Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
The checks and balances system isn't just a list of powers to memorize—it's the Framers' answer to a fundamental problem: how do you create a government strong enough to govern effectively but constrained enough to protect liberty? When you encounter questions about this system on the AP exam, you're being tested on your understanding of separation of powers, limited government, and the tension between efficiency and accountability. The Framers, deeply influenced by Montesquieu's ideas in The Spirit of the Laws, deliberately designed a system where ambition would counteract ambition (Federalist No. 51).
Every check you study demonstrates a specific constitutional principle in action. Some checks prevent tyranny by requiring cooperation between branches; others create friction that slows government action but protects minority rights. Don't just memorize which branch can do what—understand why that check exists and what principle it illustrates. That's what FRQs and concept-application questions are really asking.
Congress holds the most extensive array of checking powers, reflecting the Framers' belief that the legislature, as the most representative branch, should have primary authority over lawmaking and spending. These powers ensure the President cannot act as an unchecked executive.
Compare: Veto override vs. impeachment—both require supermajorities, but veto override targets legislation while impeachment targets officials. If an FRQ asks about checks on presidential abuse of power, impeachment is your answer; if it asks about checks on presidential influence over policy, discuss the veto override.
The President's checking powers are fewer but strategically significant, allowing the executive to shape policy outcomes without directly making law. These powers reflect the Framers' desire for energy and decisiveness in the executive branch.
Compare: Veto vs. executive order—the veto is a reactive check (responding to Congress), while executive orders are proactive (initiating policy). Both can be checked: Congress can override vetoes or pass laws negating executive orders.
The judiciary's checking power, though limited in scope, is profound in impact. Judicial review allows courts to be the final arbiter of constitutional meaning, checking both elected branches against the Constitution itself.
Compare: Judicial review of legislation vs. executive actions—both stem from Marbury, but reviewing executive actions (like executive orders) raises different separation-of-powers concerns. Courts generally give more deference to the President in foreign affairs than in domestic policy.
The judiciary, while powerful, is not immune from checks. The Framers ensured that unelected judges would remain accountable to the democratic process through appointment, confirmation, and the amendment power.
Compare: Senate confirmation vs. impeachment—confirmation is preventive (blocking unsuitable nominees before they serve), while impeachment is corrective (removing judges for misconduct). Both reflect the principle that judicial independence doesn't mean judicial unaccountability.
Some constitutional functions require cooperation between branches, creating checks through the necessity of joint action. These shared powers prevent any single branch from dominating critical government functions.
Compare: Treaty ratification vs. executive agreements—both involve international commitments, but treaties require Senate approval while executive agreements don't. This distinction illustrates how informal powers can circumvent formal checks, a key theme in Unit 2.
The pardon power stands as a notable exception to the checks and balances system, representing one area where presidential authority is nearly absolute.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Legislative checks on executive | Veto override, impeachment, power of the purse, war declaration |
| Executive checks on legislature | Presidential veto, executive orders |
| Judicial checks on both branches | Judicial review (Marbury v. Madison), constitutional interpretation |
| Checks on the judiciary | Senate confirmation, impeachment of judges, constitutional amendments |
| Shared powers requiring cooperation | Treaty ratification, appointments, military authority |
| Unchecked executive power | Presidential pardon |
| Supermajority requirements | Veto override (2/3), impeachment conviction (2/3), treaty ratification (2/3), amendments (2/3 + 3/4) |
| Informal/evolved powers | Executive orders, judicial review, executive agreements |
Comparative Analysis: Both veto overrides and impeachment convictions require a two-thirds Senate vote. Why did the Framers set such a high threshold for these particular checks, and how does this reflect their concerns about faction and tyranny?
Concept Identification: Which checks on presidential power are preventive (stopping action before it occurs) versus corrective (responding to action already taken)? Give two examples of each.
Compare and Contrast: How do judicial review and constitutional amendments represent opposite approaches to checking government power? Which is more democratic, and why might the Framers have wanted both mechanisms?
FRQ Practice: Explain how the system of checks and balances reflects the principle of limited government. Use ONE specific check from each of the three branches in your response.
Application: The President issues an executive order that many in Congress oppose. Identify THREE different ways this executive action could be checked, and explain which branch exercises each check.