The idea behind checks and balances under separation of powers is the restraint of mutual jealousy - each of the three branches will be so zealous of its prerogatives, and so wary of overreaching by the other branches, as to want to keep the other two in line. This has proven spectacularly ineffective in practice and in retrospect it’s not hard to see why. Recently government has approved Fast Track procedure through with constitutionally-mandated powers can be transferred to of Congress to the Executive Branch. (Web,1)
Checks and Balances scheme can conflict with a Separation of Powers system. By allowing the other branches to have undue influence on the actions of the first group, they will expand their own power. Also, when a sharing of responsibilities occurs, the groups have incentives to work with each other to gain power, instead of against each other to limit power. The Presidential veto in the US is an example. The President has such significant power over the Legislature that he is able to demand certain provisions in the bills they pass or he will veto. The result is that the President works closely with the Legislative to increase Federal Power, and the alleged "check" on the Legislature did nothing to prevent an increase of power. Politicians are fearing that if full power is given to the President, then it will cause too much problem and decision will be on-sided. (Web, 2).
The problem is that the same incentives toward vigorous checking and balancing don’t apply to (initially) limited government. Under limited government there is some territory of our lives (social, political, economic, esthetic) under the sway of one or more branches of government, and a theoretically larger region that is unclaimed territory. There we have liberty. The problem is, if one branch.....
