The power of the president to assent to bills is derived from the principle of
checks and balances
Fundamental freedom
political equality
Rule of law
Separation of power
Explanation
Video Explanation
No video available
Post your Contribution
Discussions (8)
It can't be separation of power, without the President's asset under normal circumstances the bill can't become a law, this is the executive checking the legislature to make sure that the legislature doesn't abuse its law making powers so it is checks and balances
Im so sorry to say this thestar you are speaking out of point,the principle of checks and balances as you have said is just to check the excess use of powers by among the various arms of Government but not anything related to give eaach a constitutional autonomy to exercise powers remember seperation of power states that powers or political functions of the arms of Government must be clearly defind that means each arms of Government including the executives ......so now you see where your mistakes are,Im glad you had idea but i think the functions of both are confusing you so My scool you are correct
i don't really consent to this answer given by myschool.. why?
the princinple of check and balances distingushes the rights and limitations of various arms of the government,thus given each a constitutional autonomy to exercise power.. now when we talk about assentation of a bills by the executive arm,of the government,which the president is however a good example.. Now, after the first,second,committee and third stages delibereation concerning the passage of bill into law, in the assembly where the legisture are constitutional provided,the final endorsement is made by the execution.. why? because due processes of a state running federalism ought to be followed and to avoid any ill-consideration or steps, checks and balance must be strictly adhered... So i think the answer to the above question should be "check and balances", because it simply corrects the example coming as a queation...
i don't really consent to this answer given by myschool.. why?
the princinple of check and balances distingushes the rights and limitations of various arms of the government,thus giving each a constitutional autonomy to exercise power.. now when we talk about assentation of bills by the executive arm of the government,which the president is however a good example.. Now, after the first,second,committee and third stages delibereation concerning the passage of bill into law, in the assembly where the legistures are constitutionally provided,the final endorsement is made by the executive.. why? because, due processes of a state running federalism ought to be followed and to avoid any ill-considerations or steps, checks and balance must be strictly adhered... So i think the answer to the above question should be "check and balances", because it simply corrects the example coming as a queation...
