I NEED HELP NOW PL Develop an argument that explains whether the system of checks and balances has hindered or benefited the national policy making process. In your essay, you must:

Articulate a defensible claim or thesis that responds to the prompt and establishes a line of reasoning
Support your claim or thesis with at least TWO pieces of accurate and relevant information:
At least ONE piece of evidence must be from the U. S. Constitution (including amendments)
At least ONE piece of evidence must be from Federalist No. 51
Use reasoning to explain why your evidence supports your claim/thesis
Respond to an opposing or alternative perspective using refutation, concession, or rebuttal

The system of checks and balances is fairly straight forward. The seven Founding Fathers of the United States John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington framed out a system which divided the powers and responsibilities of the this young nation's government into three branches: the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch. These three branches would hold power over the others, which would prevent one branch from gaining too much power and causing total tyranny. As James Madison said in the federalist papers, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty is this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it control itself.”

One example of the checks and balances system in our government is the president, who is the head of the executive branch, is also the commander of the military forces. However, Congress controls the flow of funds in the military ( and has “control of the purse”) and has the ability to vote to declare war. The Legislative branch has the power to enact peace treaties. This is an example of the checks and balances system at work in our government today. You can see that all branches have a role in war, and they can use those powers to control the other branches.

The checks and balances system was well thought out, and to this day, 238 years later, still functions in our government. Although it has been tried and tested, especially by Franklin Rosevelt in 1937 when he attempted to push as many liberal supreme court justices as he could into the Supreme Court. Ending in a letter from Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes and the resignation of an older Justice, the balance was restored in the supreme court system and the checks and balances system, however tested, remained in place.

Sources -

Editors , History.coms. “Checks and Balances.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 17 Nov. 2017, www.history.com/topics/us-government/checks-and-balances.

Here is my new answer too

The answer is that it does both. It slows down the process because the branches of government are able to stop each other from creating new policies. But it also helps because it limits the ability of one branch of government to gain basalt power. ( this is because the constitution was written after the United States became separate from brittian which has a monarchial government). "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the

Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the

United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it,

with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who

shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to

reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall

agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the

other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by

two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law."  ---U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, clause 2. That is the perfect quote to use because it talks about the president has the ability to veto any bill that comes from congress, but then if congress votes and 2/3 want it to pass, they can push it through!

honeslty bro its the same thing

the best description of postwar writers might be progressive.

following the war, writers showed a tendency to work on artistic or social matters rather than political themes. while postwar literature may not have been the greatest period of english literature, the themes provided excellent critics a high number of novels. such examples include anthony burgess, anthony powell and frank kermode, all of which can be placed under the progressive view.