legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the manifestation of separation of powers.

Anyone could make an argument that any branch of the government has the most power if taking into account historical context or current affairs, but if the structure of the government itself is taken at face value, then each branch is specifically designed to hold an equal amount of power.

For example, Congress (the body that leads the legislative branch) will write and pass a law, but that law cannot go into effect if the President (the leader of the executive branch) vetos, or rejects, that law. In that instance, the President would be exercising his power over the legislative branch.

Another way that a President can exercise power over the other branches is through an executive order. Executive orders, while not explicitly stated in the Constitution, are implied in Article II of the Constitution regarding the President's responsibility to command the armed forces of the United States. An executive order allows the president to instruct the government specifically how to function within the parameters set by Congress and the Constitution. The Supreme Court (the body that controls the Judicial branch) has the power to declare any Executive Order unconstitutional.

A historical example is when Harry Truman issued an executive order to seize control of private steel mills during the Korean war; the Supreme Court ruled the order unconstitutional because the President did not have the authority to seize private property.

Using context, one might argue that the executive branch has the most power, but the government is designed to distribute power equally.

In addition to what the previous editor stated regarding the executive branch and our system's balance of power, it would be illogical to argue that the executive branch is the most powerful part of our government simply because it is the only part of the three main branches that has a term limit.  While senators and congressmen can be reelected for decades and while Supreme Court justices are appointed for life (or for whenever they choose to retire), the President must submit to the four-year term limit.  Even though he may run again for another four years, he must constantly keep in the forefront of his mind that the role is his for a maximum of 8 years.

Our system of government was set up to have three branches of government, and so no branch would have more power than the other two, the framers of the Constitution set up a system of checks and balances. Under this system, each branch has the ability to stop the other two branches from gaining too much power. For example, one way the executive branch (the president) is able to stop the legislative branch (Congress) is through the presidential veto. The president can veto any bill that has been passed by Congress and stop that bill from becoming law. The judicial branch (Supreme Court/court system) has the ability to check the president and Congress through judicial review. With this power, the Supreme Court can declare a law that has been passed by Congress and signed by the president unconstitutional. Congress has checks on the Supreme Court and the president as well. To answer your question then, no one branch of our government is more powerful than the other, so the executive branch isn't the most powerful branch of government.

There will be much in way of debate on this particular question.  I would say that a case can be made for the legislative branch having the most amount of power.  The fact that the Framers were very mindful of not empowering one person who could do damage to the framework of government, such as King George of England, the framers' vision of the legislative branch was intended to limit the potential abuse of centralized authority.  This might be why there are so many powers granted to the legislative branch, such as the power to declare war, the ability to levy taxes, and to coin money.

It really depends on who you ask, and in many ways the time period in which you choose to examine the three branches.  Many people argue that during George W. Bush's presidency and Clinton's that people worked really hard to expand the powers of the executive branch.  The checks on executive power are supposed to be in Congress as they can even seek impeachment if they feel that the president has really gone over the edge and is doing things that are illegal, etc.

You can also look at the attempt of FDR to change the Supreme Court and expand it and add liberal judges and his failure to make that happen.  The balance of power shifts in different time periods, etc.

The argument extends to cover the other branches as well.  Is the Supreme Court "legislating from the bench?" Is Congress overstepping their bounds when they make certain legislation for the states?

It will really depend on the perspective and you could back up either answer yes or no.

This is a matter of opinion.

I would say it is because the President is by far the most famous politician in the country.  So he is the one who can do the most to decide what sorts of laws are going to be considered.  He can give speeches to try to persuade people and those speeches will be big news.

But you can also argue that the legislative branch is stronger.  After all, they are the only branch that can actually pass laws.  The President could have talked about health care until he was blue in the face, but only Congress could actually pass the bill and Obama could not have just ordered the law to be enacted.