document_title: Intellectual disability

question_text: a genetic disorder that causes a moderate to severe mental disability is called

text: Intellectual disability

text: Signs and symptoms

text: Intellectual disability (ID) begins during childhood and involves deficits in mental abilities, social skills, and core activities of daily living (ADLs) when compared to same-aged peers.[9] There often are no physical signs of mild forms of ID, although there may be characteristic physical traits when it is associated with a genetic disorder (e.g., Down syndrome).[10]

text: The level of impairment ranges in severity for each person. Some of the early signs can include:[10]

text:
Delays in reaching or failure to achieve milestones in motor skills development (sitting, crawling, walking)
Slowness learning to talk or continued difficulties with speech and language skills after starting to talk
Difficulty with self-help and self-care skills (e.g., getting dressed, washing, and feeding themselves)
Poor planning or problem solving abilities
Behavioral and social problems[11]
Failure to grow intellectually or continued infant-like behavior
Problems keeping up in school
Failure to adapt or adjust to new situations
Difficulty understanding and following social rules[9]

text: In early childhood, mild ID (IQ 50–69) may not be obvious or identified until children begin school.[6] Even when poor academic performance is recognized, it may take expert assessment to distinguish mild intellectual disability from specific learning disability or emotional/behavioral disorders. People with mild ID are capable of learning reading and mathematics skills to approximately the level of a typical child aged nine to twelve. They can learn self-care and practical skills, such as cooking or using the local mass transit system. As individuals with intellectual disability reach adulthood, many learn to live independently and maintain gainful employment.[6]

text: Moderate ID (IQ 35–49) is nearly always apparent within the first years of life. Speech delays are particularly common signs of moderate ID. People with moderate intellectual disability need considerable supports in school, at home, and in the community in order to fully participate. While their academic potential is limited, they can learn simple health and safety skills and to participate in simple activities. As adults, they may live with their parents, in a supportive group home, or even semi-independently with significant supportive services to help them, for example, manage their finances. As adults, they may work in a sheltered workshop.[6]

text: People with severe or profound ID need more intensive support and supervision their entire lives. They may learn some ADLs, but an intellectual disability is considered severe or profound when individuals are unable to independently care for themselves without ongoing significant assistance from a caregiver throughout adulthood.[6] Individuals with profound ID are completely dependent on others for all ADLs and to maintain their physical health and safety, although they may be able to learn to participate in some of these activities to limited degree.[10]

text: Causes

text: Among children, the cause of intellectual disability is unknown for one-third to one-half of cases.[6] About 5% of cases are inherited from a person's parents.[7] Genetic defects that cause intellectual disability but are not inherited can be caused by accidents or mutations in genetic development. Examples of such accidents are development of an extra chromosome 18 (trisomy 18) and Down syndrome, which is the most common genetic cause.[7] Velocardiofacial syndrome and fetal alcohol spectrum disorders are the two next most common causes.[6] However, doctors have found many other causes. The most common are:

text:
Genetic conditions. Sometimes disability is caused by abnormal genes inherited from parents, errors when genes combine, or other reasons. The most prevalent genetic conditions include Down syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, Fragile X syndrome (common among boys), neurofibromatosis, congenital hypothyroidism, Williams syndrome, phenylketonuria (PKU), and Prader–Willi syndrome. Other genetic conditions include Phelan-McDermid syndrome (22q13del), Mowat–Wilson syndrome, genetic ciliopathy,[12] and Siderius type X-linked intellectual disability (OMIM 300263) as caused by mutations in the PHF8 gene (OMIM 300560).[13][14] In the rarest of cases, abnormalities with the X or Y chromosome may also cause disability. 48, XXXX and 49, XXXXX syndrome affect a small number of girls worldwide, while boys may be affected by 49, XXXXY, or 49, XYYYY. 47, XYY is not associated with significantly lowered IQ though affected individuals may have slightly lower IQs than non-affected siblings on average.[15][16]
Problems during pregnancy. Intellectual disability can result when the fetus does not develop properly. For example, there may be a problem with the way the fetus' cells divide as it grows. A pregnant person who drinks alcohol (see fetal alcohol spectrum disorder) or gets an infection like rubella during pregnancy may also have a baby with intellectual disability.
Problems at birth. If a baby has problems during labor and birth, such as not getting enough oxygen, he or she may have developmental disability due to brain damage.
Exposure to certain types of disease or toxins. Diseases like whooping cough, measles, or meningitis can cause intellectual disability if medical care is delayed or inadequate. Exposure to poisons like lead or mercury may also affect mental ability.
Iodine deficiency, affecting approximately 2 billion people worldwide, is the leading preventable cause of intellectual disability in areas of the developing world where iodine deficiency is endemic. Iodine deficiency also causes goiter, an enlargement of the thyroid gland. More common than full-fledged cretinism, as intellectual disability caused by severe iodine deficiency is called, is mild impairment of intelligence. Certain areas of the world due to natural deficiency and governmental inaction are severely affected. India is the most notorious, with 500 million suffering from deficiency, 54 million from goiter, and 2 million from cretinism. Among other nations affected by iodine deficiency, China and Kazakhstan have instituted widespread salt iodization programs, whereas, as of 2006, Russia had not.[17]
Malnutrition is a common cause of reduced intelligence in parts of the world affected by famine, such as Ethiopia.[18]
Absence of the arcuate fasciculus.[19]

text: Diagnosis

text: According to both the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities[20](Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports (11th Edition) and the American Psychiatric Association[21] Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), three criteria must be met for a diagnosis of intellectual disability: significant limitation in general mental abilities (intellectual functioning), significant limitations in one or more areas of adaptive behavior across multiple environments (as measured by an adaptive behavior rating scale, i.e. communication, self-help skills, interpersonal skills, and more), and evidence that the limitations became apparent in childhood or adolescence. In general, people with intellectual disability have an IQ below 70, but clinical discretion may be necessary for individuals who have a somewhat higher IQ but severe impairment in adaptive functioning.[10]

text: It is formally diagnosed by an assessment of IQ and adaptive behavior. A third condition requiring onset during the developmental period is used to distinguish intellectual disability from other conditions dementia such as Alzheimer's disease or traumatic brain injuries.

text: Intelligence quotient

text: The first English-language IQ test, the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales, was adapted from a test battery designed for school placement by Alfred Binet in France. Lewis Terman adapted Binet's test and promoted it as a test measuring "general intelligence." Terman's test was the first widely used mental test to report scores in "intelligence quotient" form ("mental age" divided by chronological age, multiplied by 100). Current tests are scored in "deviation IQ" form, with a performance level by a test-taker two standard deviations below the median score for the test-taker's age group defined as IQ 70. Until the most recent revision of diagnostic standards, an IQ of 70 or below was a primary factor for intellectual disability diagnosis, and IQ scores were used to categorize degrees of intellectual disability.

text: Since current diagnosis of intellectual disability is not based on IQ scores alone, but must also take into consideration a person's adaptive functioning, the diagnosis is not made rigidly. It encompasses intellectual scores, adaptive functioning scores from an adaptive behavior rating scale based on descriptions of known abilities provided by someone familiar with the person, and also the observations of the assessment examiner who is able to find out directly from the person what he or she can understand, communicate, and such like. IQ assessment must be based on a current test. This enables diagnosis to avoid the pitfall of the Flynn effect, which is a consequence of changes in population IQ test performance changing IQ test norms over time.

text: Distinction from other disabilities

text: Clinically, intellectual disability is a subtype of cognitive deficit or disabilities affecting intellectual abilities, which is a broader concept and includes intellectual deficits that are too mild to properly qualify as intellectual disability, or too specific (as in specific learning disability), or acquired later in life through acquired brain injuries or neurodegenerative diseases like dementia. Cognitive deficits  may appear at any age. Developmental disability is any disability that is due to problems with growth and development. This term encompasses many congenital medical conditions that have no mental or intellectual components, although it, too, is sometimes used as a euphemism for intellectual disability.[22]

text: Limitations in more than one area

text: Adaptive behavior, or adaptive functioning, refers to the skills needed to live independently (or at the minimally acceptable level for age). To assess adaptive behavior, professionals compare the functional abilities of a child to those of other children of similar age. To measure adaptive behavior, professionals use structured interviews, with which they systematically elicit information about persons' functioning in the community from people who know them well. There are many adaptive behavior scales, and accurate assessment of the quality of someone's adaptive behavior requires clinical judgment as well. Certain skills are important to adaptive behavior, such as:

text:
Daily living skills, such as getting dressed, using the bathroom, and feeding oneself
Communication skills, such as understanding what is said and being able to answer
Social skills with peers, family members, spouses, adults, and others

text: Management

text: By most definitions, intellectual disability is more accurately considered a disability rather than a disease. Intellectual disability can be distinguished in many ways from mental illness, such as schizophrenia or depression. Currently, there is no "cure" for an established disability, though with appropriate support and teaching, most individuals can learn to do many things. Causes, such as congenital hypothyroidism, if detected early may be treated to prevent development of an intellectual disability.[23]

text: There are thousands of agencies around the world that provide assistance for people with developmental disabilities. They include state-run, for-profit, and non-profit, privately run agencies. Within one agency there could be departments that include fully staffed residential homes, day rehabilitation programs that approximate schools, workshops wherein people with disabilities can obtain jobs, programs that assist people with developmental disabilities in obtaining jobs in the community, programs that provide support for people with developmental disabilities who have their own apartments, programs that assist them with raising their children, and many more. There are also many agencies and programs for parents of children with developmental disabilities.

text: Beyond that, there are specific programs that people with developmental disabilities can take part in wherein they learn basic life skills. These "goals" may take a much longer amount of time for them to accomplish, but the ultimate goal is independence. This may be anything from independence in tooth brushing to an independent residence. People with developmental disabilities learn throughout their lives and can obtain many new skills even late in life with the help of their families, caregivers, clinicians and the people who coordinate the efforts of all of these people.

text: There are four broad areas of intervention that allow for active participation from caregivers, community members, clinicians, and of course, the individual(s) with an intellectual disability. These include psychosocial treatments, behavioral treatments, cognitive-behavioral treatments, and family-oriented strategies.[24]  Psychosocial treatments are intended primarily for children before and during the preschool years as this is the optimum time for intervention.[25] This early intervention should include encouragement of exploration, mentoring in basic skills, celebration of developmental advances, guided rehearsal and extension of newly acquired skills, protection from harmful displays of disapproval, teasing, or punishment, and exposure to a rich and responsive language environment.[26] A great example of a successful intervention is the Carolina Abecedarian Project that was conducted with over 100 children from low SES families beginning in infancy through pre-school years. Results indicated that by age 2, the children provided the intervention had higher test scores than control group children, and they remained approximately 5 points higher 10 years after the end of the program. By young adulthood, children from the intervention group had better educational attainment, employment opportunities, and fewer behavioral problems than their control-group counterparts.[27]

text: Core components of behavioral treatments include language and social skills acquisition. Typically, one-to-one training is offered in which a therapist uses a shaping procedure in combination with positive reinforcements to help the child pronounce syllables until words are completed. Sometimes involving pictures and visual aids, therapists aim at improving speech capacity so that short sentences about important daily tasks (e.g. bathroom use, eating, etc.) can be effectively communicated by the child.[28][29] In a similar fashion, older children benefit from this type of training as they learn to sharpen their social skills such as sharing, taking turns, following instruction, and smiling.[30] At the same time, a movement known as social inclusion attempts to increase valuable interactions between children with an intellectual disability and their non-disabled peers.[31] Cognitive-behavioral treatments, a combination of the previous two treatment types, involves a strategical-metastrategical learning technique[clarification needed] that teaches children math, language, and other basic skills pertaining to memory and learning. The first goal of the training is to teach the child to be a strategical thinker through making cognitive connections and plans. Then, the therapist teaches the child to be metastrategical by teaching them to discriminate among different tasks and determine which plan or strategy suits each task.[32] Finally, family-oriented strategies delve into empowering the family with the skill set they need to support and encourage their child or children with an intellectual disability. In general, this includes teaching assertiveness skills or behavior management techniques as well as how to ask for help from neighbors, extended family, or day-care staff.[33] As the child ages, parents are then taught how to approach topics such as housing/residential care, employment, and relationships. The ultimate goal for every intervention or technique is to give the child autonomy and a sense of independence using the acquired skills he/she has.

text: Although there is no specific medication for intellectual disability, many people with developmental disabilities have further medical complications and may be prescribed several medications. For example, autistic children with developmental delay may be prescribed antipsychotics or mood stabilizers to help with their behavior. Use of psychotropic medications such as benzodiazepines in people with intellectual disability requires monitoring and vigilance as side effects occur commonly and are often misdiagnosed as behavioral and psychiatric problems.[34]

text: Epidemiology

text: Intellectual disability affects about 2–3% of the general population. 75–90% of the affected people have mild intellectual disability. Non-syndromic or idiopathic ID accounts for 30–50% of cases. About a quarter of cases are caused by a genetic disorder.[6] Cases of unknown cause affect about 95 million people as of 2013.[8] It is more common in males and in low to middle income countries.[23]

text: History

text: Intellectual disability has been documented under a variety of names throughout history. Throughout much of human history, society was unkind to those with any type of disability, and people with intellectual disability were commonly viewed as burdens on their families.

text: Greek and Roman philosophers, who valued reasoning abilities, disparaged people with intellectual disability as barely human.[35] The oldest physiological view of intellectual disability is in the writings of Hippocrates in the late fifth century BCE, who believed that it was caused by an imbalance in the four humors in the brain.

text: Until the Enlightenment in Europe, care and asylum was provided by families and the church (in monasteries and other religious communities), focusing on the provision of basic physical needs such as food, shelter and clothing. Negative stereotypes were prominent in social attitudes of the time.

text: In the 13th century, England declared people with intellectual disability to be incapable of making decisions or managing their affairs.[35] Guardianships were created to take over their financial affairs.

text: In the 17th century, Thomas Willis provided the first description of intellectual disability as a disease.[35] He believed that it was caused by structural problems in the brain. According to Willis, the anatomical problems could be either an inborn condition or acquired later in life.

text: In the 18th and 19th centuries, housing and care moved away from families and towards an asylum model. People were placed by, or removed from, their families (usually in infancy) and housed in large professional institutions, many of which were self-sufficient through the labor of the residents. Some of these institutions provided a very basic level of education (such as differentiation between colors and basic word recognition and numeracy), but most continued to focus solely on the provision of basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter. Conditions in such institutions varied widely, but the support provided was generally non-individualized, with aberrant behavior and low levels of economic productivity regarded as a burden to society. Individuals of higher wealth were often able to afford higher degrees of care such as home care or private asylums.[36] Heavy tranquilization and assembly line methods of support were the norm, and the medical model of disability prevailed. Services were provided based on the relative ease to the provider, not based on the needs of the individual. A survey taken in 1891 in Cape Town, South Africa shows the distribution between different facilities. Out of 2046 persons surveyed, 1,281 were in private dwellings, 120 in jails, and 645 in asylums, with men representing nearly two thirds of the number surveyed. In situations of scarcity of accommodation, preference was given to white men and black men (whose insanity threatened white society by disrupting employment relations and the tabooed sexual contact with white women).[36]

text: In the late 19th century, in response to Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, Francis Galton proposed selective breeding of humans to reduce intellectual disability.[35] Early in the 20th century the eugenics movement became popular throughout the world. This led to forced sterilization and prohibition of marriage in most of the developed world and was later used by Adolf Hitler as a rationale for the mass murder of people with intellectual disability during the holocaust. Eugenics was later abandoned as an evil violation of human rights, and the practice of forced sterilization and prohibition from marriage was discontinued by most of the developed world by the mid-20th century.

text: In 1905, Alfred Binet produced the first standardized test for measuring intelligence in children.[35]

text: Although ancient Roman law had declared people with intellectual disability to be incapable of the deliberate intent to harm that was necessary for a person to commit a crime, during the 1920s, Western society believed they were morally degenerate.[35]

text: Ignoring the prevailing attitude, Civitans adopted service to people with developmental disabilities as a major organizational emphasis in 1952. Their earliest efforts included workshops for special education teachers and daycamps for children with disabilities, all at a time when such training and programs were almost nonexistent.[37] The segregation of people with developmental disabilities was not widely questioned by academics or policy-makers until the 1969 publication of Wolf Wolfensberger's seminal work "The Origin and Nature of Our Institutional Models",[38] drawing on some of the ideas proposed by SG Howe 100 years earlier. This book posited that society characterizes people with disabilities as deviant, sub-human and burdens of charity, resulting in the adoption of that "deviant" role. Wolfensberger argued that this dehumanization, and the segregated institutions that result from it, ignored the potential productive contributions that all people can make to society. He pushed for a shift in policy and practice that recognized the human needs of those with intellectual disability and provided the same basic human rights as for the rest of the population.

text: The publication of this book may be regarded as the first move towards the widespread adoption of the social model of disability in regard to these types of disabilities, and was the impetus for the development of government strategies for desegregation. Successful lawsuits against governments and an increasing awareness of human rights and self-advocacy also contributed to this process, resulting in the passing in the U.S. of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act in 1980.

text: From the 1960s to the present, most states have moved towards the elimination of segregated institutions. Normalization and deinstitutionalization are dominant.[35] Along with the work of Wolfensberger and others including Gunnar and Rosemary Dybwad,[39] a number of scandalous revelations around the horrific conditions within state institutions created public outrage that led to change to a more community-based method of providing services.[40]

text: By the mid-1970s, most governments had committed to de-institutionalization, and had started preparing for the wholesale movement of people into the general community, in line with the principles of normalization. In most countries, this was essentially complete by the late 1990s, although the debate over whether or not to close institutions persists in some states, including Massachusetts.[41]

text: In the past, lead poisoning and infectious diseases were significant causes of intellectual disability. Some causes of intellectual disability are decreasing, as medical advances, such as vaccination, increase. Other causes are increasing as a proportion of cases, perhaps due to rising maternal age, which is associated with several syndromic forms of intellectual disability.[citation needed]

text: Along with the changes in terminology, and the downward drift in acceptability of the old terms, institutions of all kinds have had to repeatedly change their names. This affects the names of schools, hospitals, societies, government departments, and academic journals. For example, the Midlands Institute of Mental Subnormality became the British Institute of Mental Handicap and is now the British Institute of Learning Disability. This phenomenon is shared with mental health and motor disabilities, and seen to a lesser degree in sensory disabilities.[citation needed]

text: Terminology

text: The terms used for this condition are subject to a process called the euphemism treadmill. This means that whatever term is chosen for this condition, it eventually becomes perceived as an insult. The terms mental retardation and mentally retarded were invented in the middle of the 20th century to replace the previous set of terms, which included "imbecile"[42][43] and "moron"[44] and are now considered offensive. By the end of the 20th century, these terms themselves have come to be widely seen as disparaging, politically incorrect, and in need of replacement.[45] The term intellectual disability is now preferred by most advocates and researchers in most English-speaking countries.[4][5] As of  2015[update], the term "mental retardation" is still used by the World Health Organization in the ICD-10 codes, which have a section titled "Mental Retardation" (codes F70–F79). In the next revision, the ICD-11 is expected to replace the term mental retardation with either intellectual disability or intellectual developmental disorder, which the DSM-5 already uses.[10][46] Because of its specificity and lack of confusion with other conditions, the term "mental retardation" is still sometimes used in professional medical settings around the world, such as formal scientific research and health insurance paperwork.[47]

text: The several traditional terms that long predate psychiatry are simple forms of abuse in common usage today; they are often encountered in such old documents as books, academic papers, and census forms. For example, the British census of 1901 has a column heading including the terms imbecile and feeble-minded.

text: Negative connotations associated with these numerous terms for intellectual disability reflect society's attitude about the condition. Some elements of society seek neutral medical terms, while others want to use such terms as weapons of abuse.

text: Today, new expressions like developmentally disabled,[48] special, or challenged are replacing the term mentally retarded.  The term developmental delay is popular among caretakers and parents of individuals with intellectual disability because delay suggests that a person is slowly reaching his or her full potential rather than having a lifelong condition.[citation needed]

text: Usage has changed over the years and differed from country to country.  For example, mental retardation in some contexts covers the whole field but previously applied to what is now the mild MR group. Feeble-minded used to mean mild MR in the UK, and once applied in the US to the whole field. "Borderline intellectual functioning" is not currently defined, but the term may be used to apply to people with IQs in the 70s. People with IQs of 70 to 85 used to be eligible for special consideration in the US public education system on grounds of intellectual disability.[citation needed]

text:
Cretin is the oldest and comes from a dialectal French word for Christian.[49] The implication was that people with significant intellectual or developmental disabilities were "still human" (or "still Christian") and deserved to be treated with basic human dignity. Individuals with the condition were considered to be incapable of sinning, thus "christ-like" in their disposition. This term has not been used in scientific endeavors since the middle of the 20th century and is generally considered a term of abuse. Although cretin is no longer in use, the term cretinism is still used to refer to the mental and physical disability resulting from untreated congenital hypothyroidism.
 Amentia  has a long history, mostly associated with dementia. The difference between amentia and dementia was originally defined by time of onset. Amentia was the term used to denote an individual who developed deficits in mental functioning early in life, while dementia included individuals who develop mental deficiencies as adults. Theodor Meynert in the 1890s lectures described amentia as a form of sudden-onset confusion (German: Verwirrtheit), often with hallucinations.[50] This term long in use in psychiatry in this sense. Emil Kraepelin in the 1910s wrote that “acute confusion (amentia)” is a form of febrile delirium.[50] By 1912, amentia was a classification lumping "idiots, imbeciles, and feeble minded" individuals in a category separate from a dementia classification, in which the onset is later in life. In Russian psychiatry the term “amentia” defines a form of clouding of consciousness, which is dominated by confusion, true hallucinations, incoherence of thinking and speech and chaotic movements.[51] In Russia “amentia” (Russian: аменция) is not associated with intellectual disability and mean only clouding of consciousness.
Idiot indicated the greatest degree of intellectual disability, where the mental age is two years or less, and the person cannot guard himself or herself against common physical dangers. The term was gradually replaced by the term profound mental retardation (which has itself since been replaced by other terms).
Imbecile indicated an intellectual disability less extreme than idiocy and not necessarily inherited. It is now usually subdivided into two categories, known as severe intellectual disability and moderate intellectual disability.
Moron was defined by the American Association for the Study of the Feeble-minded in 1910, following work by Henry H. Goddard, as the term for an adult with a mental age between eight and twelve; mild intellectual disability is now the term for this condition. Alternative definitions of these terms based on IQ were also used. This group was known in UK law from 1911 to 1959–60 as feeble-minded.
Mongolism and Mongoloid idiot were medical terms used to identify someone with Down syndrome, as the doctor who first described the syndrome, John Langdon Down, believed that children with Down syndrome shared facial similarities with Blumenbach's "Mongolian race." The Mongolian People's Republic requested that the medical community cease use of the term as a referent to intellectual disability. Their request was granted in the 1960s, when the World Health Organization agreed that the term should cease being used within the medical community.[52]
In the field of special education, educable (or "educable intellectual disability") refers to ID students with IQs of approximately 50–75 who can progress academically to a late elementary level. Trainable (or "trainable intellectual disability") refers to students whose IQs fall below 50 but who are still capable of learning personal hygiene and other living skills in a sheltered setting, such as a group home. In many areas, these terms have been replaced by use of "moderate" and "severe" intellectual disability. While the names change, the meaning stays roughly the same in practice.
Retarded comes from the Latin retardare, "to make slow, delay, keep back, or hinder," so mental retardation meant the same as mentally delayed. The term was recorded in 1426 as a "fact or action of making slower in movement or time." The first record of retarded in relation to being mentally slow was in 1895. The term mentally retarded was used to replace terms like idiot, moron, and imbecile because retarded was not then a derogatory term. By the 1960s, however, the term had taken on a partially derogatory meaning as well. The noun retard is particularly seen as pejorative; a BBC survey in 2003 ranked it as the most offensive disability-related word, ahead of terms such as spastic (or its abbreviation spaz) and mong.[53] The terms mentally retarded and mental retardation are still fairly common, but currently the Special Olympics, Best Buddies, and over 100 other organizations are striving to eliminate their use by referring to the word retard and its variants as the "r-word", in an effort to equate it to the word nigger and the associated euphemism "n-word", in everyday conversation. These efforts have resulted in federal legislation, sometimes known as "Rosa's Law", to replace the term mentally retarded with the term intellectual disability in some federal statutes.[54][55]The term mental retardation was a diagnostic term denoting the group of disconnected categories of mental functioning such as idiot, imbecile, and moron derived from early IQ tests, which acquired pejorative connotations in popular discourse. It acquired negative and shameful connotations over the last few decades due to the use of the words retarded and retard as insults. This may have contributed to its replacement with euphemisms such as mentally challenged or intellectually disabled. While developmental disability includes many other disorders, developmental disability and developmental delay (for people under the age of 18) are generally considered more polite terms than mental retardation.

text: United States

text:
In North America, intellectual disability is subsumed into the broader term developmental disability, which also includes epilepsy, autism, cerebral palsy, and other disorders that develop during the developmental period (birth to age 18). Because service provision is tied to the designation 'developmental disability', it is used by many parents, direct support professionals, and physicians. In the United States, however, in school-based settings, the more specific term mental retardation or, more recently (and preferably), intellectual disability, is still typically used, and is one of 13 categories of disability under which children may be identified for special education services under Public Law 108-446.
The phrase intellectual disability is increasingly being used as a synonym for people with significantly below-average cognitive ability. These terms are sometimes used as a means of separating general intellectual limitations from specific, limited deficits as well as indicating that it is not an emotional or psychological disability. It is not specific to congenital disorders such as Down syndrome.

text: The American Association on Mental Retardation changed its name to the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) in 2007, and soon thereafter changed the names of its scholarly journals[56] to reflect the term "intellectual disability." In 2010, the AAIDD released its 11th edition of its terminology and classification manual, which also used the term intellectual disability[57][58]

text: United Kingdom

text: In the UK, mental handicap had become the common medical term, replacing mental subnormality in Scotland and mental deficiency in England and Wales, until Stephen Dorrell, Secretary of State for Health for the United Kingdom from 1995–97, changed the NHS's designation to learning disability.[59] The new term is not yet widely understood, and is often taken to refer to problems affecting schoolwork (the American usage), which are known in the UK as "learning difficulties." British social workers may use "learning difficulty" to refer to both people with intellectual disability and those with conditions such as dyslexia.[60] In education, "learning difficulties" is applied to a wide range of conditions: "specific learning difficulty" may refer to dyslexia, dyscalculia or developmental coordination disorder, while "moderate learning difficulties", "severe learning difficulties" and "profound learning difficulties" refer to more significant impairments.[61][62]

text: In England and Wales between 1983 and 2008, the Mental Health Act 1983 defined "mental impairment" and "severe mental impairment" as "a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant/severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning and is associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned."[63] As behavior was involved, these were not necessarily permanent conditions: they were defined for the purpose of authorizing detention in hospital or guardianship. The term mental impairment was removed from the Act in November 2008, but the grounds for detention remained. However, English statute law uses mental impairment elsewhere in a less well-defined manner—e.g. to allow exemption from taxes—implying that intellectual disability without any behavioral problems is what is meant.

text: A BBC poll conducted in the United Kingdom came to the conclusion that 'retard' was the most offensive disability-related word.[64] On the reverse side of that, when a contestant on Celebrity Big Brother live used the phrase "walking like a retard", despite complaints from the public and the charity Mencap, the communications regulator Ofcom did not uphold the complaint saying "it was not used in an offensive context [...] and had been used light-heartedly". It was, however, noted that two previous similar complaints from other shows were upheld.[65]

text: Australia

text: In the past, Australia has used British and American terms interchangeably, including "mental retardation" and "mental handicap". Today, "intellectual disability" is the preferred and more commonly used descriptor.[66]

text: Society and culture

text: People with intellectual disabilities are often not seen as full citizens of society. Person-centered planning and approaches are seen as methods of addressing the continued labeling and exclusion of socially devalued people, such as people with disabilities, encouraging a focus on the person as someone with capacities and gifts as well as support needs. The self-advocacy movement promotes the right of self-determination and self-direction by people with intellectually disabilities, which means allowing them to make decisions about their own lives.

text: Until the middle of the 20th century, people with intellectual disabilities were routinely excluded from public education, or educated away from other typically developing children. Compared to peers who were segregated in special schools, students who are mainstreamed or included in regular classrooms report similar levels of stigma and social self-conception, but more ambitious plans for employment.[67] As adults, they may live independently, with family members, or in different types of institutions organized to support people with disabilities. About 8% currently live in an institution or a group home.[68]

text: In the United States, the average lifetime cost of a person with an intellectual disability amounts to $1,014,000 per person, in 2003 US dollars.[68] This is slightly more than the costs associated with cerebral palsy, and double that associated with serious vision or hearing impairments. About 14% is due to increased medical expenses (not including what is normally incurred by the typical person), 10% is due to direct non-medical expenses, such as the excess cost of special education compared to standard schooling, and 76% is indirect costs accounting for reduced productivity and shortened lifespans. Some expenses, such as costs associated with being a family caregiver or living in a group home, were excluded from this calculation.[68]

text: Health disparities

text: People with intellectual disability as a group have higher rates of adverse health conditions such as epilepsy and neurological disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, and behavioral and psychiatric problems compared to people without disabilities.[69] Adults also have a higher prevalence of poor social determinants of health, behavioral risk factors, depression, diabetes, and poor or fair health status than adults without intellectual disability.[70] In the United Kingdom people with intellectual disability live on average 16 years less than the general population.[71]


document_title: Separation of powers

question_text: where are the legislative branch powers derived from

question_tokens: where are the legislative branch powers derived from

root

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

tag: table

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).

tag: p

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 magistracy, 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: 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 there 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][citation needed]

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 greatest 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 deputees 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, two-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.