The three branches of the federal government have experienced many shifts in power since the writing of the Constitution. Despite the original intentions of the founders, certain branches have found ways to stretch their powers beyond the boundaries laid out in the Constitution. When a branch takes advantage of an opportunity to seize more power, another branch consequently loses power. This back and forth shift of power hinders the ability of the branches to be effective. In order to judge whether or not a branch of government is effective, the definition of the word effective must be clarified. For the sake of this argument, effectiveness will be defined as a branch's ability to carry out its Constitutional duties without overstepping its power. When holding the branches to this standard, a clear frontrunner emerges: The Judicial branch. The Constitution intended for the system of checks and balances to be upheld in the many generations following its creation. In today's political world, the goal has seemingly transformed into taking power from other branches of government in order to accomplish as much as possible despite Constitutional boundaries. Fulfilling this goal of absorbing power from other branches does not necessarily yield productivity however. While a temporary sense of accomplishment may be achieved, the means by which the branch fulfilled their goal may often be found questionable. The Judicial branch has successfully remained with in its Constitutional boundaries in comparison to other branches of government by not seeking to take power from the legislative or executive branches and by preserving its judicial independence. .
Political power in America operates through the transfer of power. For the purpose of providing an example, this power will be quantified. The founding fathers intended for each branch of government to have an equal share of power, with no branch having the ability to overpower another.
