ensure that they are constitutional—became an important part of government in the United States. Other checks and balances include the presidential veto of legislation (which Congress may override by a two-thirds vote) and executive and judicial impeachment by Congress. Only Congress can appropriate funds, and each house serves as a check on possible abuses of power or unwise action by the other. Congress, by initiating constitutional amendments, can in practice reverse decisions of the Supreme Court. The president appoints the members of the Supreme Court but only with the consent of the Senate, which also approves certain other executive appointments. The Senate also must approve treaties.

From 1932 the U.S. Congress exercised a so-called legislative veto. Clauses in certain laws qualified the authority of the executive branch to act by making specified acts subject to disapproval by the majority vote of one or both houses. In 1983, in a case concerning the deportation of an alien, the U.S. Supreme Court held that legislative vetoes were unconstitutional (the House of Representatives had overturned the Justice Department’s suspension of the alien’s deportation). The decision affected clauses in some 200 laws covering a wide range of subjects, including presidential war powers, foreign aid and arms sales, environmental protection, consumer interests, and others. Despite the court’s decision, Congress continued to exercise this power, including the legislative veto in at least 11 of the bills it passed in 1984 alone.

Checks and balances that evolved from custom and Constitutional conventions include the congressional committee system and investigative powers, the role of political parties, and presidential influence in initiating legislation.

Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. Subscribe Now

In one-party political systems, informal, and perhaps even illegal, checks and balances may operate when organs of an authoritarian or totalitarian regime compete for power.

See also Federalist papers; judicial review; and powers, separation of.

Democratize finance for all. Our writers’ work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the Chicago Tribune, Quartz, the San Francisco Chronicle, and more.

Checks and balances are a collection of safeguards written into the United States Constitution to ensure no single branch of government becomes too powerful.

Checks and balances can apply in any organization, but the term most commonly refers to governments. In the U.S. Constitution, the framers (aka founding fathers) included several checks and balances. They spread the power across the three branches so that they could keep each other in check. These safeguards are meant to prevent any single person or branch from centralizing too much power. They help to ward off corruption and create accountability within the government. Within the system of checks and balances, each of the three branches of government (the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch) has certain powers. But in addition to those powers, each branch has oversight from the other two branches.

One of the most common examples of checks and balances comes with passing legislation. The legislative branch (aka Congress) is responsible for passing bills. Bills must pass through both the House of Representatives and the Senate. But before the bill can become law, the President (executive branch) has to sign it. He or she can choose to sign it, or they can decide to veto it. If the President decides to veto a bill, Congress can still exercise their own oversight by overriding the President’s veto. The Supreme Court then has the power to review the constitutionality of bills passed by the other two branches.

Checks and balances are like a three-way tug of war…

When you have three competing groups pulling a rope in opposite directions, no one of them has the power to drag the others too far. With two opponents instead of one, one can’t outmuscle the others. Like in a three way tug of war, the checks and balances in government ensure that one branch doesn’t have too much power over the others, impeding one from having absolute control over the direction of a government or country.

Ready to start investing?

New customers need to sign up, get approved, and link their bank account. The cash value of the stock rewards may not be withdrawn for 30 days after the reward is claimed. Stock rewards not claimed within 60 days may expire. See full terms and conditions at rbnhd.co/freestock. Securities trading is offered through Robinhood Financial LLC.

The system of checks and balances that exists in the United States dates back long before the United States even existed. The government of Ancient Rome, like that of the U.S. government today, had three distinct branches. Those branches were the monarchy, the aristocracy (the Senate), and the democracy (the people).

Over the next several centuries, philosophers and historians like Polybius, Baron de Montesquieu, William Blackstone, and John Locke argued the merits of this type of separation of powers among different branches of government.

In 1787, when the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution looked to the words of those philosophers when developing the government we have today. The Framers created a government with three distinct branches: the legislative branch (Congress), the executive branch (the President), and the judicial branch (the courts).

Built into the Constitution is a separation of powers, where each branch of government has distinct powers and responsibilities. Additionally, the Framers created a series of checks and balances. This system gives each branch of government the ability to keep the other branches in check and ensures that no single branch holds too much power in the government.

Since the creation of the Constitution, the checks and balances have come into play many times. Each branch has had to challenge the power of another. There have also been changes to the Constitution and to the laws to clarify certain powers of each branch.

For example, in 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act, which limited the President’s ability to take our country to war without the authorization of Congress. President Richard Nixon vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode his veto to pass the bill into law. This law has been tested again and again, as presidents have sent the U.S. into military conflicts with and without congressional approval.

The system of checks and balances also played a role during the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. President Roosevelt was serving during the time of a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court struck down a historic number of bills during that time. It got to the point where President Roosevelt asked Congress to allow him to appoint additional members to the court (to pack the court with loyalists who would override the existing members), which they did not permit him to do.

Checks and balances continue to play an important and prevalent role in government today. According to an analysis from the Washington Post, federal courts ruled against the actions of President Donald Trump’s administration 65 times during his first two years in office.

Another important test of our system of checks and balances took place at the end of 2019 when the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump. Impeachment is one of the checks and balances the Constitution grants to Congress. This unique situation shows the checks and balances that occur just within the legislative branch, as the House of Representatives votes to impeach a President, but only the Senate can remove him or her from office. The Senate acquitted President Trump after a brief trial in February of 2020.

The purpose of checks and balances is to give each branch of government the ability to limit the powers of the other branches. The Framers created the government this way to ensure that no single branch could become too powerful. They had seen the danger and tyranny that could come as a result of a concentration of power, and they wanted to ensure the United States escaped that type of government overreach.

The U.S. government has three branches of government. The legislative branch consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate, which make up Congress. Congress has many responsibilities. They write and pass the laws, create rules, and oversee federal spending and borrowing. They are also the only branch allowed to ratify treaties and authorize spending.

The executive branch consists of the President and the administration, which includes various departments. The executive branch is primarily responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws that Congress passes. This branch also oversees the armed forces, has the power to create executive orders, and appoints many federal officials.

The power of the executive branch has increased significantly since the writing of the Constitution. For example, the Constitution does not specify executive orders as a power of the President. And technically, the President is not allowed to make laws or appropriate funds. However, it is up to the courts to ensure that the President is acting within the limits of his or her authority.

The judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court and the lower courts. The job of this branch is to interpret the laws that Congress passes, apply them in the courts, and ensure that each act is on the right side of the Constitution.

The Constitution gives each of these powers to the different branches of government. In the system of checks and balances, it also outlines mechanisms where each branch can challenge the powers of the other branches.

There are many checks and balances built into our Constitution that allow the different branches of government to limit the power of the other branches. Here are some of the checks and balances that exist today:

Congress can make laws, but the President can veto those laws.
The President has the power to veto laws, but Congress can override a President’s veto.
Congress has the power to make laws, but the courts can declare those laws to be unconstitutional.
Congress has the power to make laws, but the executive branch implements and enforces those laws.
The President has the power to sign executive orders, but the courts can declare those orders to be unconstitutional.
The President has the power to nominate federal officials, but the Senate can confirm or reject some of those nominations.
The President has the power to sign treaties, but the Senate must ratify those treaties.
The President is the commander in chief of the armed forces, but he or she cannot go to war without authorization from Congress, under current law. Congress is also responsible for appropriating the funds to pay for any wars.
The courts can declare the actions of the President and Congress to be unconstitutional, but the President nominates judges to sit on the courts, and Congress confirms those nominations.
The courts can declare laws that Congress passes to be unconstitutional, but Congress and the states have the power to amend the Constitution.
Congress has the power to impeach the President and individuals serving on the courts.

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote the following about the system of checks and balances. “[Y]ou must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” According to Madison, checks and balances ensure that the government controls itself.

After having seen what can come from a centralization of power, the Framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that no single person or branch of government could become too powerful. That is the most significant advantage of our checks and balances system.

For example, the separation of powers prevents any president from acting like a dictator. Congress, not the President, can pass bills. And though the President can sign executive orders, the judicial branch can overturn them if they go outside the scope of what the President is supposed to do.

The most significant advantage of checks and balances also creates the biggest disadvantage. The structure of the U.S. government ensures that no single person or branch of government can make decisions without oversight from the other branches. Especially in years of divided government, this oversight can lead to gridlock that can result in very little change happening. Significant policy changes can take years or even decades to occur.

However, the opposite issue could also exist. During years when one political party controls all three branches of government, it is possible that the checks and balances won’t be as strong as they might otherwise be.

Ready to start investing?

1334411

Updated August 08, 2021

Updated June 17, 2020

Updated June 06, 2022

Updated April 13, 2020