The application of the principle of separation of powers seems impracticable because powers is
delegated
centralized
fused
separated
Explanation
Video Explanation
No video available
Post your Contribution
Discussions (21)
Powers is delegated dier by making saparation useless.wen one arm is performing other arms duties.eg.The President who perform judicial duty by perogative of mercy.
The question Ȋ̝̊̅§ not complete, D̶̲̥̅̊ε̲̣̣̣̥γ̲̣ suppose 2 state D̶̲̥̅̊ system of government where it Ȋ̝̊̅§ impracticable
Delegated is d answer. Which means one organ of government performing another organ's function which make separation impossible for example a president which belong to d executive arm grant pardon to a prisoner thereby performing d judiciary function nd local govt also make bye law which is d function of d legislature
in the first place the question is wrong.It is not indicated which type of government it seemms impracticable.If it is in parliamentary the answer is fused.One may be tempted to choose delegated.However,what they are expected is fused.
Delegated power can be withdrew at any time,xo D̶̲̥̅̊ ans ℓ̊ƨ̣̣̣̇̇̇̇ B an C cos centralization also means Fusion of power
It is delegated becose things did nt be how it suppose to be among the organ of government it is not the duty of the executive to perform the duty of judiciary but the executive will prove wrong attutide by false by performing other organ duty this is y it is delegation that it
for me, the application of the principle of separation of power seems impracticable because power is centralized. Reasons: where power is vested on one political head it is said to be a centralized form of government in government terms. fuse in a way is correct but where there is centralized, I'll go for 'B'. Thanks
d kwestion is light dey are asking for Where d principle of separation of power is impracticable nd dat is in Parliament system of government Where power is fused......
To me fused is d correct ans. We mustn't get confused over issuses like this. Since we r taalking abt the seperation of powers and we assume it is impracticable it is because the power is fused. Fused is to join together. Fusion is a kind of joining of different things into one. Therefore, whn power is fused, there is no seperation of powers
To me fused is d correct ans. We mustn't get confused over issuses like this. Since we r taalking abt the seperation of powers and we assume it is impracticable it is because the power is fused. Fused is to join together. Fusion is a kind of joining of different things into one. Therefore, whn power is fused, there is no seperation of powers - PARAGON DAVID
the question could have go like this "The application of the principle
of separation of powers seems
impracticable if powers is __ . Before the options.
c is the correct an bcos centralized power can be delegated 2 oda bodies. thanks
The correct answer is C which is fused......because in the parliamentary system of govt. There is fussion rather than separation of power (i.e the minister do belong to legislature arm of govt.) and this make separation of power and checks and balances imposible. So, i think the answer to the question is correct. Thanks
