|
July 13, 2011
Abuse of Separation of Powers: A
Long-standing Evil
It
is a common misconception that our founders had no Bill of Rights before
1776. They, in fact, had their own
– the English Bill of Rights of 1689. In this document grievances against King James II were listed, just as grievances against King George III would be
listed in the Declaration of Independence 87 years later. Among those grievances was the
following:
“By
assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and
the execution of laws without the consent of Parliament;…”
The
King was overstepping his authority and bypassing Parliament – the lawmaking
body. In 1689, the British people
saw this as an attempt to completely destroy liberty. In our system of
government, Congress is the lawmaking body. For the Executive to take up the power of making laws is for
that Executive to engage in an act of tyranny. Separation of Powers Essential to
Liberty
One
of the most fundamental characteristics of our Republic is the Separation of
Powers among the three separate branches of government. The checks and balances in the American
system were instituted for the express purpose of combating the rise of a
tyrannical and oppressive government.
James Madison points out in Federalist 47 that “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.”
Federalist
Papers 47 through 51 deal specifically with this issue of separation of
powers. The debate of the time was
not whether these branches SHOULD be separate, but to WHAT DEGREE they should
be separate. Madison begins by
pointing out that all Founders understood that a separation of the three
branches of government was necessary to preserve Liberty. They all agreed that the accumulation
of all powers by one person or a single group of people is the very definition
of tyranny. “Where the accumulation
of power is possible, no further argument is necessary” to support a division
and separation of those powers. Madison declares:
“…by so contriving the
interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may,
by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper
places. “
No Branch is a Ruler Unto Itself
Madison
further explains that the branches are not completely
separated, but where one has any authority over the other that authority is very specific, and that the separate
responsibilities of one are not to be usurped by the other. Hence, law making authority is invested
solely in Congress and may not be taken up by the Executive. Yet, checks have been invested in each
to ensure that one body does not become tyrannical and oppressive. The executive has its veto, the Legislative
has its impeachment power and the Judiciary has its legal oversight…and don’t
forget the people.
Notice
how Madison describes the necessity of these checks:
”But the great security
against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department,
consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary
constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the
others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made
commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract
ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional
rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices
should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”
Madison continues:
“But what is government
itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? 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. A dependence on the people is,
no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught
mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
So, if such strong
checks were and are necessary to resist the tyranny of men, then why are these
checks not being employed? Consider the following overreach by our current tyrannical Executive:
|