Question

questions 7 through 9 refer to the following. the u.s. supreme court has ruled that the separation of powers is integral to the constitution not to preserve the prerogatives of each branch of government but to divide governmental powers among the branches so as to keep power diffused—and thereby limited and protective of personal freedom. thus, even if one branch of government consented to ceding an essential power to another branch, such a giveaway would be unconstitutional. can the president legally use military force to attack a foreign land without a serious threat or legal obligation or a declaration of war from congress? in a word: no. here is the back story... a bipartisan group of senators offered legislation supported by the president that... would permit a president to strike whenever and wherever he pleases. the president would be restrained only by a vote of congress—after hostilities have commenced. such a statute would give the president far more powers than he has now, would directly violate congress’s war - making powers by ceding them away to the president, would defy the supreme court on the unconstitutionality of giving away core governmental functions, would commit the u.s. to foreign wars without congressional and thus popular support, and would invite dangerous mischief by any president wanting to attack any enemy—real or imagined, old or new—for foreign or domestic political purposes, whether american interests are at stake or not. andrew napolitano, “at war with the separation of powers,” the washington times, 2018. which of the following principles of government is most related to the author’s argument in the passage? a) separation of powers is necessary to our constitutional system to limit the power of the three branches and guarantee limited government. b) the president’s power is constitutionally permitted to expand during times of crisis, which can lead to a declaration of war without permission from congress. c) as the legislative branch, congress is authorized to change the constitutional balance of power whenever it deems necessary. d) separation of powers guarantees that each branch can focus on what it does best, but in some cases one branch may voluntarily cede power to another branch.

Explanation:

The passage discusses the separation of powers in the U.S. government, emphasizing that the separation is integral to the Constitution to prevent one branch from ceding essential power to another (which would be unconstitutional). Option A states that separation of powers limits the power of the three branches and guarantees limited government, which aligns with the author's argument about diffusing power to limit government and protect freedom. Option B is incorrect as the passage argues the president can't legally use military force without Congress's declaration of war or legal obligation, so the president's power isn't constitutionally permitted to expand without Congress in war - making. Option C is incorrect because the passage doesn't suggest Congress can change the constitutional balance of power at will; it's about the unconstitutionality of ceding power, not Congress altering the balance. Option D is incorrect as the passage says ceding an essential power is unconstitutional, not that branches may voluntarily cede power.

Answer:

A. Separation of powers is necessary to our constitutional system to limit the power of the three branches and guarantee limited government.