Leslie Zepeda05/14/2014Political Science 101CorruptionThe principle of separation of powers, where the executive, legislative and judicial functions of government are separated into independent bodies, is the key element of governance in democratic nations. Separation of powers requires multiple individuals to initiate, propose, or direct the program, and it is also designed to protect the government from political tyranny. However, even though the separation of powers is a key element in democratic nations, it does not prevent the abuse of power. The constitutional design that prevents the misuse of power identifiers is known as checks and balances. Checks and balances allow different actors to escape or capture the actions of other actors. This is often done through the practice of judicial review, vetoing, or regulatory oversight which strives to ensure that all political power is used accordingly. Although the constitutional view of government has been practiced for centuries, the abuse of political power remains a problem in many countries, particularly in developed democracies. Corruption occurs in a variety of ways, from passing laws to benefit small groups of supporters or voters to more direct corruption such as receiving payments for political favors. Many people residing in democratic countries believe that the separation of powers, combined with checks and balances, ensures that the government remains fair and incompetent. However, this belief is very difficult to prove due to the problem of defining an operational measure of checks and balances for a transnational meeting and the absence of counterfactuals in the separation of powers. In this article I will show recent work in political agency with data on corru...... middle of paper ...... means the Court cannot issue advisory opinions on the legislation. Additionally, a party bringing an action must have standing (a direct stake in the outcome) to challenge a law. The most important rule of judicial deference is that laws are presumed valid, meaning that judges assume that lawmakers did not intend to violate a law. the Constitution. It follows that the burden of proof lies with the party raising the question of unconstitutionality. Furthermore, if a court can interpret a contested law in a way that allows it to remain intact without altering the meaning of the words or if a court can decide a case based on non-constitutional grounds, these solutions should be preferred. Finally, a court will not judge the motives or wisdom of legislators, nor will it declare a law invalid simply because it is found to be reckless or undemocratic..