Protect the right to freedom
Checks and Balances
The system of checks and balances is an important part of the Constitution. With checks and balances, each of the three branches of government can limit the powers of the others. This way, no one branch becomes too powerful. Each branch “checks” the power of the other branches to make sure that the power is balanced between them. How does this system of checks and balances work?
The process of how laws are made (see the following page) is a good example of checks and balances in action. First, the legislative branch introduces and votes on a bill. The bill then goes to the executive branch, where the President decides whether he thinks the bill is good for the country. If so, he signs the bill, and it becomes a law.
If the President does not believe the bill is good for the country, he does not sign it. This is called a veto. But the legislative branch gets another chance. With enough votes, the legislative branch can override the executive branch's veto, and the bill becomes a law.
Once a law is in place, the people of the country can test it through the court system, which is under the control of the judicial branch. If someone believes a law is unfair, a lawsuit can be filed. Lawyers then make arguments for and against the case, and a judge decides which side has presented the most convincing arguments. The side that loses can choose to appeal to a higher court, and may eventually reach the highest court of all, the Supreme Court.
If the legislative branch does not agree with the way in which the judicial branch has interpreted the law, they can introduce a new piece of legislation, and the process starts all over again.
<span>Fact Monster™</span>
The candidate had to be trained as a scholar and then pass a series of written examinations. The Chinese civil service system, established in 124 B.C.E., required potential officials to be trained as scholars and then pass rigorous examinations to qualify for office.
One is <span>"He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people." This one refers to the King's coercive acts where he dissolved Massachusetts legislature because of what happened during the Boston tea party. basically the King didn't care about the legislative houses and did as he wished when they didn't agree with him.
Another is </span><span>"He
has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that
purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing
to pass others to encouraged their migration hither, and raising the
conditions of new Appropriations of Lands." He is talking here about the king's anti immigration policies to anyone who was not a British Subject. There were many immigrants from countries like Spain or France who wanted to enter the colonies and become citizens but they were denied this right and the colonists wanted them in their country.
Another is </span><span>"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." This refers to king's decisions to create numerous new positions of power like tax collectors or officers of the law who went to the colonies and they had to be taken care of by the colonists since they were royal officials. They had to get food and shelter and things like that from the colonists for nothing in return.
Another is "</span><span>He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures." This is mentioned because the King had his soldiers stationed in the colonies in people's houses and people didn't have a choice in whether or not they would provide housing for them. They were angry because they had to pay taxes for soldiers that did nothing since there was no war.
The final fifth grievance example can be </span><span>"For
protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any Murders which
they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:" This is because of the Boston massacre when soldiers killed colonists and had mock trials and weren't punished at all because the British parliament and the king perceived what happened as the fault of the colonists and didn't even care about them.</span>
