document_title: Impeachment in the United States

question_text: who presides over any impeachment trial of the president of the united states

text: Impeachment in the United States

text: Federal impeachment[edit]

text: House of Representatives[edit]

text: Impeachment proceedings may be commenced by a member of the House of Representatives on her or his own initiative, either by presenting a list of the charges under oath or by asking for referral to the appropriate committee. The impeachment process may be initiated by non-members. For example, when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of actions constituting grounds for impeachment may come from a special prosecutor, the President, or state or territorial legislature, grand jury, or by petition.

text: The type of impeachment resolution determines the committee to which it is referred. A resolution impeaching a particular individual is typically referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. A resolution to authorize an investigation regarding impeachable conduct is referred to the House Committee on Rules, and then to the Judiciary Committee. The House Committee on the Judiciary, by majority vote, will determine whether grounds for impeachment exist. If the Committee finds grounds for impeachment, it will set forth specific allegations of misconduct in one or more articles of impeachment. The Impeachment Resolution, or Article(s) of Impeachment, are then reported to the full House with the committee's recommendations.

text: The House debates the resolution and may at the conclusion consider the resolution as a whole or vote on each article of impeachment individually. A simple majority of those present and voting is required for each article for the resolution as a whole to pass. If the House votes to impeach, managers (typically referred to as "House managers", with a "lead House manager") are selected to present the case to the Senate. Recently, managers have been selected by resolution, while historically the House would occasionally elect the managers or pass a resolution allowing the appointment of managers at the discretion of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. These managers are roughly the equivalent of the prosecution/district attorney in a standard criminal trial.

text: Also, the House will adopt a resolution in order to notify the Senate of its action. After receiving the notice, the Senate will adopt an order notifying the House that it is ready to receive the managers. The House managers then appear before the bar of the Senate and exhibit the articles of impeachment. After the reading of the charges, the managers return and make a verbal report to the House.

text: Senate[edit]

text: The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case, and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence. After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private. The Constitution requires a two thirds super majority to convict a person being impeached.[5]

text: The Senate enters judgment on its decision, whether that be to convict or acquit, and a copy of the judgment is filed with the Secretary of State.[7] Upon conviction in the Senate, the official is automatically removed from office and may also be barred from holding future office.[5] The removed official is also liable to criminal prosecution. The President may not grant a pardon in the impeachment case, but may in any resulting criminal case.

text: Beginning in the 1980s with Harry E. Claiborne, the Senate began using "Impeachment Trial Committees" pursuant to Senate Rule XI.[8] These committees presided over the evidentiary phase of the trials, hearing the evidence and supervising the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. The committees would then compile the evidentiary record and present it to the Senate; all senators would then have the opportunity to review the evidence before the chamber voted to convict or acquit. The purpose of the committees was to streamline impeachment trials, which otherwise would have taken up a great deal of the chamber's time. Defendants challenged the use of these committees, claiming them to be a violation of their fair trial rights as well as the Senate's constitutional mandate, as a body, to have "sole power to try all impeachments." Several impeached judges sought court intervention in their impeachment proceedings on these grounds, but the courts refused to become involved due to the Constitution's granting of impeachment and removal power solely to the legislative branch, making it a political question.

text: History[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: In the United Kingdom, impeachment was a procedure whereby a member of the House of Commons could accuse someone of a crime. If the Commons voted for the impeachment, a trial would then be held in the House of Lords. Unlike a bill of attainder, a law declaring a person guilty of a crime, impeachments did not require royal assent, so they could be used to remove troublesome officers of the Crown even if the monarch was trying to protect them.

text: The monarch, however, was above the law and could not be impeached, or indeed judged guilty of any crime. When King Charles I was tried before the Rump Parliament of the New Model Army in 1649 he denied that they had any right to legally indict him, their king, whose power was given by God and the laws of the country, saying: "no earthly power can justly call me (who is your King) in question as a delinquent … no learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the King." While the House of Commons pronounced him guilty and ordered his execution anyway, the jurisdictional issue tainted the proceedings.

text: With this example in mind, the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention chose to include an impeachment procedure in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution which could be applied to any government official; they explicitly mentioned the President to ensure there would be no ambiguity. Opinions differed, however, as to the reasons Congress should be able to initiate an impeachment. Initial drafts listed only treason and bribery, but George Mason favored impeachment for "maladministration" (incompetence). James Madison argued that impeachment should only be for criminal behavior, arguing that a maladministration standard would effectively mean that the President would serve at the pleasure of the Senate.[9] Thus the delegates adopted a compromise version allowing impeachment for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

text: The precise meaning of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is somewhat ambiguous; some scholars, such as Kevin Gutzman, argue that it can encompass even non-criminal abuses of power. Whatever its theoretical scope, however, Congress traditionally regards impeachment as a power to use only in extreme cases. The House of Representatives has actually initiated impeachment proceedings 62 times since 1789.[citation needed] Two cases did not come to trial because the individuals had left office.

text: Actual impeachments of 19 federal officers have taken place. Of these, 15 were federal judges: thirteen district court judges, one court of appeals judge (who also sat on the Commerce Court), and one Supreme Court Associate Justice. Of the other four, two were Presidents, one was a Cabinet secretary, and one was a U.S. Senator. Of the 19 impeached officials, eight were convicted. One, former judge Alcee Hastings, was elected as a member of the United States House of Representatives after being removed from office.

text: The 1797 impeachment of Senator William Blount of Tennessee stalled on the grounds that the Senate lacked jurisdiction over him. No other member of Congress has ever been impeached. The Constitution does give authority to the Senate and House, so that each body may expel its own members. (see List of United States senators expelled or censured and List of United States Representatives expelled, censured, or reprimanded). Expulsion removes the individual from functioning as a representative or senator because of their misbehavior, but unlike impeachment, expulsion cannot result in barring an individual from holding future office.

text: Federal officials impeached[edit]

text:
#
Date of Impeachment
Accused
Office
Accusation(s)
Result[Note 1]
References

1
July 7, 1797

William Blount

United States Senator (Tennessee)
Conspiring to assist Britain in capturing Spanish territory
Senate refused to accept impeachment of a Senator by the House of Representatives, instead expelling him from the Senate on their own authority[10][Note 2]
[11]

2
March 2, 1803

John Pickering

Judge (District of New Hampshire)
Drunkenness and unlawful rulings
Removed on March 12, 1804[10][12]
[11][12]

3
March 12, 1804

Samuel Chase

Associate Justice (Supreme Court of the United States)
Political bias and arbitrary rulings, promoting a partisan political agenda on the bench [13]
Acquitted on March 1, 1805
[10][12]

4
April 24, 1830

James H. Peck

Judge (District of Missouri)
Abuse of power[14]
Acquitted on January 31, 1831[10][12]
[11][12]

5
May 6, 1862

West Hughes Humphreys

Judge (Eastern, Middle, and Western Districts of Tennessee)
Supporting the Confederacy
Removed and disqualified on June 26, 1862[11][10][12]
[11][12]

6
February 24, 1868

Andrew Johnson

President of the United States
Violating the Tenure of Office Act
Acquitted on May 26, 1868[10]
[11]

7
February 28, 1873

Mark W. Delahay

Judge (District of Kansas)
Drunkenness
Resigned on December 12, 1873[12][15]
[12][15]

8
March 2, 1876

William W. Belknap

United States Secretary of War
Graft/corruption
Acquitted after his resignation on August 1, 1876.[10]
[11]

9
December 13, 1904

Charles Swayne

Judge (Northern District of Florida)
Failure to live in his district, abuse of power[16]
Acquitted on February 27, 1905[10][12]
[11][12]

10
July 11, 1912

Robert Wodrow Archbald

Associate Justice (United States Commerce Court)
Judge (Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Improper acceptance of gifts from litigants and attorneys
Removed and disqualified on January 13, 1913[11][10][12]
[11][12]

11
April 1, 1926

George W. English

Judge (Eastern District of Illinois)
Abuse of power
Resigned on November 4, 1926,[11][10] proceedings dismissed on December 13, 1926[11][12]
[11][12]

12
February 24, 1933

Harold Louderback

Judge (Northern District of California)
Corruption
Acquitted on May 24, 1933[10][12]
[11][12]

13
March 2, 1936

Halsted L. Ritter

Judge (Southern District of Florida)
Champerty/corruption, tax evasion, practicing law while a judge
Removed on April 17, 1936[10][12]
[11][12]

14
July 22, 1986

Harry E. Claiborne

Judge (District of Nevada)
Tax evasion
Removed on October 9, 1986[10][12]
[11][12]

15
August 3, 1988

Alcee Hastings

Judge (Southern District of Florida)
Accepting a bribe, and committing perjury during the resulting investigation
Removed on October 20, 1989[10][12]
[11][12]

16
May 10, 1989

Walter Nixon

Chief Judge (Southern District of Mississippi)
Perjury
Removed on November 3, 1989[10][12][Note 3]
[11][12]

17
December 19, 1998

Bill Clinton

President of the United States
Perjury and obstruction of justice
Acquitted on February 12, 1999[10]
[11]

18
June 19, 2009

Samuel B. Kent

Judge (Southern District of Texas)
Sexual assault, and obstruction of justice during the resulting investigation
Resigned on June 30, 2009,[12][17] proceedings dismissed on July 22, 2009[10][12][18]
[12][19]

19
March 11, 2010

Thomas Porteous

Judge (Eastern District of Louisiana)
Making false financial disclosures
Removed and disqualified on December 8, 2010[10][12][20]
[12][21]

text: Demands for impeachment[edit]

text: While the actual impeachment of a federal public official is a rare event, demands for impeachment, especially of presidents, are common,[22][23] going back to the administration of George Washington in the mid-1790s. In fact, most of the 63 resolutions mentioned above were in response to presidential actions.

text: While almost all of them were for the most part frivolous and were buried as soon as they were introduced, several did have their intended effect. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon[24] and Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas both resigned in response to the threat of impeachment hearings, and, most famously, President Richard Nixon resigned from office after the House Judiciary Committee had already reported articles of impeachment to the floor.

text: Impeachment in the states[edit]

text: State legislatures can impeach state officials, including governors. The court for the trial of impeachments may differ somewhat from the federal model—in New York, for instance, the Assembly (lower house) impeaches, and the State Senate tries the case, but the members of the seven-judge New York State Court of Appeals (the state's highest, constitutional court) sit with the senators as jurors as well.[25] Impeachment and removal of governors has happened occasionally throughout the history of the United States, usually for corruption charges. A total of at least eleven U.S. state governors have faced an impeachment trial; a twelfth, Governor Lee Cruce of Oklahoma, escaped impeachment conviction by a single vote in 1912. Several others, most recently Alabama's Robert J. Bentley, have resigned rather than face impeachment, when events seemed to make it inevitable.[26] The most recent impeachment of a state governor occurred on January 14, 2009, when the Illinois House of Representatives voted 117–1 to impeach Rod Blagojevich on corruption charges;[27] he was subsequently removed from office and barred from holding future office by the Illinois Senate on January 29. He was the eighth U.S. state governor to be removed from office.

text: The procedure for impeachment, or removal, of local officials varies widely. For instance, in New York a mayor is removed directly by the governor "upon being heard" on charges—the law makes no further specification of what charges are necessary or what the governor must find in order to remove a mayor.

text: State and territorial officials impeached[edit]

text:
Date
Accused
Office
Result

1804

William W. Irvin

Associate Judge, Fairfield County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas
Removed

1832

Theophilus W. Smith

Associate Justice, Illinois Supreme Court
Acquitted[28]

February 26, 1862

Charles L. Robinson

Governor of Kansas
Acquitted[29]

February 26, 1862

John Winter Robinson

Secretary of State of Kansas
Removed on June 12, 1862[30]

February 26, 1862

George S. Hillyer

Kansas State auditor
Removed on June 16, 1862[30]

1871

William Woods Holden

Governor of North Carolina
Removed

1871

David Butler

Governor of Nebraska
Removed[29]

February 1872

Harrison Reed

Governor of Florida
Acquitted[31]

1872

Henry C. Warmoth

Governor of Louisiana
"suspended from office," though trial was not held[32]

1876

Adelbert Ames

Governor of Mississippi
Resigned[29]

1888

James W. Tate

Kentucky State Treasurer
Removed

1901

David M. Furches

Chief Justice, North Carolina Supreme Court
Acquitted[33]

1901

Robert M. Douglas

Associate Justice, North Carolina Supreme Court
Acquitted[33]

August 13, 1913[34]

William Sulzer

Governor of New York
Removed on October 17, 1913[35]

July 1917

James E. Ferguson

Governor of Texas
Removed[36]

October 23, 1923

John C. Walton

Governor of Oklahoma
Removed

January 21, 1929

Henry S. Johnston

Governor of Oklahoma
Removed

April 6, 1929[37]

Huey P. Long

Governor of Louisiana
Acquitted

May 1958[38]

Raulston Schoolfield

Judge, Hamilton County, Tennessee Criminal Court
Removed on July 11, 1958[39]

March 14, 1984[40]

Paul Douglas

Nebraska Attorney General
Acquitted by the Nebraska Supreme Court on May 4, 1984[41]

February 6, 1988[42]

Evan Mecham

Governor of Arizona
Removed on April 4, 1988[43]

March 30, 1989[44]

A. James Manchin

West Virginia State treasurer
Resigned on July 9, 1989 before trial started[45]

January 25, 1991[46]

Ward "Butch" Burnette

Kentucky Commissioner of Agriculture
Resigned on February 6, 1991 before trial started[47]

May 24, 1994[48]

Rolf Larsen

Associate Justice, Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Removed on October 4, 1994, and declared ineligible to hold public office in Pennsylvania[49]

October 6, 1994[50]

Judith Moriarty

Secretary of State of Missouri
Removed by the Missouri Supreme Court on December 12, 1994[51]

November 11, 2004[52]

Kathy Augustine

Nevada State Controller
Censured on December 4, 2004, not removed from office[53]

April 11, 2006[54]

David Hergert

Member of the University of Nebraska Board of Regents
Removed by the Nebraska Supreme Court on July 7, 2006[55]

January 8, 2009 (first vote)[56]

Rod Blagojevich

Governor of Illinois
95th General Assembly ended

January 14, 2009 (second vote)[57]
Removed on January 29, 2009, and declared ineligible to hold public office in Illinois[58]

February 11, 2013[59]

Benigno Fitial

Governor of the Northern Mariana Islands
Resigned on February 20, 2013


document_title: Air mass

question_text: in naming air masses the letter c stands for ____

question_tokens: in naming air masses the letter c stands for -- -- -- --

root

text: Air mass

text: Classification and notation[edit]

text: The Bergeron classification is the most widely accepted form of air mass classification, though others have produced more refined versions of this scheme over different regions of the globe.[1] Air mass classification involves three letters. The first letter describes its moisture properties, with c used for continental air masses (dry) and m for maritime air masses (moist). The second letter describes the thermal characteristic of its source region: T for Tropical, P for Polar, A for arctic or Antarctic, M for monsoon, E for Equatorial, and S for superior air (an adiabatically drying and warming air formed by significant downward motion in the atmosphere). For instance, an air mass originating over the desert southwest of the United States in summer may be designated "cT". An air mass originating over northern Siberia in winter may be indicated as "cA".[2]

tag: p

text: The stability of an air mass may be shown using a third letter, either "k" (air mass colder than the surface below it) or "w" (air mass warmer than the surface below it).[2] An example of this might be a polar air mass blowing over the Gulf Stream, denoted as "cPk". Occasionally, one may also encounter the use of an apostrophe or "degree tick" denoting that a given air mass having the same notation as another it is replacing is colder than the replaced air mass (usually for polar air masses). For example, a series of fronts over the Pacific might show an air mass denoted mPk followed by another denoted mPk'.[2]

text: Another convention utilizing these symbols is the indication of modification or transformation of one type to another. For instance, an Arctic air mass blowing out over the Gulf of Alaska may be shown as "cA-mPk". Yet another convention indicates the layering of air masses in certain situations. For instance, the overrunning of a polar air mass by an air mass from the Gulf of Mexico over the Central United States might be shown with the notation "mT/cP" (sometimes using a horizontal line as in fraction notation).[3]

text: Characteristics[edit]

text: Arctic, Antarctic, and polar air masses are cold. The qualities of arctic air are developed over ice and snow-covered ground. Arctic air is deeply cold, colder than polar air masses. Arctic air can be shallow in the summer, and rapidly modify as it moves equatorward.[4] Polar air masses develop over higher latitudes over the land or ocean, are very stable, and generally shallower than arctic air. Polar air over the ocean (maritime) loses its stability as it gains moisture over warmer ocean waters.[5]

text: Tropical and equatorial air masses are hot as they develop over lower latitudes. Those that develop over land (continental) are drier and hotter than those that develop over oceans, and travel poleward on the western periphery of the subtropical ridge.[6] Maritime tropical air masses are sometimes referred to as trade air masses.[7] Monsoon air masses are moist and unstable. Superior air masses are dry, and rarely reach the ground. They normally reside over maritime tropical air masses, forming a warmer and drier layer over the more moderate moist air mass below, forming what is known as a trade wind inversion over the maritime tropical air mass. Continental Polar air masses (cP) are air masses that are cold and dry due to their continental source region. Continental polar air masses that affect North America form over interior Canada. Continental Tropical air masses (cT) are a type of tropical air produced by the subtropical ridge over large areas of land and typically originate from low-latitude deserts such as the Sahara Desert in northern Africa, which is the major source of these air masses. Other less important sources producing cT air masses are the Arabian Peninsula, the central arid/semi-arid part of Australia and deserts lying in the Southwestern United States. Continental tropical air masses are extremely hot and dry. [8]

text: Movement and fronts[edit]

text: A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored lines and symbols, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity. Cold fronts may feature narrow bands of thunderstorms and severe weather, and may on occasion be preceded by squall lines or dry lines. Warm fronts are usually preceded by stratiform precipitation and fog. The weather usually clears quickly after a front's passage. Some fronts produce no precipitation and little cloudiness, although there is invariably a wind shift.[9]

text: Cold fronts and occluded fronts generally move from west to east, while warm fronts move poleward. Because of the greater density of air in their wake, cold fronts and cold occlusions move faster than warm fronts and warm occlusions. Mountains and warm bodies of water can slow the movement of fronts.[10] When a front becomes stationary, and the density contrast across the frontal boundary vanishes, the front can degenerate into a line which separates regions of differing wind velocity, known as a shearline.[11] This is most common over the open ocean.

text: Modification[edit]

text: Air masses can be modified in a variety of ways. Surface flux from underlying vegetation, such as forest, acts to moisten the overlying air mass.[12] Heat from underlying warmer waters can significantly modify an air mass over distances as short as 35 kilometres (22 mi) to 40 kilometres (25 mi).[13] For example, southwest of extratropical cyclones, curved cyclonic flow bringing cold air across the relatively warm water bodies can lead to narrow lake-effect snow bands. Those bands bring strong localized precipitation since large water bodies such as lakes efficiently store heat that results in significant temperature differences (larger than 13 °C or 23 °F) between the water surface and the air above.[14] Because of this temperature difference, warmth and moisture are transported upward, condensing into vertically oriented clouds (see satellite picture) which produce snow showers. The temperature decrease with height and cloud depth are directly affected by both the water temperature and the large-scale environment. The stronger the temperature decrease with height, the deeper the clouds get, and the greater the precipitation rate becomes.[15]


document_title: History of Fox News

question_text: when did fox news go on the air

question_tokens: when did fox news go on the air

text: History of Fox News

text: Through second term of Bill Clinton (1996–2000)[edit]

text: The channel was created by Australian-born American media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who hired Roger Ailes as its founding CEO. The channel was launched on October 7, 1996[1] to 17 million cable subscribers. Prior to founding Fox News, Murdoch had gained significant experience in the 24-hour news business when News Corporation's BSkyB subsidiary started Europe's first 24-hour news channel, Sky News, in the United Kingdom in 1989.[2] With the success of his fourth network efforts in the United States,[3][4] experience gained from Sky News, and turnaround of 20th Century Fox, Murdoch announced on January 31, 1996, that his company would be launching a 24-hour news channel to air on both cable and satellite systems as part of a News Corp. "worldwide platform" for Fox programming, reasoning that "The appetite for news – particularly news that explains to people how it affects them – is expanding enormously."[5]

text: In February 1996, after former NBC executive and Republican political strategist[6] Roger Ailes left America's Talking (now MSNBC), Murdoch called him to start the Fox News Channel. Ailes worked individuals through five months of 14-hour workdays and several weeks of rehearsal shows before launch, on October 7, 1996.[7]

text: At launch, only 10 million households were able to watch Fox News, with none in the major media markets of New York City and Los Angeles. According to published reports, many media reviewers had to watch the first day's programming at Fox News' studios because it was not readily available. The rolling news coverage during the day consisted of 20-minute single topic shows like Fox on Crime or Fox on Politics surrounded by news headlines. Interviews had various facts at the bottom of the screen about the topic or the guest.

text: In the 2000 presidential election, Fox News, which was available in 56 million homes nationwide, saw a staggering 440% increase in viewers, the biggest gain among the three cable news television networks.[8]

text: The Edge[edit]

text: Hosted by Paula Zahn, The Edge was one of the original programs on the network, focusing on talk between the host and newsmakers, like other programs on the network at the time. During the program's later years, John Gibson became host when the network discovered Zahn was in the midst of contract negotiations with CNN. The show was cancelled in 2002.

text: The O'Reilly Factor[edit]

text: On October 7, 1996, The O'Reilly Report aired its first episode, hosted by Bill O'Reilly. It was later renamed because of a suggestion by a friend. The O'Reilly Factor, unlike many other Fox News programs, is pre-recorded, or "live-to-tape," except when covering breaking news or special events. Some guests are interviewed before the "live-to-tape" period and are slotted in the program as appropriate. O'Reilly's producers have said that video editing takes place only when an interview exceeds the available length in a program, of which the total is 43 minutes (for an hour-long slot, once commercials and news breaks are added), though some critics have suggested that interviews are sometimes edited after taping to suit O'Reilly's agenda.[9][10]

text: O'Reilly and his producers discuss potential topics twice a week.[11] A producer will research the story and book guests for O'Reilly, and an information packet will be produced with possible angles for O'Reilly to explore. The producers will often "pre-interview" the guest so that they know what potential points he or she might make.[12] For each show, O'Reilly, with the assistance of his staff, will produce a script with the words for the "Talking Points Memo" and "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" segments, and points of discussion and questions for the guests that will appear on the program. On February 2, 2009, the show began airing in high definition and moved to the previous set used by the Fox Report.

text: Your World with Neil Cavuto[edit]

text: Debuting as the Cavuto Business Report on the network's launch in 1996, Your World with Neil Cavuto has become a very popular show, hosted by fiscal conservative reporter and commentator Neil Cavuto. The program covers the latest business news stories of the day, in addition to giving analysis on how the stock market moved through the day. It also covers political stories, such as how political actions may affect the markets, in addition to analysis of the markets by a group of analysts from one of the Cost of Freedom business block programs. Closing the program, the show has a commentary segment called "Common Sense," in which Neil gives his point of view on a news story of the day. The program is broadcast live weekdays at 4 p.m. ET.

text: Hannity & Colmes[edit]

text: Hannity & Colmes was an American television show on Fox News Channel, hosted by Sean Hannity[13] and Alan Colmes,[14] who respectively presented a conservative and liberal perspective. The series premiered in October 1996, and the final episode aired on January 9, 2009. It was the precursor to the current Hannity series, which currently airs in the same timeslot.

text: Fox Magazine[edit]

text: Fox Magazine was launched in 1997 as a weekly newsmagazine on the Fox News Channel. Hosted by Laurie Dhue, the program was a weekly in-depth look into some of the previous week's stories, in addition to special series produced by the program itself, such as its constant series about Nashville. Included in the programming were a recap of the previous week's commentaries from a number of the network's commentators. The program would come to an end on September 11, 2005, with Dhue leaving the network to work on Geraldo at Large.

text: Fox & Friends[edit]

text: Fox & Friends is a morning news show that debuted in 1998. It is currently hosted by Ainsley Earhardt, Steve Doocy, and Brian Kilmeade during the week. Weekends are hosted by Anna Kooiman, Clayton Morris and Tucker Carlson.

text: Drudge[edit]

text: Drudge was a television series on Fox News Channel that was hosted by Matt Drudge. Drudge left the show in 1999 after network executives refused to let him show a picture of Samuel Armas.[15]

text: Through first term of George W. Bush (2001–2004)[edit]

text: Following Al Gore's loss in the 2000 election, many critics have said that Fox News was against their campaign. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was clearly a fan of Fox News Channel. Some Democrats say Fox was "an avowed enemy of the Gore campaign," as Al Gore spokesman Mark Fabiani told The New York Times. Such comments reinforce the perception of Rupert Murdoch's network as a conservative bastion – an image that Fox News President Roger Ailes insists is not the case. One reason for Fox's right-leaning reputation early on was its prime-time talk lineup. As even some network insiders acknowledge, the chat consistently tilts to the conservative side.[16]

text: When George W. Bush took office, there was a change in the West Wing; television sets that were almost always tuned to CNN during the Clinton years were now on Fox News Channel, whose political talk shows are dominated by conservative commentators. And after eight years of feeling frozen out, reporters from news outlets with conservative programming are winning a much friendlier reception from Bush and his aides. The shift started on the campaign trail. Bush's audiences occasionally booed CNN reporter Candy Crowley and held up signs slamming the "Clinton News Network." Sometimes they cheered Carl Cameron of Fox News. "It was flattering and unsettling. It suggested a perception that I would often disabuse people of." Fox News reporters warmly received on the campaign trail are getting more access to top aides. It's part of a strategy to get more coverage – and more positive coverage – by spending time with right-leaning and outside-the-Washington-beltway journalists. In the Clinton White House, press secretaries were sometimes dismissive of reporters from conservative newspapers and stations – or they ignored them.[17]

text: Through second term of George W. Bush (2005-2009)[edit]

text: Through the Barack Obama administration (2009-2017)[edit]

text: Obama administration conflict with Fox News[edit]

text: Through first term of Donald Trump (2017-present)[edit]

text: Sexual harassment scandals[edit]

text: Roger Ailes resignation[edit]

text: Firing of Bill O'Reilly[edit]


document_title: Infinity Gems

question_text: how does thanos get the infinity stones in the comics

text: Infinity Gems

text: Publication history[edit]

text:
[hide]This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

This section may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Please rewrite it according to the fiction guidelines, so that it meets Wikipedia's quality standards. (May 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. (November 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This section contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (December 2016)

(Learn how and when to remove this template message)

tag: table

text: The Soul Gems first appear in The Power of Warlock.[1] All six appear together for the first time in the second "Thanos War" storyline in Avengers and Marvel Two-In-One annuals. Thanos harnesses their latent energies to power a giant gem to extinguish every star in the universe.[2][full citation needed]

text: In the third volume of the Silver Surfer title, the Surfer refers to the gems as "Soul Gems" for the first time.[3] They are gathered by the Elders of the Universe, who intend to use their combined power to drain Galactus of his lifeforce and then recreate the universe with themselves as the oldest beings in it (Galactus was the last survivor of the Universe that existed prior to the birth of the current Marvel Universe). This plot is thwarted by the Silver Surfer, and several Elders and the gems are lost in a black hole; Galactus consumes some of the other Elders. In a follow-up story, Galactus is poisoned by the Elders he consumed. Silver Surfer, Mr. Fantastic, and the Invisible Woman journey through the black hole to recover the gems. Invisible Woman becomes possessed by the sentient Soul Gem, awakening her evil Malice persona. She is later subdued, and the gems are used to remove the Elders from Galactus' body. The Elders later reclaim the gems.

text: In the limited series The Thanos Quest Thanos refers to the entire set as "Infinity Gems" for the first time. Thanos systematically subdues the Elders one by one to gather all six gems. Once in his control, he sets the gems into a gold glove (the left gauntlet of his customary attire) which he refers to as the Infinity Gauntlet. Thanos explains the origin of the gems to the Runner, one of the Elders of the Universe: the set are the remains of a once nigh omnipotent but lonely being. Unable to endure eternity alone, the being committed suicide, although a fraction of its essence remained and became the Infinity Gems.[4]

text: Thanos becomes nearly omnipotent, and challenges the Silver Surfer and Drax the Destroyer, handling the heroes with ease. He reclaims his ship Sanctuary II from its current captain, his granddaughter Nebula. He burns her nearly to death, but uses the Gems to keep her suspended between life and death in immortal agony; he claims this is a "work of art", "a monument to the insanity of Life and Death denied". Mephisto joins Thanos as an adviser. The Silver Surfer travels to Earth to warn Earth's superheroes of the threat of Thanos and the Gems, setting the stage for The Infinity Gauntlet limited series.

text: In The Infinity Gauntlet, Thanos uses the Gauntlet to erase half the population of the universe, completing the quest that had led him to find the Gems and assemble the Gauntlet. This fulfilled a pledge to his love, Death, to repair a "cosmic imbalance" caused by the presence of more sentient beings alive than had ever died in all of history; Death believed that this imbalance would lead to starvation, pestilence, and misery across the cosmos. Thanos decimates Earth's heroes in combat when they retaliate, and then battles the pantheon of cosmic entities when they attempt to strip him of the Gauntlet; he defeats them all and turns them to stone. He uses the Gems to supplant Eternity, gaining Eternity's ethereal form and forsaking his physical body. This leaves the Gauntlet vulnerable, and Nebula removes it from Thanos' body, ending his control over the Gems (according to Adam Warlock, Thanos subconsciously felt unworthy of the power of the Gauntlet, causing him to lose control of it). Nebula's attempts to wield the Gauntlet fail due to her inexperience and lack of willpower, and she is left debilitated after restoring the universe to a state before Thanos used the Gauntlet. She is defeated in a battle with Earth's heroes,[5] and Adam Warlock emerges as the new possessor of the Gauntlet. Warlock insists that he will not be a threat like Thanos, but the heroes do not trust him and he sends them away before they can attack. He is called to judgement in a suit brought by Eternity before the Living Tribunal, who finds Warlock unworthy of the power of the Gems due to his emotional instability. The Tribunal reasons with Adam, revealing that a fight to retain the Gauntlet would devastate the universe. Warlock uses the Gauntlet to perceive the flow of time, and sees his inevitable course of action is to distribute the Gems to a group of trusted guardians and companions. The Tribunal accepts this decision, to the dismay of Eternity.

text: In the series Warlock and the Infinity Watch the Gems are distributed by Adam Warlock to a group he dubs "the Infinity Watch".[6] He places himself as the leader and guardian of the Soul Gem. He names Gamora guardian of the Time Gem, Pip the Troll guardian of the Space Gem, Drax the Destroyer guardian of the Power Gem, Moondragon guardian of the Mind Gem, and an unknown member (later revealed to be Thanos himself) guardian of the Reality Gem. During the course of the series, several enemies attempt to steal the Gems. In an early encounter, Warlock's old nemesis from Counter-Earth, the creature called the Man Beast, abducts several members of the Watch and uses the combined Mind, Power, Space and Time Gems to create a monstrous energy humanoid called "the Infinity Thrall". Both are eventually defeated by Adam Warlock. The Living Tribunal is once again called for judgement, and declares that the Infinity Gems will no longer be able to act in unison.[7]

text: This decree is overturned — courtesy of the machinations of Warlock's evil alter ego from an alternate future, the Magus — in the Infinity War limited series. The Magus gained physical form when Warlock used the Gauntlet to cast out his "Good" and "Evil" sides in an attempt to make decisions based on pure logic. The Magus unites the Gems and plans universal conquest, but Warlock tricks him by substituting a fake Reality Gem. Eternity later announces that the six Gems will never again be used in unison.[8] The Gems are featured in the Infinity Crusade limited series, where Warlock's feminine "Good" side attempts to rid the universe of Evil by eliminating free will, and, ultimately, rewriting the universe such that it has no sentient life to commit Evil.[9]

text: Following the cancellation of the Infinity Watch series, the one-shot title Rune/Silver Surfer depicts the Gems being stolen by the extradimensional vampire Rune and dispersed throughout the Ultraverse.[10][11][12] The Asgardian god Loki enters the Ultraverse and collects the Gems,[13] also discovering the existence of a seventh Gem, "Ego". Loki learns that the lonely omnipotent suicide whose essence became the Gems was the gestalt being known as Nemesis. The Ego Gem, possessing the Avenger Sersi, merges with the other Gems to reform Nemesis and battles the Avengers and Ultraforce before being dissipated once again.[14][15]

text: In the mainstream Marvel Universe, Galactus collects all six Infinity Gems in the Thanos ongoing series, intent on ending his need to consume planets. He is seen taking the Gems off a vampiric skeleton that he retrieves through an interdimensional portal. Galactus' plan fails, and instead allows a deadly inter-dimensional parasite, named Hunger, access into the Earth-616 universe. This parasite had been mentally influencing Galactus' actions all along. Thanos advises that the Gems can be used to wish Hunger away. After the threat is averted, the Gems are scattered again with the exception of the Soul Gem, which Thanos retains for its customary custodian, Adam Warlock.[16]

text: The Gems are featured in the JLA/Avengers limited series. The Infinity Gauntlet is found by DC Comics villain Darkseid when it arrives on Apokolips. He discards it upon discovering that the Gems do not work in the DC Universe. The Flash is able to retrieve it.[17]

text: Titania gains possession of the Power Gem in the She-Hulk ongoing series. Subsequently, all six Gems are featured in the New Avengers: Illuminati limited series and become the possessions of the superhuman group the Illuminati. Reed Richards attempts to will the Gems out of existence to prevent further misuse, but the Watcher Uatu reveals that the Gems must exist as part of the cosmic balance. The Gems are separated and each is placed in the care of an Illuminati member, who vows never to use it or reveal its location.[18]

text: The Gems are reunited in the Lockjaw and the Pet Avengers limited series. The pets of various heroes find the Gems and are forced to use them to battle Thanos. Lockjaw, pet of the Inhumans, gives the Gems to Reed Richards.[19]

text: The Gems were part of the ongoing Avengers series during the Heroic Age. Although the Hood managed to collect the Gems of Power and Reality in time to defeat the Red Hulk,[20] his subsequent attempts to acquire the others resulted in the Red Hulk stealing the Power Gem from him and Thor beating him to the Space Gem. He was able to acquire the Mind and Time Gems. He subsequently used the Gems to travel to the Soul Gem in the astral plane.[21][full citation needed] The Hood is delayed by an illusionary Thanos that Doctor Strange had created, allowing the Avengers to catch up with him. After the battle, the Gems ended up with Iron Man. After sending the Hood back to jail, Iron Man appears to wish the Gems out of existence. It was revealed that the Gems were actually returned to the Illuminati, who all vowed to hide them more securely than before.[22][full citation needed] In an attempt to stop another universe from collapsing into their own, the Illuminati decides to reassemble the Infinity Gauntlet. Captain America uses the Infinity Gauntlet to push the other universe back, but because Eternity declared that the Gems cannot be used in unison the Gems shatter, except for the Time Gem which vanishes.[23][full citation needed] To prevent Captain America stopping the Illuminati from destroying universes during the Incursion crisis, Doctor Strange wipes his memory.[24][full citation needed]

text: After the murder of Uatu, Captain America is exposed to Uatu's eye[25][full citation needed] which restores his memory.[26][full citation needed] Afterwards, Captain America and some of the Avengers are transported into future realities with the previously vanished Time Gem as a result of the Time Gem being destroyed throughout time.[27][full citation needed] As a result of the incursions the multiverse is combined into a single Battleworld.[clarification needed] Doctor Strange gathers Infinity Gems from various realms into a new Infinity Gauntlet, which he leaves hidden until the surviving heroes of Earth-616 return.[citation needed] The Gauntlet is subsequently claimed by T'Challa, who uses it to keep the Beyonder-enhanced Doom occupied until Mister Fantastic can disrupt his power source.[citation needed]

text: In Marvel Legacy #1, a Frost Giant working for Loki steals the Space Gem from a S.H.I.E.L.D storage facility, but is intercepted and defeated by Wolverine.[28]

text: Description[edit]

text:
[hide]This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

This section describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style. Please help rewrite it to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective. (November 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (November 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

(Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Each Gem is shaped like a small oval.[citation needed] Each Gem is named after, and represents, a different characteristic of existence,[citation needed] and possessing any single Gem grants the user the ability to command whatever aspect of existence the Gem represents.[citation needed] The Gems are indestructible but not immutable.[29] On two occasions, one or more of the Gems have appeared in the form of deep pink spheres that are several feet in diameter.[30][31] On other occasions, the Gems have appeared in their small oval shape but with different coloring (i.e. the Soul Gem being red colored when worn by the Gardener).[32] In the Ultraverse, after merging into their original form of Nemesis, the Gems were again separated after a battle with Ultraforce and the Avengers.[33]

text: The six Infinity Gems include:

text:
Name
Color
Powers and capabilities
Known owners

Soul
Green
Allows the user to steal, control, manipulate, and alter living and dead souls. The Soul Gem is also the gateway to an idyllic pocket universe. At full potential, the Soul Gem grants the user control over all life in the universe.
High Evolutionary; Adam Warlock; Gardener; In-Betweener; Thanos; Nebula; Count Abyss; Magus; Rune; Odeni; Gemini; Loki; Syphonn; Galactus; Doctor Strange

Time
Orange
Allows the user to see into the past and the future; stop, slow down, speed up or reverse the flow of time; time travel; change the past and the future; age and de-age beings; and trap people or entire universes in unending loops of time. At full potential, the Time Gem grants the user omniscience and total control over the past, present and future.
Gardener; Thanos; Nebula; Adam Warlock; Odeni; Doctor Strange; Maxam; Magus; Rune; Hardcase; Loki; Galactus; Namor; Thor; Mister Fantastic; Iron Man; Black Widow

Space
Purple
Allows the user to exist in any location; move any object anywhere throughout reality; warp or rearrange space; teleport themselves and others any place the user can imagine; increase their speed; and alter the distance between objects contrary to the laws of physics. At full potential, the Space Gem grants the user omnipresence.
Runner; Thanos; Nebula; Adam Warlock; Pip the Troll; Magus; Rune; Loki; Galactus; Iron Man; Hood; Odeni; Namor; Black Panther; Black Widow

Mind
Blue
Allows the user to enhance their mental and psionic abilities and access the thoughts and dreams of other beings. When backed by the Power Gem, the Mind Gem can access all minds in existence simultaneously. The Mind Gem is also the manifestation of the universal subconscious.
Grandmaster; Thanos; Nebula; Adam Warlock; Moondragon; Magus; Rune; Primevil; Loki; Galactus; Professor X; Odeni; Hood; Ms. Marvel; Beast; Black Widow; Wolverine

Reality
Yellow
Allows the user to fulfill their wishes, even if the wish is in direct contradiction with scientific laws, and do things that would normally be impossible; alter reality on a universal scale; and create any type of alternate reality the user wishes.
Stranger; Collector; Thanos; Nebula; Adam Warlock; Rune; Night Man; Loki; Galactus; Black Bolt; Hood; Odeni; Iron Man; Black Widow; Vision

Power
Red
Allows the user to enhance their physical strength and durability; access and manipulate all forms of energy; and boost the effects of the other five Gems. At full potential, the Power Gem grants the user omnipotence.
Champion of the Universe; Thanos; Nebula; Adam Warlock; Drax the Destroyer; Thor; Magus; Rune; Lord Pumpkin; Loki; Galactus; She-Hulk; Titania; Mister Fantastic; Odeni; Hood; Red Hulk; Xiambor; Namor; The Juggernaut

text: Additional Gems have appeared in crossover media and alternate universes outside the Marvel Universe.

text:
Name
Color
Powers and capabilities
Known owners

Ego
Gold
The Ego Gem contains the consciousness of the cosmic entity Nemesis and recreates her when united with the other six Gems. The Ego Gem is found in the Ultraverse when the Asgardian god Loki attempts to steal the other six Gems. It has never been seen outside its initial appearance except for The Super Hero Squad Show and the Marvel Super Hero Squad: The Infinity Gauntlet video game where it is re-imagined as the Infinity Sword.
Sersi; Nemesis; Odeni; Thanos

Rhythm
Pink
In the Marvel Super Hero Squad universe and related media, a seventh "Rhythm Gem" exists. The acquisition of the Infinity Gems is the main focus of The Super Hero Squad Show's second season as well as the Marvel Super Hero Squad: The Infinity Gauntlet video game. The Rhythm Gem is revealed to be a fake Gem created by Loki as part of a scheme.
Loki; Enchantress; Thanos

Build
Red
In the Lego Marvel Super Heroes - Guardians of the Galaxy: The Thanos Threat animated film, an eighth "Build Stone" exists. Thanos seeks to possess the Build Stone in order to build a weapon.[citation needed][original research?]

text: Other versions[edit]

text: Council of Reeds[edit]

text: The Reed Richards of Earth-616, in an attempt to "solve everything", meets with a council of alternate universe Reeds. Three of them wear Infinity Gauntlets, which only work in concert with their respective universes.[34][full citation needed]

text: New Avengers[edit]

text: During the "Incursion" storyline, the Avengers travel to a parallel Earth where a pastiche on the Justice League have replaced this Earth's Avengers who all died in a previous cataclysm. Here the Gems are all square planes which are assembled into the "Wishing Cube", a composite of the concepts of the Infinity Gems and the Cosmic Cube.[35]

text: Secret Wars[edit]

text: After various alternate universes were combined into Battleworld, Doctor Strange gathered Infinity Gems from other universes into a new Infinity Gauntlet that he ensured would work in the area where Doom had built his palace, although he left it hidden until he had access to someone he could trust to use it; after his death, it was claimed by T'Challa,[36][full citation needed] who used it against the Beyonder-enhanced Doom in the final battle,[37][full citation needed] although T'Challa freely admitted once the battle was over that he never expected to be anything more than a distraction as Reed targeted Doom's power source.[38][full citation needed]

text: A separate section of 'Battleworld' known as New Xandar has also a gauntlet fought over by multiple factions; until the majority of the stones, except the Reality Stone, were taken by Thanos.[39] Thanos eventually is able to track the missing stone, but the stone had already been found by Anwen Bakian. When Thanos confronted her to get the aforementioned stone, Anwen suspiciously gave Thanos the stone without a fight. However the completed Infinity Gauntlet started acting odd, since Anwen hadn't given Thanos the Reality Stone, instead she used the gem to create a rock which when used along with the remaining stones was capable of corrupting Thanos with some form of black matter and ultimately turned him to dust. Anwen named the stone the "Death Stone."[40]

text: Ultimate Marvel[edit]

text: In the Ultimate Marvel universe, an Infinity Gauntlet is seen in Project Pegasus.[41] The Mind Gem (stolen by Hydra) is used by Modi (Thor's son) to control both Director Flumm and Cassie Lang, but are stopped by the Ultimates.[42][full citation needed] The Power Gem is later revealed to be in the possession of former S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Sayuri Kyota, while a second Infinity Gauntlet is recovered from an A.I.M. base by Thor and Susan Storm.[43][full citation needed] Kang the Conqueror later allies himself with the Hulk, Reed Richards and Quicksilver as part of a plan to steal the two Gauntlets, which results in the destruction of the Triskelion. Quicksilver recovers two additional Gems allowing the villains to teleport away.[44][full citation needed] Richards is later able to recover another of the Gems, which is found lodged in Tony Stark's brain. He informs Stark that the Infinity Gems are needed to save the world from a coming cataclysm that will destroy the entire universe.[45][full citation needed] After brainwashing Johnny Storm and forcing him to travel to the Earth's core, the Dark Ultimates are able to recover the final gem,[46][full citation needed] but are defeated by the Ultimates. The gems then shatter, rendering the Gauntlets useless.[47][full citation needed]

text: What If?[edit]

text: In a reality where Doctor Doom retained the power of the Beyonder, he acquired the Infinity Gems from the Elders of the Universe and used them to defeat the Celestials in a 407-year-long war before finally forsaking his power.[48][full citation needed]

text: In an alternate reality where the original Fantastic Four died, a new Fantastic Four — consisting of Spider-Man, Hulk, Wolverine and Ghost Rider — was formed. With Iron Man replacing Ghost Rider, they were the only heroes available to fight Thanos when he initially assembled the Infinity Gauntlet. Despite Iron Man's use of Negative Zone–enhanced Celestial armor, Thanos still easily defeated the team until Wolverine tricked Thanos into erasing Mephisto from existence before cutting off Thanos's left arm, and therefore the Infinity Gauntlet. With Thanos powerless, Spider-Man used the gauntlet to undo the events of Thanos's godhood.[49][full citation needed]

text: Secret Wars[edit]

text: In the Contest of Champions miniseries, an alternate version of Tony Stark uses the Reality Gem to win the superhero civil war and affect the outcome of a presidential election. When he tries to use the Gem on Battleworld, he is killed by the Maestro, who says the Gems do not work in any universe other than their own.[50][full citation needed]

text: In other media[edit]

text: Television[edit]

text: The Infinity Gauntlet has appeared in the television shows The Super Hero Squad Show and Avengers Assemble.[51][52]

text: Film[edit]

text: The Infinity Stones are significant in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, playing important roles in several films. Director James Gunn created the backstory for the Stones in the film Guardians of the Galaxy, where the Collector explains they are six singularities that existed before the Big Bang, that were compressed into the Stones after the universe began.[53] In order of introduction, they are:

text: Space Stone (Blue):

tag: ul

text: Mind Stone (Yellow):

text: Reality Stone (Red):

text: Power Stone (Purple):

text: Time Stone (Green):

text: Soul Stone (Orange):

text: A right-handed gauntlet appears in the film Thor, where it is stored in Odin's vault;[54] this gauntlet was later revealed to be a fake in Thor: Ragnarok.[66] In the mid-credits scene of Avengers: Age of Ultron, Thanos is seen wearing a left-handed gauntlet.[67]

text: Gaming[edit]

text:
The Infinity Gems are featured in the video games Marvel Super Heroes In War of the Gems (based on the "Infinity Gauntlet" saga) and Marvel Super Heroes.[68][69]
In Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes, Thanos uses Power, Soul, Reality, and Space for his Supers.
The Infinity Gems, including the "Ego" Gem in the form of the Infinity Sword, appear as a driving part of the Marvel Super Hero Squad: The Infinity Gauntlet video game.[70]
The Infinity Stones play a major role in the fighting game Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite. During gameplay, using an Infinity Stone will grant player characters a specific enhancement based on the stone being used.[71][72] In the game's story, Ultron and Sigma use two of the stones to become "Ultron Sigma" and merge the worlds into one under their control, and the heroes must retrieve the other four stones to stop them.[73] The Infinity Stones in the game use the naming and color scheme of the Stones from the Marvel Cinematic Universe rather than the naming and color scheme of the Infinity Gems from previous Marvel video games.[citation needed] The Collector's Edition of the game comes with a replica of the Infinity Stones housed in a small box with an LED display.[citation needed]
From January to August 2012, Wizkids presented the Infinity Gauntlet program at stores that host HeroClix tournaments.[citation needed] An Infinity Gauntlet prop was released, followed by a different Gem each month. Each Gem can be added the Gauntlet, increasing its power in game. The Gems can be displayed on a stand that comes with the Gauntlet or on each Elder that Thanos encountered in the story Thanos Quest.[74]
Replica Infinity Gauntlets were given out as trophies at Ultimate Fighting Game Tournament 8, a 2012 Road to Evo tournament.[75]


document_title: Separation of powers

question_text: who propounded the doctrine of division of power

question_tokens: who propounded the doctrine of division of power

text: Separation of powers

text: History[edit]

text:
Part of the Politics series on

Republicanism

Central concepts[show]

Anti-monarchism
Popular sovereignty
Republic
Res publica
Social contract

Schools[show]

Classical republicanism
Neo-republicanism

Important thinkers[show]

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

History[show]

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

By country[show]

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

Related topics[show]

Communitarianism
Liberalism
Monarchism

Politics portal

v
t
e

text: Antiquity[edit]

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

text: Early modern biparty systems[edit]

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

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

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

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

text: Montesquieu did actually specify that "the independence of the judiciary has to be real, and not apparent merely". "The judiciary was generally seen as the most important of powers, independent and unchecked", and also was considered dangerous.[11]

text: Checks and balances[edit]

text: To prevent one branch from becoming supreme, protect the "opulent minority" from the majority, and to induce the branches to cooperate, government systems that employ a separation of powers need a way to balance each of the branches. Typically this was accomplished through a system of "checks and balances", the origin of which, like separation of powers itself, is specifically credited to Montesquieu. Checks and balances allow for a system-based regulation that allows one branch to limit another, such as the power of the United States Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the federal courts. Both bipartite and tripartite governmental systems apply the principles of the separation of powers to allow for the branches represented by the separate powers to hold each other reciprocally responsible to the assertion of powers as apportioned by law. 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:
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)
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.[12] 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

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.[13] 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[14] 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,[15] 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[16] 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[17] 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.[18] Separation of power between executive and legislature is, therefore, questionable.[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.[19] 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.[20]

text: Further, Deng Xiaoping was quoted to have categorically dismissed Hong Kong having a "Trias Politica" system.[21]

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.[22]

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).[23]

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.[24] 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: Pakistan[edit]

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

text: Philippines[edit]

text: [25] [26]

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: 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."[27] 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.[28]

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[29] 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: 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 constitutional convention 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.[30] 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.[31][32] [33] 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). He/she has ceremonial powers only, signs laws into power and commands the military in time of peace.

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.