document_title: Separation of powers

question_text: who created the idea of three branches of government

question_tokens: who created the idea of three branches of government

text: Separation of powers

text: History[edit]

text:
Part of the Politics series on

Republicanism

Central concepts[show]

Anti-monarchism
Popular sovereignty
Republic
Res publica
Social contract

Schools[show]

Classical republicanism
Neo-republicanism

Important thinkers[show]

Hannah Arendt
Cicero
James Harrington
Thomas Jefferson
John Locke
James Madison
Montesquieu
Philip Pettit
Polybius
Jean Jacques Rousseau
Michael Sandel
Algernon Sidney
Quentin Skinner
Cass Sunstein
Mary Wollstonecraft

History[show]

Roman Republic
Gaṇa sangha
Classical Athens
Republic of Venice
Republic of Genoa
Republic of Florence
Dutch Republic
American Revolution
French Revolution
Spanish American wars of independence
Trienio Liberal
French Revolution of 1848
5 October 1910 revolution
Xinhai Revolution
Russian Revolution
German Revolution of 1918–19
Turkish War of Independence
Mongolian Revolution of 1921
11 September 1922 Revolution
Spanish Civil War
Birth of the Italian Republic
Egyptian Revolution of 1952
14 July Revolution
North Yemen Civil War
Zanzibar Revolution
1969 Libyan coup d'état
Cambodian coup of 1970
Third Hellenic Republic
Iranian Revolution
1987 Fijian coups d'état
Nepalese Civil War

By country[show]

Australia
Barbados
Canada
Ireland
Jamaica
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Spain
Sweden
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Related topics[show]

Communitarianism
Liberalism
Monarchism

Politics portal

v
t
e

text: Antiquity[edit]

text: Aristotle first mentioned the idea of a "mixed government" or hybrid government in his work Politics where he drew upon many of the constitutional forms in the city-states of Ancient Greece. In the Roman Republic, the Roman Senate, Consuls and the Assemblies showed an example of a mixed government according to Polybius (Histories, Book 6, 11–13).

text: Early modern biparty systems[edit]

text: John Calvin (1509–1564) favoured a system of government that divided political power between democracy and aristocracy (mixed government). Calvin appreciated the advantages of democracy, stating: "It is an invaluable gift if God allows a people to elect its own government and magistrates."[1] In order to reduce the danger of misuse of political power, Calvin suggested setting up several political institutions which should complement and control each other in a system of checks and balances.[2]

text: In this way, Calvin and his followers resisted political absolutism and furthered the growth of democracy. Calvin aimed to protect the rights and the well-being of ordinary people.[3][need quotation to verify] In 1620, a group of English separatist Congregationalists and Anglicans (later known as the Pilgrim Fathers) founded Plymouth Colony in North America. Enjoying self-rule, they established a bipartite democratic system of government. The "freemen" elected the General Court, which functioned as legislature and judiciary and which in turn elected a governor, who together with his seven "assistants" served in the functional role of providing executive power.[4] Massachusetts Bay Colony (founded 1628), Rhode Island (1636), Connecticut (1636), New Jersey, and Pennsylvania had similar constitutions – they all separated political powers. (Except for Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony, these English outposts added religious freedom to their democratic systems, an important step towards the development of human rights.[5][6]) Books like William Bradford's History of Plymoth Plantation (written between 1630 and 1651) were widely read in England.[citation needed] So the form of government in the colonies was well known in the mother country, including to the philosopher John Locke (1632–1704). He deduced from a study of the English constitutional system the advantages of dividing political power into the legislative (which should be distributed among several bodies, for example, the House of Lords and the House of Commons), on the one hand, and the executive and federative power, responsible for the protection of the country and prerogative of the monarch, on the other hand. (The Kingdom of England had no written constitution.)[7][need quotation to verify]

text: Montesquieu's separation of powers system[edit]

text: The term "tripartite system" is commonly ascribed to French Enlightenment political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu, although he did not use such a term. In reality he referred to "distribution" of powers. In The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Montesquieu described the various forms of distribution of political power among a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. Montesquieu's approach was to present and defend a form of government which was not excessively centralized in all its powers to a single monarch or similar ruler, form of government known then as "aristocracy". He based this model on the Constitution of the Roman Republic and the British constitutional system. Montesquieu took the view that the Roman Republic had powers separated so that no one could usurp complete power.[8][9][10] In the British constitutional system, Montesquieu discerned a separation of powers among the monarch, Parliament, and the courts of law.

text: In every government there are three sorts of power: the legislative; the executive in respect to things dependent on the law of nations; and the executive in regard to matters that depend on the civil law.

text: By virtue of the first, the prince or magistrate enacts temporary or perpetual laws, and amends or abrogates those that have been already enacted. By the second, he makes peace or war, sends or receives embassies, establishes the public security, and provides against invasions. By the third, he punishes criminals, or determines the disputes that arise between individuals. The latter we shall call the judiciary power, and the other, simply, the executive power of the state.

text: Montesquieu argues that each Power should only exercise its own functions, it was quite explicit here:

text: When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

text: Again, there is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.

text: There would be an end of every thing, were the same man, or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.

text: Separation of powers requires a different source of legitimization, or a different act of legitimization from the same source, for each of the separate powers. If the legislative branch appoints the executive and judicial powers, as Montesquieu indicated, there will be no separation or division of its powers, since the power to appoint carries with it the power to revoke.

text: The executive power ought to be in the hands of a monarch, because this branch of government, having need of dispatch, is better administered by one than by many: on the other hand, whatever depends on the legislative power, is oftentimes better regulated by many than by a single person.

text: But, if there were no monarch, and the executive power should be committed to a certain number of persons, selected from the legislative body, there would be an end of liberty, by reason the two powers would be united; as the same persons would sometimes possess, and would be always able to possess, a share in both.

text: Montesquieu did actually specify that the independence of the judiciary has to be real, and not merely apparent.[13] The judiciary was generally seen as the most important of the three powers, independent and unchecked,[14] while also likely to claim to be the least dangerous one.[13]

text: Checks and balances[edit]

text: The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (May 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Checks and balances is the principle that each of the Branches has the power to limit or check the other two and this creates a balance between the three separate powers of the state, this principle induces that the ambitions of one branch prevent that one of the other branches become supreme, and thus be eternally confronting each other and in that process leaving the people free from government abuses. Checks and Balances are designed to maintain the system of separation of powers keeping each branch in its place. This is based on the idea that it is not enough to separate the powers and guarantee their independence but to give the various branches the constitutional means to defend their own legitimate powers from the encroachments of the other branches.[15] They guarantee that the powers of the State have the same weight (co-equal), that is, to be balanced, so that they can limit each other, avoiding the abuse of state power. the origin of checks and balances, like separation of powers itself, is specifically credited to Montesquieu in the Enlightenment (in The Spirit of the Laws, 1748), under this influence was implemented in 1787 in the Constitution of the United States.

text: The following example of the separation of powers and their mutual checks and balances for the experience of the United States Constitution is presented as illustrative of the general principles applied in similar forms of government as well.

text: «But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.»

text: «A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.»

text:
Legislative (Congress)
Executive (President)
Judicial (Supreme Court)

Passes bills; has broad taxing and spending power; regulates inter-state commerce; controls the federal budget; has power to borrow money on the credit of the United States (may be vetoed by President, but vetoes may be overridden with a two-thirds vote of both houses)
Has sole power to declare war, as well as to raise, support, and regulate the military.
Oversees, investigates, and makes the rules for the government and its officers.
Defines by law the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary in cases not specified by the Constitution.
Ratification of treaties signed by the President and gives advice and consent to presidential appointments to the federal judiciary, federal executive departments, and other posts (Senate only).[17]
Has sole power of impeachment (House of Representatives) and trial of impeachments (Senate); can remove federal executive and judicial officers from office for high crimes and misdemeanors

Is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces
Executes the instructions of Congress.
May veto bills passed by Congress (but the veto may be overridden by a two-thirds majority of both houses)
Executes the spending authorized by Congress.
Declares states of emergency and publishes regulations and executive orders.
Makes executive agreements (does not require ratification) and signs treaties (ratification requiring approval by two-thirds of the Senate)
Makes appointments to the federal judiciary, federal executive departments, and other posts with the advice and consent of the Senate. Has power to make temporary appointment during the recess of the Senate
Has the power to grant "reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Determines which laws Congress intended to apply to any given case
Exercises judicial review, reviewing the constitutionality of laws
Determines how Congress meant the law to apply to disputes
Determines how a law acts to determine the disposition of prisoners
Determines how a law acts to compel testimony and the production of evidence
Determines how laws should be interpreted to assure uniform policies in a top-down fashion via the appeals process, but gives discretion in individual cases to low-level judges. The amount of discretion depends upon the standard of review, determined by the type of case in question.

text: Comparison between tripartite and bipartite national systems[edit]

text: Constitutions with a high degree of separation of powers are found worldwide. The UK system is distinguished by a particular entwining of powers.[18] A number of Latin American countries have electoral branches of government.

text: Countries with little separation of power include New Zealand and Canada. Canada makes limited use of separation of powers in practice, although in theory it distinguishes between branches of government.

text: New Zealand's constitution is based on the principle of separation of powers through a series of constitutional safeguards, many of which are tacit. The Executive's ability to carry out decisions often depends on the Legislature, which is elected under the mixed member proportional system. This means the government is rarely a single party but a coalition of parties. The Judiciary is also free of government interference. If a series of judicial decisions result in an interpretation of the law which the Executive considers does not reflect the intention of the policy, the Executive can initiate changes to the legislation in question through the Legislature. The Executive cannot direct or request a judicial officer to revise or reconsider a decision; decisions are final. Should there be a dispute between the Executive and Judiciary, the Executive has no authority to direct the Judiciary, or its individual members and vice versa.

text: Complete separation of powers systems are almost always presidential, although theoretically this need not be the case. There are a few historical exceptions, such as the Directoire system of revolutionary France. Switzerland offers an example of non-Presidential separation of powers today: It is run by a seven-member executive branch, the Federal Council. However, some might argue[weasel words] that Switzerland does not have a strong separation of powers system, as the Federal Council is appointed by parliament (but not dependent on parliament) and although the judiciary has no power of review, the judiciary is still separate from the other branches.

text: Typical branches[edit]

text:
executive
legislative
judicial

tag: ul

text: Additional branches[edit]

text:
auditory
electoral – in which election commissions, tribunals or courts are maintained separately from other branches
prosecutory
civil service commission

text: Three branches[edit]

text: Australia[edit]

text: Australia does not maintain a strict separation between the legislative and executive branches of government—indeed, government ministers are required to be members of parliament—but the federal judiciary strictly guards its independence from the other two branches. However, under influence from the American constitution, the Australian constitution does define the three branches of government separately, and this has been interpreted by the judiciary to induce an implicit separation of powers.[19] State governments have a similar level of separation of power, but this is generally on the basis of convention, rather than constitution.

text: Austria[edit]

text: The Constitution of Austria was originally written by Hans Kelsen, the prominent constitutional scholar in Europe at that time. Kelsen was to serve as a part of the judicial court of review for Austria as part of its tripartite government.

text: Czech Republic[edit]

text: The Constitution of the Czech Republic, adopted in 1992 immediately before the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, establishes the traditional tripartite division of powers[20] and continues the tradition of its predecessor constitutions. The Czechoslovak Constitution of 1920, which replaced the provisional constitution adopted by the newly independent state in 1918, was modeled after the constitutions of established democracies such as those of the United Kingdom, United States and France, and maintained this division,[21] as have subsequent changes to the constitution that followed in 1948 with the Ninth-of-May Constitution, the 1960 Constitution of Czechoslovakia as well as the Constitutional Act on the Czechoslovak Federation of 1968.

text: Denmark[edit]

text:
Parliament – legislature
Prime Minister, Cabinet, Government Departments and Civil Service – executive
High Courts and lower courts – judiciary

text: France[edit]

text: According to the Constitution of the Fifth Republic, the government of France[22] is divided up into three branches:

text:
Executive. This includes the popularly elected president as well as the prime minister and cabinet. The French Prime minister is nominated by the president, but the government is responsible to the lower house of the legislature, the National Assembly.
Legislature. A bicameral legislature that includes the Senate (upper house) and the National Assembly (lower house). The relationship between the two houses is asymmetric, meaning that in case of dispute, the National Assembly has the final word according to Article 45[23] of the Constitution.
Judiciary. This includes the judicial and administrative orders. It also includes a constitutional court.

text: Hong Kong[edit]

text: Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region established in 1997 pursuant to the Sino-British Joint Declaration, an international treaty made between Britain and China in 1984, registered with the United Nations. Currently, Hong Kong has three branches of government as codified in the Basic Law, its constitution, which largely preserved political structures of the British colonial era, under the doctrine of one country, two systems:

text:
Legislative Council – legislature
Government – executive
Judiciary (Court of Final Appeal and other courts and tribunals) – judiciary

text: The Chief Executive, elected by a 1200-member Election Committee which historically was dominated by pro-Beijing establishment members, is both head of the region and head of government, and chairs the Executive Council which is composed of "unofficial" members and government secretaries.

text: The legislature consists of 70 members, 35 of whom are elected by "functional" constituencies represented by members within various industries rather than the public at large.[24] Separation of power between executive and legislature is, therefore, questionable.[25]

text: The courts frequently exercise a power of judicial review of administrative actions and also decide matters of constitutionality of legislation, though this power is circumscribed under the power of the People's Republic of China's National People's Congress to make final determinations as to interpretation.[26] Hence, the separation of powers is again structurally weak.

text: It is worth noting that the branches' separation of power may not be intended within the Hong Kong Basic Law as leaders of the PRC have publicly called for the three branches to cooperate and be led by the Chief Executive.[27]

text: Further, Deng Xiaoping was quoted to have categorically dismissed Hong Kong having a "Trias Politica" system.[28]

text: India[edit]

text: India follows constitutional democracy which offers a clear separation of powers. The judiciary branch is fairly independent of the other two branches with the power to interpret the constitution. Parliament has the legislative powers. Executive powers are vested with the President who is advised by the Union Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. The constitution of India vested the duty of protecting, preserving and defending the constitution with the President as common head of the executive, parliament, armed forces, etc. not only for the union government but also the various state governments in a federal structure. All three branches have "checks and balances" over each other to maintain the balance of power and not to exceed the constitutional limits.[29]

text:
President can set aside a law passed by the legislative or an advise given by the Union Council of Ministers when it is inconsistent with the constitution of India.
Even president accepts a law passed duly by the legislative, it can be repealed by the Supreme Court after a fair trial if it is against the Basic structure of the constitution. Any citizen of India can approach the Supreme Court directly to repeal the unconstitutional laws made by the legislative or executive.
President can be impeached after conducting a fair trial by the parliament for his unconstitutional orders/decisions.
President can be asked to step down by the judiciary for his unconstitutional orders/decisions on the grounds of losing eligibility criteria of the president.
Parliament can impeach judges of Supreme Court and High Courts of states for their incompetence and mala fides. Higher bench of judges can set aside the incorrect judgements of smaller bench of judges to uphold the constitution.

text: Iran[edit]

text:
Government – Executive
The legislature of Islamic Republic of Iran – Legislative
Judicial system – Judicial

text: Italy[edit]

text: In Italy the powers are separated, even though the Council of Ministers needs a vote of confidence from both chambers of Parliament, that represents a large number of members (almost 1,000).[30]

text: Like every parliamentary form of government, there is no real separation between Legislature and Executive, rather a continuum between them due to the confidence link. By the way, the balance is protected by Constitution also between these two branches.[31] and, obviously, between them and the judiciary branch, which is really independent.

text: Malaysia[edit]

text:
Parliament – legislature
Prime Minister, Cabinet, Government Departments and Civil Service – executive
Federal Courts and lower courts – judiciary

text: Nepal[edit]

text:
Legislative Parliament – Legislature
Prime Minister, Cabinet of Minister and Government Departments – Executive
Supreme Court – Judiciary

text: Norway[edit]

text:
Parliament – legislature
Prime Minister, Cabinet of Norway, Government Departments and Civil Service – executive
High Courts and lower courts – judiciary

text: A note on the status of separation of power, checks and balances, and balance of power in Norway today.[32]

text: In the original constitution of 1814 the Montesquieu concept was enshrined, and the people at the time had the same skepticism about political parties as the American founding fathers and the revolutionaries in France. Nor did people really want to get rid of the king and the Council of State (privy council). King and council was a known concept that people had lived with for a long time and was for the most part comfortable with. The 1814 constitution came about as a reaction to external events, most notable the Treaty of Kiel see 1814 in Norway. There was no revolution against the current powers that had been be the case in the US and France.

text: As there was no election of the executive, the king reigned supremely independent in selecting the members of the Council of State, no formal political parties formed util the 1880s. A conflict between the executive and legislature started developing in the 1870s and climaxed with the legislature impeaching the entire Council of State in 1884. (See Statsrådssaken (Norwegian Wikipedia page))

text: With this came a switch to a parliamentary system of government and while the full process takes decades, it has led to a system of parliamentary sovereignty where the Montesquieu idea of separation of powers is technically dead even though the three branches remain important institutions.

text: This does not mean that there are no checks and balances. With the introduction of a parliamentary system, political parties started to form quickly and this led to a call for electoral reform that saw the introduction of a Party-list proportional representation in 1918. The peculiarities of the Norwegian election system generate 6–8 parties and make it extremely difficult for a single party to gain an absolute majority. It has only occurred for a brief period in the aftermath of World War II where the Labour Party had an absolute majority.

text: A multi-party system parliament that must either form a minority executive or a coalition executive function as a perfectly good system of checks and balances even if it was never a stated goal for the introduction of multiparty system. The multiparty system came about in response to a public outcry of having too few parties and a general feeling of a lack of representation. For this reason you'll find very little on the topic of separation of powers or checks and balances in the works of Norwegian political sciences today.

text: Pakistan[edit]

text:
Parliament – Legislative
Prime Minister and his Cabinet – Executive
Supreme Court and lower courts – Judicial

text: United Kingdom[edit]

text:
Parliament – legislature
Prime Minister, Cabinet, Government Departments and Civil Service – executive
Courts – judiciary

text: The development of the British constitution, which is not a codified document, is based on this fusion in the person of the Monarch, who has a formal role to play in the legislature (Parliament, which is where legal and political sovereignty lies, is the Crown-in-Parliament, and is summoned and dissolved by the Sovereign who must give his or her Royal Assent to all Bills so that they become Acts), the executive (the Sovereign appoints all ministers of His/Her Majesty's Government, who govern in the name of the Crown) and the judiciary (the Sovereign, as the fount of justice, appoints all senior judges, and all public prosecutions are brought in his or her name).

text: Although the doctrine of separation of power plays a role in the United Kingdom's constitutional doctrine, the UK constitution is often described as having "a weak separation of powers" A. V. Dicey, despite its constitution being the one to which Montesquieu originally referred. For example, in the United Kingdom, the executive forms a subset of the legislature, as did—to a lesser extent—the judiciary until the establishment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister, the Chief Executive, sits as a member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, either as a peer in the House of Lords or as an elected member of the House of Commons (by convention, and as a result of the supremacy of the Lower House, the Prime Minister now sits in the House of Commons) and can effectively be removed from office by a simple majority vote. Furthermore, while the courts in the United Kingdom are amongst the most independent in the world,[citation needed] the Law Lords, who were the final arbiters of judicial disputes in the UK sat simultaneously in the House of Lords, the upper house of the legislature, although this arrangement ceased in 2009 when the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom came into existence. Furthermore, because of the existence of Parliamentary sovereignty, while the theory of separation of powers may be studied there, a system such as that of the UK is more accurately described as a "fusion of powers".[citation needed]

text: Until 2005, the Lord Chancellor fused the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, as he was the ex officio Speaker of the House of Lords, a Government Minister who sat in Cabinet and was head of the Lord Chancellor's Department which administered the courts, the justice system and appointed judges, and was the head of the Judiciary in England and Wales and sat as a judge on the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, the highest domestic court in the entire United Kingdom, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the senior tribunal court for parts of the Commonwealth. The Lord Chancellor also had certain other judicial positions, including being a judge in the Court of Appeal and President of the Chancery Division. The Lord Chancellor combines other aspects of the constitution, including having certain ecclesiastical functions of the established state church, making certain church appointments, nominations and sitting as one of the thirty-three Church Commissioners. These functions remain intact and unaffected by the Constitutional Reform Act. In 2005, the Constitutional Reform Act separated the powers with Legislative functions going to an elected Lord Speaker and the Judicial functions going to the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chancellor's Department was replaced with a Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chancellor currently serves in the position of Secretary of State for Justice.

text: The judiciary has no power to strike down primary legislation, and can only rule on secondary legislation that it is invalid with regard to the primary legislation if necessary.

text: Under the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament can enact any primary legislation it chooses. However, the concept immediately becomes problematic when the question is asked; "If parliament can do anything, can it bind its successors?". It is generally held that parliament can do no such thing.

text: Equally, while statute takes precedence over precedent-derived common law and the judiciary has no power to strike down primary legislation, there are certain cases where the supreme judicature has effected an injunction against the application of an act or reliance on its authority by the civil service. The seminal example of this is the Factortame case, where the House of Lords granted such an injunction preventing the operation of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 until litigation in the European Court of Justice had been resolved.

text: The House of Lords ruling in Factortame (No. 1), approving the European Court of Justice formulation that "a national court which, in a case before it concerning Community law, considers that the sole obstacle which precludes it from granting interim relief is a rule of national law, must disapply that rule", has created an implicit tiering of legislative reviewability; the only way for parliament to prevent the supreme judicature from injunctively striking out a law on the basis of incompatibility with Community law is to pass an act specifically removing that power from the court, or by repealing the European Communities Act 1972.

text: The British legal systems are based on common law traditions, which require:

text:
Police or regulators cannot initiate complaints under criminal law but can only investigate (prosecution is mostly reserved for the Crown Prosecution Service), which prevents selective enforcement—e.g., the "fishing expedition" which is often specifically forbidden.
Prosecutors cannot withhold evidence from counsel for the defendant; to do so results in mistrial or dismissal. Accordingly, their relation to police is no advantage.
Defendants convicted can appeal, but only fresh and compelling evidence not available at trial can be introduced, restricting the power of the court of appeal to the process of law applied.

text: United States[edit]

text: The expression of the separation of powers was incorporated in the United States Constitution, the founding fathers included features of many new concepts, including hard-learned historical lessons about the checks and balances of power and the then-new concept of separation of powers. Similar concepts were also prominent in the state governments of the United States. As colonies of Great Britain, the founding fathers considered that the American states had suffered an abuse of the broad power of parliamentarism and monarchy. As a remedy, the US Constitution limits the powers of the federal government through various means, in particular, the three branches of the federal government are divided by exercising different functions, and are separated in origin by separate elections, each branch controls the actions of others and balances its powers in some way.

text: In the United States Constitution, Article 1 Section I gives Congress only those "legislative powers herein granted" and proceeds to list those permissible actions in Article I Section 8, while Section 9 lists actions that are prohibited for Congress. The vesting clause in Article II places no limits on the Executive branch, simply stating that, "The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."[33] The Supreme Court holds "The judicial Power" according to Article III, and it established the implication of Judicial review in Marbury v. Madison under the Marshall court.[34]

text: The presidential system adopted by the Constitution of the United States obeys the balance of powers sought, and not found, by the constitutional monarchy. The people appoint their representatives to meet periodically in a legislative body, and, since they do not have a king, the people themselves elect a preeminent citizen to perform, also periodically, the executive functions of the State. The direct election of the head of state or of the executive power is an inevitable consequence of the political freedom of the people, understood as the capacity to appoint and depose their leaders. Only this separate election of the person who has to fulfill the functions that the Constitution attributes to the president of the government, so different by its nature, and by its function, from the election of representatives of the electors, allows the executive power to be controlled by the legislative and submitted to the demands of political responsibility.[35]

text: Judicial independence is maintained by appointments for life that makes disappear very soon any sense of dependence on the Executive, with voluntary retirement and a high threshold of dismissal by the Legislature, in addition to a salary that can not be diminished during their service.

text: The federal government refers to the branches as "branches of government", while some systems use "government" to describe the executive. The Executive branch has attempted[36] to claim power arguing for separation of powers to include being the Commander in Chief of a standing army since the American Civil War, executive orders, emergency powers and security classifications since World War II, national security, signing statements, and the scope of the unitary executive.

text: «In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.»

text: «It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal.»

text: Other systems[edit]

text: Republic of China[edit]

text: According to Sun Yat-sen's idea of "separation of the five powers", the government of the Republic of China has five branches:

text:
Executive Yuan – led by the premier but in actuality it is the president who sets policy – executive
Legislative Yuan – unicameral – legislature
Judicial Yuan – its Constitutional Court (highest) and Supreme Court have different jurisdictions – judiciary
Control Yuan – audit branch
Examination Yuan – civil service personnel management and human resources

text: The president and vice president as well as the defunct National Assembly are constitutionally not part of the above five branches. Before being abolished in 2005, the National Assembly was a standing constituent assembly and electoral college for the president and vice president. Its constitutional amending powers were passed to the legislative yuan and its electoral powers were passed to the electorate.

text: The relationship between the executive and legislative branches are poorly defined. An example of the problems this causes is the near complete political paralysis that results when the president, who has neither the power to veto nor the ability to dissolve the legislature and call new elections, cannot negotiate with the legislature when his party is in the minority.[37] The examination and control yuans are marginal branches; their leaders as well as the leaders of the executive and judicial yuans are appointed by the president and confirmed by the legislative yuan. The legislature is the only branch that chooses its own leadership. The vice president has practically no responsibilities.

text: Belgium[edit]

text: Belgium is currently a federated state that has imposed the trias politica on different governmental levels. The constitution of 1831, considered one of the most liberal of its time for limiting the powers of its monarch and imposing a rigorous system of separation of powers, is based on three principles (represented in the Schematic overview of Belgian institutions):

text: Trias Politica (horizontal separation of powers):

text:
The legislative power is attributed to an elected parliamentary body elected with a representative general election system (one person one vote).
The executive power is attributed to the Council of Ministers. Ministers are formally appointed by the King, though in practice the prime minister decides the composition of his cabinet. The ministers are usually from the elected members of parliament (non-elected people can also be nominated). However, they must first resign from their elected seat.
The judicial power is in the hands of the courts. Magistrates are nominated by the minister (on proposal from a Council of the Magistrates).

Magistrates can be nominated to become a judge (sitting magistrates) or instructing judge (investigating judge) of Procureur (public prosecutor) (the standing magistrates).
The executive branch of the government is responsible to provide the physical means to execute its role (infrastructure, staff, financial means).
Judges and some other people cannot run for elected office while they are nominated to certain positions (military, police-officers, clergy, notaries, bailiffs).

text: Subsidiarity (vertical separation of powers):

text:
Supranational directives (EU legislation) and international treaties are subjected to approval of the federal level (the federal level being Belgium the nation state)
The federal level is composed of the following:

A bicameral parliament (House of Representative and Senate) (in 2014 this will be a directly elected house and an indirectly appointed Senate of the regions)
A federal government (led by the Prime Minister and the ministers and secretaries of state)

Tasked with overseeing justice, defense, foreign affairs, and social security, public health

High Court, Constitutional Court, Cassation Court and Council of State

The regional level is composed of the following:

A monocameral parliament
A regional government led by the minister-president (ministers and secretaries of state) is tasked with regional matters.

Provinces also have similar structures:

A monocameral provincial council
A nominated provincial governor assisted by deputies is tasked with provincial matters.
Appellate Court, Assisses Court

An intermediate level of Arrondissements subdivides the provinces

it has only an executive level with an arrondissemental commissars

City and communal entities:

A city or communal council
A mayor, assisted by aldermen, is tasked with local matters.
Magistrates Court, Correctional Court (three judges).
Justice of the peace and Police Court judges (single judge courts)

text: Secularism (separation of state and religion):

text:
The king, the head of state, holds no political authority and requires executive approval by a minister for every action and statement; he nominates the ministers but he does not choose them (his executive powers); he signs and decrees the laws voted in parliament (his legislative powers);
The head of state is commander in chief of the military (in title only), politically the military depends of the Minister of Defense and the chiefs of staff are responsible towards parliament and take their orders from the Minister of Defense and the government;
Certain functions are deemed incompatible and people must resign from their function if they want to assume responsibilities in another function (military commanders have never been government ministers, even during a war)

text: Costa Rica[edit]

text: In the aftermath of the 43-day civil war in 1948 (after former President and incumbent candidate Rafael Álgel Calderón Guardia tried to take power through fraud, by not recognising the results of the presidential election that he had lost), the question of which transformational model the Costa Rican State would follow was the main issue that confronted the victors. A Constituent Assembly was elected by popular vote to draw up a new constitution, enacted in 1949, and remains in force. This document was an edit of the constitution of 1871, as the constituent assembly rejected more radical corporatist ideas proposed by the ruling Junta Fundadora de la Segunda República (which, although having come to power by military force, abolished the armed forces). Nonetheless, the new constitution increased centralization of power at the expense of municipalities and eliminated provincial government altogether, at the time it increased the powers of congress and the judiciary.

text: It established the three supreme powers as the legislature, executive, and judicial branches, but also created two other autonomous state organs that have equivalent power, but not equivalent rank. The first is the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones de Costa Rica (electoral branch) which controls elections and makes unique, unappealable decisions on their outcomes.

text: The second is the office of the Comptroller General (audit branch), an autonomous and independent organ nominally subordinate to the unicameral legislative assembly. All budgets of ministries and municipalities must pass through this agency, including the execution of budget items such as contracting for routine operations. The Comptroller also provides financial vigilance over government offices and office holders, and routinely brings actions to remove mayors for malfeasance, firmly establishing this organization as the fifth branch of the Republic.

text: European Union[edit]

text: The European Union is a supranational polity, and is neither a country nor a federation; but as the EU wields political power it complies with the principle of separation of powers. There are seven institutions of the European Union. In intergovernmental matters, most power is concentrated in the Council of the European Union—giving it the characteristics of a normal international organization. Here, all power at the EU level is in one branch. In the latter there are four main actors. The European Commission acts as an independent executive which is appointed by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament; but the Commission also has a legislative role as the sole initiator of EU legislation.[38][39] [40] An early maxim was: "The Commission proposes and the Council disposes"; and although the EU's lawmaking procedure is now much more complicated, this simple maxim still holds some truth. As well as both executive and legislative functions, the Commission arguably exercises a third, quasi-judicial, function under Articles 101 & 102 TFEU (competition law ); although the ECJ remains the final arbiter. The European Parliament is one half of the legislative branch and is directly elected. The Council itself acts both as the second half of the legislative branch and also holds some executive functions (some of which are exercised by the related European Council in practice). The European Court of Justice acts as the independent judicial branch, interpreting EU law and treaties. The remaining institution, the European Court of Auditors, is an independent audit authority (due to the sensitive nature of fraud in the EU).

text:
Council of the European Union – executive and legislative
European Commission – executive, legislative and quasi-judicial
European Council – executive
European Court of Auditors – audit
Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court – judicial
European Parliament – legislative

text: Germany[edit]

text: The three branches in German government are further divided into six main bodies enshrined in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany:

text:
Federal President (Bundespräsident) – formally executive, but mainly representative in daily politics
Federal Cabinet (Bundesregierung) – executive
Federal Diet (Bundestag) & Federal Council (Bundesrat) – bicameral legislative
Federal Assembly (Bundesversammlung) – presidential electoral college (consisting of the members of the Bundestag and electors from the constituent states)
Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) – judiciary

text: Besides the constitutional court the judicial branch at the federal level is made up of five supreme courts—one for civil and criminal cases (Bundesgerichtshof), and one each for administrative, tax, labour, and social security issues. There are also state (Länder / Bundesländer) based courts beneath them, and a rarely used senate of the supreme courts.

text: Hungary[edit]

text: This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (August 2014)

text: The four independent branches of power in Hungary (the parliament, the government, the court system, and the office of the public accuser) are divided into six bodies:

text:
Parliament (Magyar Országgyűlés): elected every 4 years by the people in a highly complex, one-round voting system
Government (Magyar Kormány): installed and removed by 50%+1 basic majority vote of the parliament, 4-year terms
Supreme Court (Legfelsőbb Bíróság): Chief justice elected by qualified (2/3) majority of the parliament, no government oversight
Constitutional court (Alkotmánybíróság): members elected by qualified majority of the parliament for 8 years, this body nullifies laws and has no government oversight.
Chief public accuser (Legfőbb ügyész): elected by qualified majority of the parliament, 6-year terms, office budget fixed, no government oversight.
The President of the Republic (Köztársasági Elnök) is elected by qualified majority of the Hungarian parliament for 5-year terms (cannot be reelected more than once). The President's task is to oversee the functioning of the democracy. Most of his/her powers are ceremonial only: like signing laws into power and commanding the military in time of peace. But before signing, once he/she can also return accepted bills with advices to the Parliament for reconsideration, he/she can also request nullification in advance from the Constitutional Court. He can negotiate with civil/professional unions regarding the bills. Without the President's permission, the country can neither declare war nor deploy the armed forces.

text: The independent pillar status of the Hungarian public accuser's office is a unique construction, loosely modeled on the system Portugal introduced after the 1974 victory of the Carnation Revolution. The public accuser (attorney general) body has become the fourth column of Hungarian democracy only in recent times: after communism fell in 1989, the office was made independent by a new clausule XI. of the Constitution. The change was meant to prevent abuse of state power, especially with regards to the use of false accusations against opposition politicians, who may be excluded from elections if locked in protracted or excessively severe court cases.

text: To prevent the Hungarian accuser's office from neglecting its duties, natural human private persons can submit investigation requests, called "pótmagánvád" directly to the courts, if the accusers' office refuses to do its job. Courts will decide if the allegations have merit and order police to act in lieu of the accuser's office if warranted. In its decision No. 42/2005 the Hungarian constitutional court declared that the government does not enjoy such privilege and the state is powerless to further pursue cases if the public accuser refuses to do so.

text: Quadripartite systems[edit]

text: The Empire of Brazil had, in addition to the three traditional powers, the moderating power, which was exercised solely by the Emperor,[41] and which function was resolving conflicts between the other powers.


document_title: Tommy Baldwin Racing

question_text: who owns the number 7 car in nascar

question_tokens: who owns the number 7 car in nascar

root

text: Tommy Baldwin Racing

text: Monster Energy Cup Series[edit]

text: Car No. 7 history[edit]

text: In 2010, Baldwin began fielding second car numbered 35 on a limited basis. Johnny Sauter attempted three races with the car; it did not qualify at California and at Martinsville, but did make the field at Phoenix. Aric Almirola unsuccessfully attempted Talladega as well.

tag: p

text: In 2011, the No. 35 car ran the first Talladega race with former Cup winner Steve Park driving, but retired from the race early. Park also attempted one more race in the No. 35, a fan sponsored tribute to modified driver Len Boehler.[3] The Len Boehler tribute was originally planned for the Coke Zero 400 at Daytona, but was moved to New Hampshire due to a lack of donations; the team also said that a Northeast track (where the Whelen Modified Tour runs) would be more suitable and had a larger fan-base. The 35 failed to qualify for Loudon. In June, 62-year-old Geoffrey Bodine was signed to run five races in the No. 35 with sponsorship backing from military healthcare provider Luke Associates. The scheduled races in the car were at Daytona, Charlotte, Talladega, Texas, and Homestead.[4] After having trouble qualifying, Bodine and Luke Associates moved over to the No. 36 team (with a guaranteed starting spot) while Dave Blaney would run the No. 35 in those races.[5] Blaney also attempted the Watkins Glen race in the No. 35 while road course veteran Ron Fellows drove the No. 36. Blaney also ran the September Richmond race in the No. 35 with Pepsi Max sponsorship, while Stephen Leicht drove the No. 36 in his first NASCAR race since 2009.

text: For 2012, TBR reached an agreement with Stewart-Haas Racing, allowing TBR to field a No. 10 car for rookie Danica Patrick in 10 Sprint Cup races, beginning with the 2012 Daytona 500. For the remaining 26 races, David Reutimann announced as the primary driver.[6][7] A number of other drivers also ended up running in the No. 10, including road course ringer Tomy Drissi at Sonoma, Tony Raines when Reutimann substituted for Kurt Busch, and J. J. Yeley. Patrick brought sponsorship from GoDaddy.com, with Reutimann's primary partners being Accell Construction and TMone. For 2013, TBR would keep all rights to the team, including owner's points, however the No. 10 and GoDaddy would follow Patrick to SHR.

text: For 2013, TBR changed the car number from No. 10 to No. 7 in honor of team owner Tommy Baldwin's father, who used the number 7NY during his days in NASCAR's Modified division. Heavy machinery manufacturer SANY America sponsored the No. 7 team in 14 races, while Florida Lottery sponsored both Daytona races and Homestead. Blaney moved from the No. 36 car to run the No. 7 for the majority of the season, while Justin Marks made his Cup Series debut in the No. 7 at Sonoma with sponsorship from GoPro.[8][9]

text: In 2014, the No. 7 was driven by rookie Michael Annett, bringing his longtime sponsor Pilot Flying J up from the Nationwide Series.[10] Part-time primary sponsors included longtime TBR sponsors Accell Construction for six races, Golden Corral at Loudon and Talladega in the fall, and new sponsor Allstate Peterbuilt. The No. 7 would also utilize an engine leasing program with ECR Engines.[11] Annett finished 33rd in the 2014 final point standings with a best finish of 16th at Talladega Superspeedway in the Spring, with the team also finishing 33rd in final owners points. Annett and Pilot Flying J did not return for 2015, moving to a new second entry at HScott Motorsports.

text: In 2015 it was announced that Alex Bowman would depart BK Racing in order to join TBR. The team got off to a rough start after failing to make the Daytona 500 after wrecking in the Duel, the first time that any TBR entry had failed to make The Great American Race. Since then they have qualified for every race having a pretty decent season with some finishes in the top 20. Bowman was signed to drive for 2016, but parted ways with the team on January 21.[12] A few hours later, Regan Smith joined the team full-time driving the No. 7 Chevy, replacing Bowman. Smith had a good start, finishing 8th in the Daytona 500, thus allowing a "Kids Eat Free" campaign to happen the next day as the car had Golden Corral sponsorship.

text: Regan Smith, after a dismal season, rebounded at the second Pocono event when he finished 3rd after not pitting during the final 28 laps. It was his season-best finish for both him and Tommy Baldwin Racing, as well as the best finish for the team in the team's history.

text: Before the race at Homestead-Miami Speedway, Tommy Baldwin announced on Facebook that Tommy Baldwin Racing would shut down their Cup operation after the 2016 season. Their charter was sold to Leavine Family Racing forcing Smith to qualify on speed. Their last finish was a 38th-place finish at Homestead-Miami Speedway.

text: Despite the announcement, the team partnered with Elliott Sadler to compete in the 2017 Daytona 500, and the other superspeedways.[13] J. J. Yeley drove the car at the spring Texas race, and at Charlotte in May, Yeley returned to the #7 in the Brickyard 400.[14] It was then announced Hermie Sadler would drive the car at Martinsville. On September 4, 2017 Tommy Baldwin Racing was officially acquired by Premium Motorsports. The team ran other races near the end of the season under the Premium Motorsports banner, with the first being with Justin Marks at Talladaga.

text: Car No. 7 results[edit]

text:
Year
Driver
No.
Make
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Owners
Pts

2010
Johnny Sauter
35
Chevy
DAY
CAL
DNQ
LVS
ATL
BRI
MAR
DNQ
PHO
41
TEX

52nd
121

Aric Almirola

TAL
DNQ
RCH
DAR
DOV
CLT
POC
MCH
SON
NHA
DAY
CHI
IND
POC

Tony Ave1

GLN
DNQ
MCH
BRI
ATL
RCH
NHA
DOV
KAN
CAL
CLT
MAR
TAL
TEX
PHO
HOM

2011
Steve Park
DAY
PHO
LVS
BRI
CAL
MAR
TEX
TAL
42
RCH
DAR
DOV
CLT
KAN
POC
MCH
SON

NHA
DNQ
DOV
KAN

44th
75

Geoffrey Bodine

DAY
38
KEN
NHA
IND
POC
DNQ

ATL
DNQ

CLT
DNQ
TAL
DNQ
MAR

Dave Blaney

GLN
DNQ
MCH
BRI

RCH
19

TEX
35
PHO
27
HOM
28

Stephen Leicht

CHI
DNQ

2012
Danica Patrick2
10
DAY
38

DAR
31
CLT
30

BRI
29
ATL
29

CHI
25

DOV
28

KAN
32

TEX
24
PHO
17

33rd
519

David Reutimann

PHO
36
LVS
31
BRI
21
CAL
27
MAR
35
TEX
26
KAN
29
RCH
33
TAL
22

DOV
31

KEN
23
DAY
11
NHA
33

POC
24

MCH
21

RCH
34

NHA
30

TAL
37
CLT
30

MAR
36

HOM
34

Dave Blaney

POC
25

Tony Raines

MCH
36

Tomy Drissi

SON
38

J.J. Yeley

IND
39

GLN
40

2013
Dave Blaney
7
DAY
17
PHO
33
LVS
24
BRI
36
CAL
21
MAR
29
TEX
25
KAN
43
RCH
23
TAL
16
DAR
27
CLT
30
DOV
29
POC
31
MCH
31

KEN
40
DAY
31
NHA
23
IND
38
POC
23
GLN
27
MCH
30
BRI
22
ATL
26
RCH
31
CHI
23
NHA
31
DOV
33
KAN
25
CLT
32
TAL
25
MAR
39
TEX
35
PHO
30
HOM
38
28th
646

Justin Marks

SON
30

2014
Michael Annett
DAY
37
PHO
34
LVS
29
BRI
26
CAL
19
MAR
31
TEX
29
DAR
42
RCH
33
TAL
16
KAN
25
CLT
28
DOV
35
POC
20
MCH
21
SON
30
KEN
18
DAY
21
NHA
32
IND
31
POC
22
GLN
31
MCH
40
BRI
38
ATL
21
RCH
37
CHI
40
NHA
29
DOV
41
KAN
24
CLT
33
TAL
37
MAR
24
TEX
22
PHO
26
HOM
36
33rd
531

2015
Alex Bowman
DAY
DNQ
ATL
23
LVS
43
PHO
30
CAL
33
MAR
37
TEX
33
BRI
20
RCH
32
TAL
16
KAN
43
CLT
26
DOV
20
POC
26
MCH
41
SON
31
DAY
24
KEN
31
NHA
42
IND
43
POC
25
GLN
29
MCH
31
BRI
32
DAR
24
RCH
37
CHI
37
NHA
42
DOV
32
CLT
32
KAN
31
TAL
33
MAR
22
TEX
41
PHO
38
HOM
26
36th
437

2016
Regan Smith
DAY
8
ATL
34
LVS
25
PHO
28
CAL
23
MAR
34
TEX
31
BRI
37
RCH
32
TAL
32
KAN
23
DOV
39
CLT
28
POC
22
MCH
35
SON
28
DAY
38
KEN
34
NHA
32
IND
26
POC
3
GLN
35
BRI
26
MCH
26
DAR
20
RCH
29
CHI
QL‡
NHA
34
DOV
31
CLT
21
KAN
29
TAL
25
MAR
30
TEX
26
PHO
27
HOM
38
33rd
466

Ty Dillon

CHI
27

2017
Elliott Sadler
DAY
20
ATL
LVS
PHO
CAL
MAR
TEX

TAL
17
KAN

DAY
21
KEN
NHA

-*
-*

J.J. Yeley

TEX
27
BRI
RCH

CLT
26
DOV
POC
MCH
SON

IND
37
POC
GLN
MCH
BRI
30
DAR
RCH
CHI
NHA
DOV
CLT

Justin Marks3

TAL
40
KAN

Hermie Sadler3

MAR
34

Joey Gase3

TEX
32
PHO
30
HOM

‡ - Qualified but replaced by Ty Dillon

tag: table

text:
Tony Ave's entry was fielded by TriStar Motorsports.
Danica Patrick's entries were fielded by Stewart-Haas Racing.
Justin Marks, Hermie Sadler and Joey Gase ran under Premium Motorsports banner.

text: Car No. 36 history[edit]

text: Formerly a Busch Series team, on January 5, 2009, Tommy Baldwin Jr. announced that he would restart TBR as a Sprint Cup Series operation despite the slumping economy and following his release as a crew chief from the defunct Bill Davis Racing team. The team later announced that former Evernham Motorsports and Haas CNC Racing driver Scott Riggs would drive the No. 36, and that Arrington Manufacturing (now Race Engines Plus) would build Toyota engines for the team.[15][16][17] Initially made up of volunteers laid off from other organizations, the team qualified for the Daytona 500 and would finish 25th.[15] The team was sponsored by Red Bank Outfitters for the first four races, and would receive short term sponsorship from Array/Nexxus Lighting and Guy Fieri Knuckle Sandwich, though it ran much of the season unsponsored. Riggs would also qualify for the second race of the year but did not qualify for the next three events. After qualifying for eight races in twelve attempts, Riggs announced he would leave the team after Charlotte, when lack of funding forced the team to start and park. Baldwin then signed veteran Mike Skinner to drive for 17 races, Patrick Carpentier for both Pocono races, and Brian Simo for both road course races.[18] Robert Richardson Jr. finished 18th at the November Talladega race with sponsorship from Mahindra Tractors. It was announced in September that Carpentier would run six additional races beginning at Atlanta with sponsor Wave Energy Drink.[19] After failing to qualify for the Atlanta race, Carpentier left the team in due to a business conflict in Canada.[20] Michael McDowell would take over for the remainder of the season.[20]

text: In 2010, veteran Mike Bliss was hired to drive the No. 36 for TBR with Wave Energy Drink returning to sponsor the team in 14 races. TBR also switched manufacturers from Toyota to Chevrolet in 2010, using Earnhardt-Childress Engines.[21][22] At Las Vegas in February, the team was sponsored by Kim Kardashian's Sephora perfume.[23] Bliss and Baldwin parted ways in April after the team failed to qualify for two of the first seven races. Johnny Sauter drove at Texas and Talladega. Casey Mears the took over the No. 36 ride and qualified for the Richmond race while failing to qualify at Darlington. Sauter returned to the No. 36 at Dover while Mears went to Team Red Bull as a replacement for Brian Vickers. Geoffrey Bodine made his first race since 2004 when he drove the car at Pocono. Steve Park also made his first Cup start since 2003, finishing 13th in his first Cup Series race at Daytona. It was announced on June 16, 2010 that Mears will return to the No. 36 following his release from Red Bull. Ron Fellows drove the car at the road course race in Watkins Glen, New York. Dave Blaney and J. J. Yeley also ran races in the car.

text: For 2011, TBR signed Dave Blaney, who Baldwin had worked with at Bill Davis Racing, to drive the No. 36 for the full season. The team planned to attempt every race and complete a minimum of sixteen events (as opposed to starting-and-parking) depending on sponsorship.[24] The team started the season with no primary sponsor and went to Daytona Speedweeks with an unsponsored black Chevrolet, but received 11th hour sponsorship from Golden Corral after the No. 36 made its third consecutive Daytona 500.[25] Blaney led three laps and finished 26th after taking damage from a lap 196 wreck. Oklahoma-based Accell Construction became a 6-race sponsor for the team. All Sport later sponsored the car at Martinsville.[26] The team suffered misfortune again at the April Talladega race when Blaney nearly spun out while at the front. He salvaged a 27th-place finish after leading 21 laps. Golden Corral later stepped up as a 19-race primary sponsor[27] while All Sport's sister brand Big Red joined the team for 5.[28] The team elected to skip the exhibition race at Charlotte to work on improving the team and preparing for the upcoming points races. Ron Fellows returned to the team at Watkins Glen in August.[29] At the rain-delayed September race in Atlanta, Mike Skinner drove the 36 after Blaney developed a case of kidney stones. Blaney started and parked for Germain Racing's No. 60, while Skinner drove the 36 to a 27th-place finish. At Richmond, Stephen Leicht drove the 36 in his return to Cup. For the final three races of 2011, Blaney moved to the No. 35 and Geoffrey Bodine moved to the No. 36.[5] Following a 13th-place finish at the April 2011 Richmond race with Leicht, the No. 36 moved into the Top 35 for the first time in team history. The team recorded its best finish to date with a third at the October 2011 Talladega race with Dave Blaney, and 2011 marked the first year the team competed in all 36 races.[30]

text: For 2012, the No. 36 team returned full-time with Blaney behind the wheel, with Ryan Pemeberton joining the team as crew chief.[30][31] The team lost most of its sponsorship from the prior year, with Ollie's Bargain Outlet coming on for four of the first six races.[32] The No. 36 teams owners points were also transferred to the No. 10 car for the season, leaving the team with the 44th-place points from the No. 35 car which would not guarantee a spot in the first five races. The team nearly won the Daytona 500, staying out under a caution to gain the lead before the race was red-flagged when Juan Pablo Montoya's car collided with a Jet-dryer cleanup vehicle, damaging the racetrack. The race was ultimately restarted, with Blaney scoring a solid 15th-place finish.[11] The team would later sign SealWrap, a partner of Dave and son Ryan Blaney, and Widow Wax for eight races, while Golden Corral would return for the remaining three restrictor plate races. Blaney earned the No. 36 team a spot in the Top 35 after five races. Though the team had to start and park several events, they remained in the top 35 throughout the entirety of the season. Tony Raines and J. J. Yeley would run single races in the car, while Blaney was in the No. 37 car.

text: In the 2013 season, TBR originally planned to run as a one-car team with the No. 7 team running full-time. This changed however, when the team was able to round up enough sponsorship for the No. 36 car to run a full schedule.[33] J. J. Yeley ran the No. 36 car with sponsorship from numerous companies including Golden Corral, United Mining Equipment, Pitt Lite, Accell Construction, and others.[33][34] Victor Gonzalez Jr. drove the No. 36 at Sonoma and Watkins Glen with sponsorship from IMCA Dominican Republic and Mobil 1. Gonzalez would become the first competitor from the Caribbean region to compete in NASCAR's top division.[9] Yeley finished 32nd in points in 2013, but recorded a tenth-place finish at the Daytona 500, his first top ten since 2008 and his best finish in the race to date.

text: For 2014, Yeley was replaced by Reed Sorenson, and veteran crew chief Todd Parrott was brought in to improve the performance of the team.[35] Golden Corral returned once again for the superspeedways with their "Top 10 Kids Eat Free" promotion, with Zing Zang, Flasr, Theme Park Connection, and the Delaware "Click It or Ticket" program sponsoring select races. The highlight of the season was when Sorenson qualified second at the July Daytona race after a rain-abbreviated qualifying session. Due to lack of consistent funding outside of restrictor plate races, the team's performance slumped significantly behind the No. 7 team, forced to use their Pro Motor Engines for multiple consecutive races and skipping practice sessions to save tires and part wear.[11] Perhaps the team's most notable moment in 2014 came at the spring Richmond race. Sorenson blew a tire, which then unwound with the rubber cords striking various components inside the wheel well, causing a small fire. However, the fire would eventually reach the fuel cell causing the car to burst into flames as Sorenson eased it onto pit road, he brought it to a stop, where crew members from Go Fas Racing and Hendrick Motorsports rushed to quickly get Sorenson out of the car. Sorenson was uninjured. Sorenson finished the 2014 season in 34th in the final driver standings, with a best finish of 14th, while 36 team finished 35th in the owner standings.[36]

text: After the season, TBR sold the owner's points and equipment of the No. 36 team to Jay Robinson Racing (reorganized as Premium Motorsports) due to lack of sponsorship, and contracted to one full-time team. Because of the move, Reed Sorenson was released, and sponsor Zing Zang retracted their planned five race sponsorship for 2015 (due to their desire to sponsor Sorenson).[36]

text: Car No. 36 results[edit]

text:
Year
Driver
No.
Make
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Owners
Pts

2009
Scott Riggs
36
Toyota
DAY
25
CAL
36
LVS
DNQ
ATL
DNQ
BRI
DNQ
MAR
30
TEX
DNQ
PHO
36
TAL
41
RCH
42
DAR
39
CLT
38

41st
1499

Mike Skinner

DOV
41

MCH
DNQ

CHI
39
IND
41

MCH
41
BRI
DNQ

Patrick Carpentier

POC
43

NHA
43
DAY
42

POC
37

ATL
DNQ

Brian Simo

SON
DNQ

GLN
DNQ

Michael McDowell

RCH
41
NHA
41
DOV
38
KAN
DNQ
CAL
40
CLT
DNQ
MAR
41

TEX
41
PHO
41
HOM
43

Robert Richardson Jr.

TAL
18

2010
Mike Bliss
Chevy
DAY
42
CAL
22
LVS
39
ATL
24
BRI
DNQ
MAR
25
PHO
DNQ

40th
1737

Johnny Sauter

TEX
DNQ
TAL
41

DOV
43
CLT
41

MCH
DNQ

Casey Mears

RCH
26
DAR
DNQ

NHA
29

CHI
40
IND
DNQ
POC
36

MCH
DNQ

Geoffrey Bodine

POC
41

Brian Simo

SON
DNQ

Steve Park

DAY
13

Ron Fellows

GLN
40

Dave Blaney

BRI
DNQ

RCH
30
NHA
31
DOV
43

MAR
36
TAL
42

PHO
37

J.J. Yeley

ATL
40

KAN
42
CAL
42
CLT
43

TEX
DNQ

HOM
42

2011
Dave Blaney
DAY
26
PHO
42
LVS
34
BRI
25
CAL
37
MAR
30
TEX
30
TAL
27
RCH
13
DAR
24
DOV
26
CLT
27
KAN
32
POC
26
MCH
34
SON
31
DAY
39
KEN
33
NHA
29
IND
31
POC
30

MCH
33
BRI
35

CHI
33
NHA
35
DOV
32
KAN
31
CLT
35
TAL
3
MAR
23

33rd
519

Ron Fellows

GLN
30

Mike Skinner

ATL
27

Stephen Leicht

RCH
24

Geoffrey Bodine

TEX
38
PHO
37
HOM
30

2012
Dave Blaney
DAY
15
PHO
23
LVS
29
BRI
34
CAL
33
MAR
34
TEX
37
KAN
37
RCH
29
TAL
30
DAR
27
CLT
40
DOV
32

MCH
25
SON
37
KEN
35
DAY
22
NHA
39
IND
23

GLN
36
MCH
38
BRI
26
ATL
25
RCH
33
CHI
33

TAL
39
CLT
43
KAN
39
MAR
35
TEX
39
PHO
26
HOM
32
35th
427

Tony Raines

POC
32

POC
38

NHA
40

J.J. Yeley

DOV
34

2013
DAY
10
PHO
28
LVS
36
BRI
27
CAL
27
MAR
27
TEX
39
KAN
35
RCH
32
TAL
31
DAR
35
CLT
28
DOV
30
POC
39
MCH
24

KEN
32
DAY
13
NHA
39
IND
39
POC
25

MCH
43
BRI
24
ATL
30
RCH
36
CHI
25
NHA
33
DOV
34
KAN
27
CLT
43
TAL
28
MAR
30
TEX
30
PHO
29
HOM
32
32nd
540

Victor Gonzalez Jr.

SON
37

GLN
41

2014
Reed Sorenson
DAY
16
PHO
31
LVS
34
BRI
28
CAL
21
MAR
34
TEX
33
DAR
39
RCH
42
TAL
34
KAN
32
CLT
42
DOV
24
POC
34
MCH
32
SON
32
KEN
27
DAY
33
NHA
33
IND
38
POC
27
GLN
23
MCH
27
BRI
24
ATL
29
RCH
24
CHI
29
NHA
31
DOV
32
KAN
26
CLT
27
TAL
14
MAR
35
TEX
33
PHO
28
HOM
24
35th
516

text: Additional cars[edit]

text: In mid-2012, TBR announced a partnership to provide technical assistance and cars to former driver Larry Gunselman's Max Q Motorsports.[37] Max Q had started the year with Mike Wallace (1 race) and Timmy Hill drivers in a partnership with Rick Ware Racing, but Hill struggled to qualify for races leading Max Q to break off the partnership in April and sending Hill back to RWR in the Nationwide Series. J. J. Yeley was hired by TBR to drive for Max Q.[37] Regular TBR driver Dave Blaney also ran one race for Max Q. Yeley moved to TBR's No. 36 car in 2013, while Max Q shut down.

text: At the 2013 Sonoma race, with Yeley's usual No. 36 being piloted by Victor Gonzalez Jr. for the weekend, TBR used its partnership to field the No. 37 for him with Gunselman listed as owner. The team was a late entry however, with neither Yeley or the No. 37 team receiving points for the race, as the No. 37 car started last and finished 42nd.[9]

text: In 2014, TBR took full ownership of the No. 37, fielding it as a third team starting at Indianapolis. 2000 Champion Bobby Labonte drove the first race for the team at the Brickyard with longtime TBR supporter Accell Construction.[38] Labonte failed to qualify on speed, using a champion's provisional to make the race. The next week at Pocono, Dave Blaney returned to the team for the first time since entering semi-retirement. The No. 37 also ran with Blaney at Michigan and Bristol. Former TBR driver Mike Bliss drove the No. 37 at Atlanta and Richmond. The team ran a total of ten races with those three drivers, finishing the season 46th in owners points. Their best finish of 26th came at Pocono with Blaney driving. The team shut down following the season.

text: Car No. 37 results[edit]

text:
Year
Driver
No.
Make
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Owners
Pts

2013
J.J. Yeley
37
Chevy
DAY
PHO
LVS
BRI
CAL
MAR
TEX
KAN
RCH
TAL
DAR
CLT
DOV
POC
MCH
SON
42
KEN
DAY
NHA
IND
POC
GLN
MCH
BRI
ATL
RCH
CHI
NHA
DOV
KAN
CLT
TAL
MAR
TEX
PHO
HOM
50th
0

2014
Bobby Labonte
DAY
PHO
LVS
BRI
CAL
MAR
TEX
DAR
RCH
TAL
KAN
CLT
DOV
POC
MCH
SON
KEN
DAY
NHA
IND
37

46th
58

Dave Blaney

POC
26
GLN
MCH
33
BRI
43

Mike Bliss

ATL
43
RCH
35
CHI
43
NHA
DOV
36
KAN
43
CLT
TAL
MAR
TEX
PHO
43
HOM

text: TBR provided cars and technical assistance to Premium Motorsports, fielding the No. 98 car out of their shop for the Fall 2015 races at Loudon and Homestead with TBR development driver Ryan Preece.

text: Nationwide Series[edit]

text: TBR made its official debut in 2001 at Charlotte. Ward Burton started 4th and finished 8th in the No. 5 Pillsbury Chevrolet. Burton ran the same car at Homestead-Miami Speedway, qualifying 6th and finishing 7th. The next year the team would switch its number and manufacturer. The team fielded the No. 6 Pepsi Dodge driven by Wally Dallenbach Jr.. Dallenbach would start 26th and finish 14th in the team's first race. Dallenbach scored two top tens at Charlotte and Phoenix. Damon Lusk would take over the No. 6 car starting at Richmond but crashed out of the 14th lap. Despite the rocky start, Lusk and TBR would make a run for Rookie of the Year in 2003, with sponsorship from Sta-Rite Pumps. Lusk had a consistent season with only 2 DNFs but would lose out on ROTY to David Stremme and Coy Gibbs.

text: The following year, Unilever backed TBR, and subsequently announced its Hungry Drivers program. Unilever would select four drivers and run each of them in three Busch Series races. The chosen drivers were Mark McFarland, Tracy Hines, Scott Lynch, and Paul Wolfe. Wolfe was eventually chosen after scoring two top-20 finishes. In 2005, TBR's Busch Series team was bought out by Evernham Motorsports (now Richard Petty Motorsports) and TBR closed up its team.

text: Car No. 6 results[edit]

text:
Year
Driver
No.
Make
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Owners
Pts

2001
Ward Burton
5
Chevy
DAY
CAR
LVS
ATL
DAR
BRI
TEX
NSH
TAL
CAL
RCH
NHA
NZH
CLT
DOV
KEN
MLW
GLN
CHI
GTY
PPR
IRP
MCH
BRI
DAR
RCH
DOV
KAN
CLT
8
MEM
PHO
CAR
HOM
7

70th
288

2002
David Green
6
Dodge
DAY
18
CAR
LVS
DAR
BRI
TEX
NSH
TAL
CAL
RCH
NHA
NZH
CLT
DOV
NSH
KEN
MLW
DAY
CHI
GTY
PPR
IRP

45th
766

Wally Dallenbach Jr.

MCH
14
BRI
DAR

CLT
7
MEM

PHO
9
HOM

Damon Lusk

RCH
42
DOV
KAN

ATL
22
CAR

2003
DAY
21
CAR
LVS
22
DAR

TEX
43
TAL
NSH
CAL
24
RCH
GTY
NZH
CLT
29
DOV
NSH
KEN
MLW
31
DAY
21
CHI
NHA
18
PPR
IRP
MCH
12

KAN
28
CLT
MEM

39th
1319

Jimmy Spencer

BRI
24

Ted Musgrave

BRI
3
DAR
RCH

Paul Wolfe

DOV
16

ATL
19
PHO
CAR
HOM

2004
DAY
36
CAR
DNQ
LVS
18
DAR
BRI

NHA
12
PPR
IRP

42nd
1256

Tracy Hines

TEX
20
NSH
TAL
25

MCH
17
BRI
CAL

Jeremy Mayfield

CAL
18
GTY

Scott Lynch

RCH
39
NZH

CLT
DNQ

Mark McFarland

CLT
22
DOV
23
NSH
KEN
MLW
DAY
CHI

RCH
16
DOV
KAN

Bill Elliott

MEM
20

Randy LaJoie

ATL
32
PHO
DAR
HOM

text: Car No. 36 history[edit]

text: In 2012, Baldwin announced his return to the Nationwide Series. The team will run the No. 36 Chevrolet in eight races for drivers Ryan Blaney (son of then-TBR Cup Series driver Dave), Ryan Truex, and Bobby Santos III. TBR's first attempt of the 2012 season was at Daytona in February with Truex driving the No. 36. The team picked up a last minute sponsorship from Grime Boss for the event. Ryan Blaney then took over driving duties at Richmond in his first of six races with the team. Long-time sponsor of the Blaney family, SealWrap, sponsored all six Ryan Blaney's attempts. TBR once again ran the No. 36 at Daytona in July for Whelen Modified driver and 2010 NWMT series champion Bobby Santos III. Brad Parrott was the crew chief for the team.[39]

text: For 2013, the car changed numbers to No. 8, absorbing the points from Team SLR. Brad Parrott remained TBR's crew chief. Scott Lagasse Jr. drove at Daytona, Las Vegas, and Richmond. The No. 8 team also ran at New Hampshire with TBR development driver Ryan Preece behind the wheel.[40] The team had sponsorship from East West Marine for the event.

text: In 2014, the team switched back to No. 36, with Parrott remaining crew chief. Preece again drove the car at New Hampshire with East-West Marine sponsoring. He was also scheduled to drive at Richmond in September, but this was changed to Homestead to avoid conflicting with Preece's Whelen Modified Series schedule.

text: Car No. 36 results[edit]

text:
Year
Driver
No.
Make
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Owners
Pts

2012
Ryan Truex
36
Chevy
DAY
31
PHO
LVS
BRI
CAL
TEX

40th
175

Ryan Blaney

RCH
7
TAL
DAR
43
IOW
CLT
DOV
MCH
ROA
KEN
15

IND
27
IOW
GLN
CGV
BRI
7
ATL
RCH
CHI
KEN
DOV
CLT
14
KAN
TEX
PHO
HOM

Bobby Santos III

DAY
33
NHA
CHI

2014
Ryan Preece
DAY
PHO
LVS
BRI
CAL
TEX
DAR
RCH
TAL
IOW
CLT
DOV
MCH
ROA
KEN
DAY
NHA
14
CHI
IND
IOW
GLN
MOH
BRI
ATL
RCH
CHI
KEN
DOV
KAN
CLT
TEX
PHO
HOM
28
52nd
46

text: Partnership with Team SLR[edit]

text: In 2012, TBR created a partnership with Team SLR and driver/owner Scott Lagasse Jr.. Team SLR would field the No. 8 Chevrolet Impala in select races during the 2012 Nationwide Season with sponsorship from the Boy Scouts of America and Hybrid Light. Chassis would be provided by TBR, and engines would be provided by ECR Engines. The team ran 3 races in 2012, with Lagasse driving at Kentucky, Kansas, and Homestead. In 2013, the team was folded into TBR itself.

text: Car No. 8 results[edit]

text:
Year
Driver
No.
Make
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Owners
Pts

2012
Scott Lagasse Jr.
8
Chevy
DAY
PHO
LVS
BRI
CAL
TEX
RCH
TAL
DAR
IOW
CLT
DOV
MCH
ROA
KEN
DAY
NHA
CHI
IND
IOW
GLN
CGV
BRI
ATL
RCH
CHI
KEN
26
DOV
CLT
KAN
24
TEX
PHO
HOM
20
53rd
62

2013
DAY
39
PHO
LVS
20
BRI
CAL
TEX
RCH
21
TAL
DAR
CLT
DOV
IOW
MCH
ROA
KEN
DAY

48th
72

Ryan Preece

NHA
24
CHI
IND
IOW
GLN
MOH
BRI
ATL
RCH
CHI
KEN
DOV
KAN
CLT
TEX
PHO
HOM