Research Paper on:
The Balance of Power: Congress vs. The Presidency

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
archaic, booby-trapped obstacle course of a bill-passing process dominated by autocratic committee chairmen, and a total absence of any sort of party cohesion, it can hardly be described as a  deliberative body; it doesnt even try to make policy on its own. Under the circumstances, it is just as well that the president has taken a dominating role in the  legislative process. " The important question as it pertains to the statement is, to what extent is it a fair rendition of the current situation in Congress, or of the  Presidency? Has the situation changed materially, for better or worse in the past two or three decades? In summary, the question really goes to the balance of power  as it exists in the United States. If one accepts that the presidents role is monumental, then the balance is off. If one also maintains that the political gridlock in  Congress has rendered the House and Senate inefficient, then again, the balance is thrown off. The statement must be false in that it alludes to the idea that the president  might as well take over because Congress is not effective. Even if it were true that Congress is not operating up to snuff, the idea that the presidents role should  be expanded goes against everything that the Founders intended. First, what did the Founders want when they set up the system? The United States Government is formed by three separate  parts of the national government which are the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches. The constitution gives broad powers to each and at the same time controls abuse  of power by any one branch with a system of checks and balances. This system allows each branch to participate in and check the affairs of the other two