How do we know our government is working as consistently and productively as possible? Has political trias manifested itself further in other countries and how have they incorporated it into a system of checks and balances? What happens when we discover a serious gap in our organized system and how do we fix it? We will explore these topics by comparing our separation of powers to our predecessor, modern Britain. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayThe first three articles of the United States Constitution describe the powers of the federal government to be divided into three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch has a separate function, is independent and cannot prevail or take over the functions of another branch. However, the branches are complementary. They cooperate with each other to support and prevent each other from trying to take on or gain too much power. This relationship is described as checks and balances. The framers of the Constitution sought to protect the nation from tyranny with this flexible and elaborate form of safeguard that causes each branch to contain and modify the power of another (Collins). The system of checks and balances in America is not only there to oppress and prevent other branches from gaining too much exclusive power, it also empowers them. To put it simply, the legislature makes the laws, the executive is expected to enforce them, and the judiciary is responsible for implementing these laws. Where did this idea of ​​an organized and integrated system originate? There was talk of a mixed or bipartite system as early as ancient Greece, but not until the French political philosopher Charles-Louis Montesquieu (commonly called simply Montesquieu), who anonymously published his 1748 work, “The Spirit of the Laws,” adequately describes the separation of political power into judicial, executive and legislative to protect political freedom. Montesquieu specified that “the independence of the judiciary must be real and not merely apparent”. “The judiciary was generally seen as the most important, independent and uncontrolled power,” and it was also considered dangerous (Montesquieu). This brings into play “judicial review,” the most powerful power, although it is never mentioned in the Constitution itself. Judicial review is the power to oversee the executive and legislative branches when they gain too much authority, overturn these acts, and interpret the meaning of the Constitution. This procedure was established by Marbury v. Madison (1803), a landmark case that helped define the boundaries of the constitutionally separate judicial and executive branches. This doctrine has had a drastic impact on our system of checks and balances and provides a solid foundation to ensure that the system is consistent. The structure in Britain is similar in concept but different to ours in the distribution of these powers. Parliament is responsible for its legislature, executive power is distributed between the prime minister, cabinet, government departments and civil services, and judicial power is held by the courts. However, Britain uses a “merger of powers” ​​while when it comes to the national legislature, parliamentary systems sometimes share or “merge” their powers with the executive ones. For example, in the United Kingdom the executive is part of the legislature. The prime minister is the chief executive and sits as a member of the legislature. It also influenced the courts until 2009, when the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was established in Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) to,.