No Checks & Balances: Which US branch becomes tyrannical first?

Which Branch of Government would become tyrannical first?

  • Executive

    Votes: 31 79.5%
  • Legislative

    Votes: 3 7.7%
  • Judicial

    Votes: 5 12.8%

  • Total voters
    39
Say the US Framers establish the seperation powers between the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches as per OTL, BUT they just flub on the checks and balances part. (doesn't matter how or why)

Which branch based on their powers vested by the Constitution do you think would become tyrannical first?
 

jahenders

Banned
THe executive, as always. Because the executive branch as the army and the police.

I'd agree that the executive would be the most likely, but I think mainly because the power there is largely consolidated in one person and, thus, it doesn't take a 'cabal' to move in that direction. Certainly, having the army helps i you really want to go tyrannical.

That being said, since some of these things are thinly defined in the constitution (and would be even less defined if not working on checks and balanced), it's possible that any of them could go that way.

For instance:
- The judicial branch might decide that they have the 'final say' on ALL laws, set themselves up as a veto body (sort of a 3rd house of Congress), and then effectively dictate what the laws have to say to get past them.
- The legislature might realize that they have the power to effectively 'buy votes' by their control of expenditures and, thereby, effectively guarantee that they'll be in power for life. Ok, so they've already done that one, but it took them a while to get so blatant at it.
 
For instance:
- The judicial branch might decide that they have the 'final say' on ALL laws, set themselves up as a veto body (sort of a 3rd house of Congress), and then effectively dictate what the laws have to say to get past them.
- The legislature might realize that they have the power to effectively 'buy votes' by their control of expenditures and, thereby, effectively guarantee that they'll be in power for life. Ok, so they've already done that one, but it took them a while to get so blatant at it.

However, the executive could quickly break down on these forms of tyranny with the help of the army and the state militias. But if the executive leave the constitutional context, nobody is going to stop it (except a popular revolt).
 
Another problem with Judicial branch tyranny, they'd don't have a way to Check by themselves they rely on the other branches to carry out their decisions.
Like with Jackson completely ignored their Indian Removal decision.

Did the Founders never consider a Supreme Court decision would just be ignored?
 
Last edited:
Congress was significantly more important than the Presidency in the early days, so they'd have more power to abuse. By contrast, the President would probably have to be somebody as worshiped as Washington in order to convince state militias to overthrow the government. Congress could actually put together a standing army and then go to town on everybody else.
 

ben0628

Banned
When it comes to the US government, I'd say legislative branch. although we got rid of the articles of confederation, state governments were still powerful. Only people in the federal government who can wield the power of the states is the legislative branch (people who represents the states and local populations)

The executive branch isn't that powerful early on. Not only that but Washington isn't the kind of President to abuse his power so we'd still have 8 years of an uncorrupted executive branch. Also if a president early tried to abuse his power, the anti federalist's would have gone ape shit.

As for the judicial branch.... please. They only have power if the other two branches are willing to respect it (thank God they do).
 
Top