Enter Email to Receive New Post Alerts:

Separation of Powers

Definition
Founders
Brethren
References

Definition:
    Separation of Powers: a division of powers and a system of checks and balances framed in the U.S. Constitution to prevent usurpation, corruption, and other abuses of power in the government. The three branches of government and their basic powers are the following:
    → Legislative Branch: create the law
    → Judicial Branch: interpret the law
    → Executive Branch: enforce the law
    This division of powers among three independent branches makes it difficult for one person or one branch of government to become too powerful. For example, the legislative branch has the power to create laws, but the president has the power to veto laws. When the president vetoes a law, the legislative branch can still pass the law but must obtain a super majority or 2/3 of the votes. The judicial branch can declare a law created by the legislative branch or acts of the executive branch unconstitutional and therefore render them illegal. Finally, the executive and legislative branches must appoint and confirm judges and the Congress has sole power to approve amendments to the Constitution.
    For example, In 1918 Congress refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, a peace treaty that officially ended World War I. President Woodrow Wilson had worked strenuously to get the treaty ratified, but the Senate, largely because of their dislike of the League of Nations, rejected the treaty twice. In another example, in 1998, the Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act intended to protect children from harmful sexual content on the Internet. However, the federal courts deemed this law unconstitutional and it was never implemented.

The Founders:
    James Madison: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. (Federalist No. 51)
    James Madison: No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. (Madison, James Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788)
    Thomas Jefferson: The principle of the Constitution is that of a separation of legislative, Executive and Judiciary functions, except in cases specified. If this principle be not expressed in direct terms, it is clearly the spirit of the Constitution, and it ought to be so commented and acted on by every friend of free government. (Jefferson, Thomas letter to James Madison, January, 1797)

The Brethren:
    G. Homer Durham: The doctrine of separation of powers is the division of authority within the central or federal government into executive, legislative, and judicial branches. It is recognizable in Aristotle’s writings. He was aware of the differences between legislation in the Greek assemblies and the necessity for military leadership and executive authority. The distinctions between executive and judicial power became clear after the Act of Settlement was adopted by the British Parliament in 1701. Then British judges were given tenure independent of the crown. Thus, for nearly a century prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, the idea of an independent judiciary was available in English practice. Many of the men of Philadelphia in 1787 were lawyers. They had studied political history. Some were further stimulated by the writings of Montesquieu who, in his Spirit of the Laws (1751), theorized that the English liberty of the 18th century was explainable because the crown was separate from the legislative branch (Parliament), and from the independent judiciary.
    The device of “checks and balances” makes the separation of powers workable. The Founding Fathers’ experience with colonial governments convinced them that separation of legislative, judicial, and executive authority, while essential, also had to involve an intricate system of checks and balances. Thereby each of the three great departments could (a) protect its independence or “balance,” but still (b) invade one of the others as necessity arose to “check” it if it went too far. So the president can veto an act of Congress, but Congress can pass the veto over his head—and so on in the 14 or more “checks and balances” built into the system. (G. Homer Durham, “The Protection of All Flesh,” New Era, Sept. 1987)
    Ezra Taft Benson: The founders had a strong distrust for centralized power in a federal government. So they created a government with checks and balances. This was to prevent any branch of the government from becoming too powerful.
    Congress could pass laws, but the president could check this with a veto. Congress, however, could override the veto, and by its means of initiative in taxation, could further restrain the executive department. The Supreme Court could nullify laws passed by the Congress and signed by the president. But Congress could limit the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. The president could appoint judges for their lifetime with the consent of the Senate.
    Each branch of the government was also made subject to different political pressures. The president was to be chosen by electors, Senators by state legislatures, representatives by the people, and the Supreme Court by the president, with the consent of the Senate. (Ezra Taft Benson, “The Constitution: A Glorious Standard,” Ensign, May 1976, 91 )

References:
Definition
Founders
Brethren
References