Separation of POWER; Myth or Reality.

This is probably the most well-known example of the second major principle guiding the Constitution, the system of checks and balances. Similar to the separation of powers, this principle stipulates that the different branches of government have to be in agreement on major decisions and that each branch has the power to limit the power of the other branch. The idea of separation of powers would be pretty much meaningless if it did not include this as well. These two principles were designed above all else to prevent tyranny, even at the expense of effective government, or what Hamilton would call "energetic government." 

This is controversial, because although preventing some (not all) abuses of government authority, it makes it difficult to use the government for more constructive purposes, leading to what is called "gridlock." This is a common topic in the present because of the noted Republican opposition to the Obama administration. In this case, Republicans control the House of Representatives while the Senate is nominally a Democratic majority, so even controlling one part of the Congress is enough to effectively stall any programs or policies favored by the current administration. However, this is complicated because in the Senate at the present the rules have effectively changed to now require a 2/3 majority to pass legislation through instead of a "simple" majority (n > 50%). This is as a result of what is called the "filibuster" and its notable because it is NOT in the Constitution.



In my opinion i do not believe that the principle of separation of power its real.When the different branches of government have to be in agreement on major decisions  there is always a problem.The idea of separation of power would never be equally implemented.
Most of the members of the different branches of government only seeks for their own welfare rather than for the welfare of society as a whole.It is meaningless that most of the former presidents include in their speeches things such as"my government will implement an equal policy  or social politic among its branches"... what? I believe this is a very controversial and common issue all over the world. The idea of separation of power do not only consists in words but facts.
 On the other hand ,  as the fragment of the reading says the this principle must be combine with the major principle of checks and balances .However,ow  to prevent tyranny if the basic principle of separation of power its not real or its not combined ? when it comes to big decisions regarding the welfare of the country there is always one branch that disagrees, why ? ..supposedly all branches have its own roles and one mission the well being of the nation,however, one branch has the power to limit the power of the other branch. For me these principles are so hard to understand specially when I have never seen it implemented. So are these principles myth or reality.



I choose this fragment of the reading because,when  I  think in the principle or idea of the separation of powers, I end up questioning my self if this principle only its part of the constitution or in fact its real..In my point of view its so hard to understand why all the government's branches never agree when big decisions comes up in the table , but i guess that is Power.