Leslie Zepeda5/14/2014Political Science 101CorruptionThe principle of separation of powers in which the executive, legislative and judicial functions of government are separated into independent bodies, is the key element of governance in democratic nations . The separation of powers requires multiple individuals to initiate, propose, or manage the agenda and is also designed to protect the government from political tyranny. However, although the separation of powers is a key element in democratic nations, it does not prevent the abuse of power. The constitutional design that prevents the abuse of power is known as checks and balances. Checks and balances allow individual actors to circumvent or control the actions of other actors. This is often done through the practice of judicial review, veto, or regulatory oversight that strives to ensure that all political power is used accordingly. Although constitutional government design has been practiced for centuries, abuse of political power remains a problem in many countries, including developed democracies. Corruption occurs in various ways, for example spanning the spectrum of enacting laws to benefit smaller groups of supporters or voters, to more direct corruption by receiving payments for political favors. Many individuals who reside in democratic nations believe that the separation of powers combined with checks and balances ensures that government remains fair and unfair. However, this belief is very difficult to prove due to the problem in defining an operational measure of checks and balances for a transnational meeting and the lack of counterfactuals in the separation of powers. In this article I will show the recent work of a political agency with data on corruption… at the heart of the document… it means that the Court cannot issue advisory opinions on legislation. Additionally, the party suing must have standing (a direct interest in the outcome) to challenge a law. The most important rule of judicial restraint is that laws are presumptively valid, meaning that judges presume that lawmakers did not intend to violate the Constitution. It follows that the burden of proof lies with those who raise the question of unconstitutionality. Furthermore, if a court can interpret a controversial statute in a way that allows it to remain intact without tampering with the meaning of the words or if a court can decide a case on unconstitutional grounds, these paths are to be preferred. Finally, a court will not judge the motives or wisdom of legislators, nor will it find a law invalid simply because it is deemed unwise or undemocratic..