Factional Control and Its Solution

Lucas Rosen

Ms.Gordon Per.2

10/6/15

Separate Powers and Factional Control

Factional Control and Its Solution

The American Constitution is a renown document throughout the world. Without this important piece of history America would not be the country it is today. This constitution has faced many difficulties. None were more challenging that its conception, its ratification by the colonies. In 1787 the Constitutional Convention was held. This Convention was a gathering of the representatives from different colonies in order to create a stronger federal government. Through-out the Convention many problems and disagreements were faced and overcome, but none was a big as the ratification debate. Anti-Federalists challenged the Constitution by saying that the government would have too much power. After much arguing, both sides, Federalists and Anti-Federalists, reached a compromise creating a separation of power. The separation of power blocks factional control of the government by introducing a system of intricate checks and balances.

Originally the theory of the separation of powers comes from a french theorist by the name of Montesquieu. His theory says that “government could be controlled by dividing it among separate branches rather than investing it entirely in a single individual or institution” (Patterson, pg.38). Montesquieu's theory served as the basis for dividing our government into different branches, but the framers of the constitution did not feel this was adequate. They needed to improve upon it in order to prevent one branch from gaining too much control. So a system called checks and balances was created. This system placed limits on each branch of the government in order to evenly distribute power and create a co-dependency of the separate branches.

The system of checks and balances did not have all the Anti-Federalists convinced that a strong federal government was a safe practice. The Federalists realized that they needed to show the Anti-Federalists how necessary a strong but balanced federal government was. The strongest argument was put forward by three Federalists (James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay) in a series of essays that have come to be known as The Federalist Papers. In Federalist Paper No. 10 James Madison turns the Anti-Federalists argument on its head. The paper was about how in the colonies’ republican governments the majority had a overwhelming power over the minority. He also expressed how the oppression of minorities was no better than being oppressed under a monarchy. This argument allowed Madison to demonstrate how in a strong federal government with checks and balances no one part of the government could gain control over other branches or purposely oppress the minority.
The Constitutional Convention sparked many great debates and created many great compromises. However, the Federalists were the winners of the Convention. Without that we would not have our constitution as it stands today. All the framers of the Constitution were able to create something neither side could have done on their own; a system of checks and balances for our branches of government. The theory of separation of powers has become a reality. This system has successfully blocked factional control and allowed diverse american voices to be heard.

Quinn Tucker

AP Government, Period 3

Ms. Gordon

October 1, 2015

Federalist Papers & Factional Control

            The constitutional convention was an extremely unique time. The founding fathers became the first in world history to create a new nation out of a revolution and create a place that’s priority was to create liberty. However, due to the history of the new nation and the diversity of perspectives creating a government that would be fair proved to be difficult.  The revolution made the American’s fear a powerful person or persons in power. However, the initial Articles of Confederation were too weak and left the states more a separate entities then a unified nation. As a result they were trying to create a government that wouldn’t end up with too much power falling into the hands of a specific interest group or political party but still had the power to unify the nation and have certain powers.

From the Philadelphia Convention came the Federalist Papers written by James Maddison and Alexander Hamilton. The goal of these papers was to convince the American public of the purpose of having a stronger federal government under the constitution. The papers explained the concept of balance of powers. That through breaking the government into three separate bodies they were allowing not too much power to fall into the hands of one person one group. This concept was inspired by a philosopher named Montesquieu who believed that through separate branches a government wouldn’t be corrupted. The reason this separation of power was successful was due to the fact that the fragmented structure of the government doesn’t allow for power to fall into the hands of one specific person or group of persons, otherwise known as factional control.

In “Federalist” No. 51 Madison discusses how the separation of national institutions was designed both to empower and restrict the national government. This is similar to Montesquieu and his idea of separate branches because of the separation no one side can gain absolute control. Madison continues by saying that no main government branch should be directly administered by another and none will have overruling influence over another. Through this balance in the branched and through the checks and balances we obtain a unification in our government. Madison also discusses how even though the legislative branch tends to gain superiority over the two other branches the presence of the three departments naturally limits against the “tyrannical concentration.” In addition, through the two sided Congress factional control is yet again blocked. The Senate is an even playing field for all states because no one large state can end up controlling the federal government as well. Whereas the House of Representatives is based on population so the majority populations can still have their voices be heard. This system prevents one party from simply gaining significant control of the government no matter their state size or value.  

The other concern was the fact that one branch would ultimately control the others. However this was solved through each department has a will of its own as a result it allows for the government to naturally not fall into the powers of one since on branch can’t control all roles of the government. This is a direct copy of Montesquieu’s philosophy. Even though a lot of power may fall into one branch at a time, the way government is structured allows for minorities to have representation. In “Federalist” No. 10 Madison discusses factions are a “dangerous vice” to government. He continues by discussing how the government shouldn’t be controlled by a faction group but should be controlled by liberty. The branches system allows for a separation that ultimately prevents faction leaders “kindle a flame” in one state, but wouldn’t be able to spread to another state or even the national government.

Through a blending of unique and new philosophies, the founding fathers were able to create this union that was empowered and weakened by its own existence. This truly unique system is surly flawed but has gone unchanged for hundreds of years. The factional concerns of Constitutional times are so similar to the issues we face today in the polarization of our current political scene. However, through history the elections by the American people often contrast their choices in terms of laws. For example, in the recent voting ballet Congress became extremely more Conservative. In contrast, people voted on laws and bills that were more liberal. The concern of a mob or majority government is very relevant, however it appears the American people sometimes naturally balance power out themselves. 

Ben Neumann

When the farmers of the constitution met, one of their main goals was to make sure that there was a system of separation of powers within our government so that no one faction could acquire all the power. In federalist number 10 Maddison discusses how there are only two ways to control factions and those were remove its causes and to control its effect. Since we cannot remove its causes without becoming communist we would have to control its effects. We did this by creating the system of checks and balances. This system of checks and balances is influenced by, Montesquieu, a french enlightenment thinker. He said that the government should be divided strictly on institutional lines, the farmers followed this theory but also implemented the system of checks and balances we see today. This new separation of government and creation of the checks and balances system, made it so each branch could override each other making it harder for one faction to have complete control. The executive branch headed by the President could veto a bill passed by Congress, the legislative branch can override the President with a two-thirds vote, and the Judicial branch can abolish a law if it is deemed unconstitutional. With this new system in place it makes it almost impossible for a single faction to gain control over the government. 

Without the influence of separation of powers and implementing checks and balances into the new constitution, the United States could have ended up with the same form of government they had just escaped. Because we implemented it we made a government that serves the people and is protected from factions by a system of separation of powers and checks and balances. 

Factional Control and Separation of Powers - Kenneth Martin

Kenneth Martin

AP US Government & Politics Period 3

Mrs. Gordon

October 2, 2015

Why is the theory of separate powers a cure to blocking factional control?

In 1787, delegates from the thirteen states met in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they constructed an entirely new Constitution. This Constitution created a strong national government headed by three separate entities: the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. The President was to have executive powers, Congress to have legislative powers, and the Supreme Court judicial. This structure was inspired by the theory of separation of powers proposed by French Enlightenment thinker Montesquieu. He argued that government power could be controlled by dividing it among separate institutions. The framers revised this theory so that each branch shared some powers. This would prevent factions from gaining control through one branch and would enable the branches to check and balance each other.

James Madison was a major proponent of this structure. In Federalist No. 10, he argues that the causes of faction cannot be removed, as that could only be done by taking people’s liberties, which is immoral, or making everyone think the same way, which is impossible. Therefore, the best way to prevent factional control is to control the effects of factional separation. This can be done with a republican government where no single group can gain complete power and minority factions are protected. The framers put these ideas into practice by instituting a system of separate powers with checks and balances that would prevent any single faction from gaining control and oppressing other factions.

Separation of Powers -- Jordi Amaral

Jordi Amaral
Gordon 3
Separation of Powers
10/2/15

One concern the framers of the Constitution had was the presence of factions and the political power they were capable of wielding. In Federalist No. 10 James Madison describes factions as a group "united and motivated by an interest conflicting with other’s rights or the communities interests.” Inevitably, factions will always be present due to the diversity in economic situations and political beliefs, and the framers did all they could to prevent their influence and power. In a method to prevent this, the framers created a separation of powers. They were heavily influenced by Montesquieu when deciding how to separate and dole out power. According to Montesquieu, executive powers should be controlled by the president, legislative powers by congress, and judicial powers by the courts. Madison argued that if factions gained control they would manipulate their power to help themselves, rather than the people. Due to this, the framers instituted a system of complex checks and balances, which would allow each of the three groups to hold power over the others in certain circumstances. An example of this is how a bill becomes a law. First, it must be voted on in the Legislative Branch. This is where, if The House of Representatives approves it, it must also be approved by The Senate. After that, the Executive Branch has its say. The president can opt to either sign the bill into law, or Veto it. If he signs it, the Judiciary Branch (The Supreme Court), can deem it unconstitutional and repeal it. Checks and Balances such as these are designed specifically so that one person or group may not have complete control. The framers had just become free of the British monarchy and wished for America to never be under a brand of authority like that ever again. This separated representative government has been crucially effective in blocking out factional control, and helped keep the USA from becoming a democracy lacking of liberty.

Factional Control

Alex Moore

October 1st, 2015

Period 3

Factional Control

Because of the way that the government is structured, it is not uncommon to share the same beliefs and economic interests as another person. James Madison describes factions as, people who gather together to protect and promote their special economic interests and political opinions. There are many different factions who all support different ideas. The majority of factions are rivals, since they all do not believe in the same principles. Often times, faction groups only make decisions that will benefit themselves. They do not think about the other groups of people that the decisions will affect. This is a major problem when it is present in politics. If representatives are just looking out for their special interest group, others may be negatively affected. That is why, separation of powers is able to cure this control because no one group of people has complete control over laws and legislature.

In what is looked upon as one of the most well written, intellectual pieces of writing ever created during this time, James Madison discusses the idea of factional control and what role it plays in politics. Madison believed that there was only two ways to control factions, to remove its causes and control its effects. Being that we will never truly be able to make the distribution of property even, we will not be able to remove its causes. But what was possible, was to control its effects. The framers established a representative form of government, one in which a large group of people select a small number of people to represent them. Madison's thinking behind this was, that if he got nice guys into the position he would not need to worry about faction groups taking charge. The framers decided that although they representative government was still going to get good people in positions, they still wanted to put a check on them just in case. Separation of powers was created in order to prevent one group of people having complete say over all decisions. The powers needed to be split up into three branches, but each of the branches also still shares power within the others. This form of checks and balances was to allow one branch the right to overrule another branch if thought necessary.

Montesquieu originally had a very similar idea that framers revised in order for there to be checks and balances. Montesquieu believed that the government's authority should be strictly divided along institutional lines. He believed that all legislative power should be left to the legislature, all judicial power to the courts, and all executive power to the presidency. This belief made it way too easy for a faction group to have control.

Separate powers truly is a cure to blocking factional control. With checks and balances put in place, there is no way a factional group could pass legislature or make a decision that negatively affects the majority of Americans.

Thanks to Montesquieu's original idea and Madison's later elaboration in the federalist papers, we now have a government that is able to check each other's power.

Colin Separation of Powers

Colin Baker

AP Gov

9/30/15

A major concern for the framers of the Constitution was political instability due to factions. In Federalist 10 James Madison describes factions as groups of people who gather together to protect and promote their special economic interests and political opinions. Factions are inevitable, for people will always have different economic situations, interests, backgrounds, and political views. Madison claims that there are two ways to control factions: eliminate the causes behind them or control the effects. To eliminate the causes behind factions, liberty of the citizens would have to be taken away which was most definitely not an option. If a single faction was to control the power in a government they would only seek to benefit themselves and the rights of the few would diminish. Madison argues that in a large republic with a representative government factional control is much harder to accomplish because political leaders have to try to appeal to so many people. Through the process of election outlined in the Constitution the voices of factions would be muted.

If powers in the government were not separated factional control would be easy to achieve for one group or person has the supreme power they would either tyrannically rule or the faction of the oppressed would unify and a civil war would be inevitable. The theory of separate powers and more specifically the tripartite system with a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary was originally described by the French Philosopher Montesquieu. Montesquieu argued that the best way to secure liberty and prevent a government from becoming corrupted was to divide the powers of government among different branches who would check each other. Factional control is simply not a possibility in this system for each branch is checked and balanced by the others. Relating to Madison’s argument, especially in the legislature there are so many elected representatives that the factions would be weakened. The representatives have a say in so many issues, factions are diminished for even if two people come from the same socio-economic situation, it is extremely unlikely that they agree upon every issue like abortion, education, gun control, immigration, etc. A separated representative government is a cure to blocking factional control.

Adaora Separation of Powers

Adaora Ekwunife

October 1, 2015

AP Gov

Gordon

Essay

The theory of separate powers is a cure to blocking factional control because it prevents tyranny by not one group can control everything. Tyranny is the arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. The three branches of the federal government are Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Many people feared the idea of the government having too much control and to prevent this checks and balances were established. Other branches are able to use their powers and keep other branches in check. Every branch has specific duties and don’t have the power to change everything they please. The purpose of the separation of powers is to avoid tyranny between the branches and equally distribute power.

The three branches of the federal government are Executive Legislative, and Judicial.Separate powers is a cure to blocking factional control because the branches are able to use their powers to keep other branches in check. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison stated, “There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: The one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects,” meaning that the possibility of a tyranny needs to be minimized by controlling power. It is almost impossible to remove its causes which is why he states that the only way to remove the causes is to destroy liberty or give every citizen the same opinions. The three branches are able to balance each other out and validate security of the power distribution.

Every branch has specific duties and don’t have the power to change everything they please. The branches all have different types of duties. For example, the legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch carries out laws, and the judicial branch evaluates laws. These branches wouldn’t be able to pass ideas without the confirmation from the other two branches, preventing tyranny. Montesquieu  believed that the best way to secure liberty and prevent a government from becoming corrupted was to divide the powers of government among different actors who would check each other. By checking each other the branches successfully balance power between each other.

The theory of separate powers is a cure to blocking factional control because it prevents tyranny by not one group can control everything. Both Madison and Montesquieu believed that there should be a balance between powers. Separation of powers is a cure to blocking factional control because the three federal branches are able to use their powers to keep each other in check. Another way separation of powers blocks factional control is by giving different powers and duties to the different branches. Separation of powers has been very successful in balancing the powers between branches. The purpose of the separation of powers is to avoid tyranny between the branches and equally distribute power.

Nina Kaushikkar: Separation of Powers and Factional Control

Nina Kaushikkar

October 2nd, 2015

AP Government and Politics

Gordon, Period 3

The theory of separate powers is a cure to blocking factional control.

A French theorist named Montesquieu developed the idea of the separation of powers, in which a government was controlled by dividing it up into distinct branches rather than investing all of the power in a single entity (Patterson, 38). In his work The Spirit of the Laws, he argued in favor of four individual points. First, he noted that if the legislative and executive bodies were combined, they would limit freedom by being too tyrannical of a power. His second point was that a combination of the legislative body and the judiciary would lead to a meaningless interpretation of the laws, because the lawmaker would become his own interpreter, and he would not look at it with an impartial eye. Third, he asserted that the combination of the executive branch and the judiciary would cause the process of doling out justice appropriately to be meaningless, because the executive power then becomes his own judge. The fourth and final point that he raised was that the consolidation of all three powers into one body would greatly limit freedom because the concentration of power would become too large. Decades later, Montesquieu’s theory formed part of the basis for the creation of the US federal government.

James Madison, a Federalist delegate to the Second Constitutional Convention, and later the 4th President of the United States, supported Montesquieu’s ideas about the separation of powers, like most of the delegates. However, there was an additional concern that needed to be addressed: factions. Madison, in Federalist No. 10, defined a faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” He further expounds upon the “mischiefs of faction,” stating that to cure factional control, it would be necessary to either remove its causes or control the impacts. Because it is impossible to eliminate the root of the creation of factions, Madison determined that a government must subvert a faction’s effects, particularly if that faction lies within the majority. In Federalist No. 10, he offers two methods of doing so: first, through ensuring that the existence of the same interest within a majority is void or second, through controlling the power of the majority through the principle of limited government so that the majority is unable to be an oppressor.

The theory of the separation of powers fits Madison’s solutions as outlined in the Federalist Papers, particularly with the framers’ addition of a system of checks and balances. Separating the power of a government into different branches rather than concentrating it into a single entity in the way that Montesquieu explains meets the first of Madison’s solutions. This is because when the powers of a government are divided, it is difficult for a factional majority to exist in the first place, thereby eliminating the threat of any one branch gaining so much power as to have the ability to suppress the freedoms of others. The second solution is created through the framers’ idea of combining Montesquieu’s theory of the separation of powers with a system of checks and balances. While the theory of the separation of powers alone makes it so that it is impossible for power to be concentrated in any singular entity, adding the system of checks and balances controls a faction within a majority should it exist in a branch of government. This is because giving other branches the power to control the capacity of each of the other divisions of government ensures that a faction within a majority cannot use its power to restrict the rights other others.

As such, the framers of the Constitution utilized Montesquieu’s theory of the separation of powers to form the basis for the government of the United States, and by combining this theory with a system of checks and balances, they created a cure to factional control.

The Theory of Separate Powers-Anne Hruska

Anne Hruska

US Government

Ms. Gordon

Period 3

October 2, 2015

American citizens have set a standard for freedom and liberty, and you can still see the same fears alive in the American public to this day. When colonists emigrated from Great Britain in order to assure their individuality, they carried along with them their agitation from the overwhelming governmental control. This lead to a rather constant state of paranoia within them causing the fear that their colonies would fall into the same controlling government. The theory of separation of powers, however, cured the possibility of factional control by forming a government that limits itself through checks and balances, thus not allowing a set group of individuals to be targeted.  People fear a powerful government. People then feared the government but understood the need for instituting one, however, no one was very sure how to go about it. Thus, the framers were birthed.

The framers of the constitution was a group of 55 men that had been delegated by the public to essentially form the backbone of America. They established a government system in which power was shared between both the states and the federal government. To further it, however, they made it clear that they wanted to establish a national government that was restricted in power. In their views factional control comes from a government that is too powerful, therefore they tried to institute limits on power and the eventual separation of power. However, their idea was not foreign to America.

Montesquieu, a french theorist, believed that the one way to ensure the liberty of a country’s citizens is to divide its power into separate groups, as opposed to allowing one individual or establishment to gain control of all aspects of leadership. Many Americans were fond his ideology because it offered a blunt and seemingly simple solution to factional control.

Enter James Madison. In the Federalist No.10 under the pen name Publius, James Madison addresses factions and more specifically the nature of the republican government. He asserted that it’s natural to have many forms of division in society and that the factions themselves do not cause a disconnect between one another; they may, in fact, support the individuality and liberty among individuals. Nonetheless, when a faction seeks to gain power if successful enough it could easily use the government in order to further advance itself. He places an emphasis on the “majority faction” and specifically the power that they could gain without restriction. All of the concerns that were expressed in the Federalist No. 10 were addressed by Montesquieu. This time he suggested that the government's authority should be divided into the legislature, the courts and the presidency, and that the power within said sections should be withheld to only those that are part of that specific group. The framers understood Madison’s point and decided that having power withheld among specific groups could lead to one section’s power eventually overriding the others. This finalized the institution of a system in which the three branches withheld certain powers, like in Montesquieu’s idea, but each also withholds certain powers that control how much one branch is able to do independently.

All considered, the general paranoia that was once prevalent throughout the colonies has been aided by a system that is able to institute power alongside the regulation of said power. Factions are extremely prevalent in nearly any society, and there are many different tactics leaders institute in order to control the natural drive factions have to gain power. The theory of separate powers essentially birthed the system of control in the American government by mediating the federalist and anti-federalist arguments into one common consensus.

Why Is The Theory Of Separate Powers A Cure To Blocking Factional Control?

                                                                                                                   Josh Rowzee
                                                                                                                    02 October 2015
                                                                                                                    AP Government
                                                                                                                       3rd Period

Well Madison had said that the Constitution and government that they can make strong arguments that can produce violence and damage and it was all caused by factions. And what a faction is that its a group of people who get together and protect political opinions and special economics. And Supporters or opponents of the Federalist can make rival factions. Now there was this French Theorist named Montesquieu’s had said " that the power of government could be controlled by dividing it among separate branches rather than investing it entirely in a single individual or institution." Also all over America his idea of Separation of Powers was appreciated and admired. Also since his idea was so popular once the Revolutionary War had started people had started building a government around his ideal. Also he had made a comment to Federalist No.10 that he said "the mischiefs of factions". Also Federalist No.10 still to this day the finest political essay ever to be wrote because it explains to much.

Nadav Schoenberg Separation of Powers

Nadav Schoenberg

Federalist Papers

10/2/15

Ap Gov

Gordon 3

When writing the Constitution, the framers were concerned with factions and allowing too much power to be held by a group of people.  In Federalist NO.10 James Madison describes a faction.“By a faction, I mean a minority or majority united and motivated by an interest conflicting with other’s rights or the communities interests.” The framers looked to ensure these interests groups could not acquire too much power and influence. If these people had too much power, America could become more of an oligarchy than a democracy. In order to ensure this did not happen, a separation of powers was put in place in order to block factional control. The framers of the constitution followed Montesquieu's ideology when determining the powers of the government. According to Montesquieu, the judiciary powers should be held by the courts , the legislative powers by the Legislative branch and executive power to the presidency. However Montesquieu's ideas would still make it possible for factions to gain control. Madison explained that if these factions gained too much power, they would use the government  to benefit themselves while other groups suffer. In order to ensure no faction could use the government to their expense, the framers of the Constitution implemented a system of checks and balances.

While a separation of powers is implemented in the constitution a separation of powers was introduced by the framers of the constitution in order to prevent factional power becoming too strong. The system of checks and balances includes a overlapping of powers and responsibilities between branches. These overlappings ensure one branch cannot become too powerful and be influenced too much by factions. While the branches of government are divided, they must rely on each other for each of their duties. For example after congress passes a law, the bill must be approved and signed by the President. Also if decided that the President is not completing his duties with integrity, congress has the right to impeach him. This restricts the Presidency from obtaining too much power. The Americans had just fought for their freedom from a monarchy in the British so they wanted to ensure America had no chance of coming under the rule of one very powerful man who could abuse his powers in order to practice his interests while hurting the general American population. In Federalist NO.51 Madison and Hamilton explain how humans are naturally selfish and power hungry. “It may reflect human nature that some measures are needed to control government abuses….If men were angels, no government would be necessary. This illustrates Hamilton and Madison’s belief that if no checks and balances were in place, greedy, power hungry factions would manipulate the government in selfish ways. In a democracy it is important to ensure that the power lies in the hands of the majority instead of in the hands of a fe wealthy factions.

The separation of power in the American government provides confidence that The United States of America, the land of democracy, will always been governed in a democratic state. By putting a restriction on what each governmental branch can do one group of people ,or faction, cannot manipulate the government for the own interests. The ideas of Montesquieu as well as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton ensure that America will never go back to its monarchical rule under the British. The power will forever be placed in the hands of the people.

Why is the theory of separate powers a cure to blocking factional control? Vivi

Vittoria Casey

AP Gov/Politics

September 28, 2015

Gordon, Per 3

Why is the theory of separate powers a cure to blocking factional control?

A french theorist, named Montesquieu, argued hundreds of years ago that the power of government could be controlled by dividing it among separate branches rather than concentrating it with one specific person or in one specific area. Many Americans believe that he set the precedent for our modern day government, and frankly, I agree. The idea of concentrating power in one specific area has deemed itself more dangerous than productive. Take Nazi Germany, and the Stalinist Soviet Union, for example. In Germany’s case, it resulted in the uprising of a lunatic dictator who slaughtered millions of people, who wasn’t taken down until it resulted in a full-blown World War. In the Soviet Union’s case, Stalin was more of a power-hungry dictator, but nothing in comparison to Hitler. Nonetheless, it was totalitarian government, which can never go right. In order to prevent this, America has adapted to the theory of separate powers which indicates that three branches of government of government must be separate and independent from one another, because any combination of these branches into one or two factions can be detrimental to individual liberties. In Montesquieu’s own writing, he stated four main points. The first point was that if the legislative and executive powers are combined in the same organ, the liberty of the people gets jeopardized because it leads to tyrannical exercise of these two powers. The second point made was that if the judicial and legislative powers are combined in the same organ, the interpretation of laws becomes meaningless because in this case the law­maker also acts as the law interpreter and he never accepts the errors of his laws. The third point indicated that if the judicial power is combined with the executive power and is given to one-person or one organ, the administration of justice becomes meaningless and faulty because then the police (Executive) becomes the judge (judiciary). The last point stated that finally if all the three legislative, executive and judicial powers are combined and given to one person or one organ, the concentration of power becomes so big that it virtually ends all liberty. It establishes despotism of that person or organ (Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu). Essentially, what Montesquieu was getting at was that everyone would have equal abilities to exercise all of their desires/voices if the government was split into three branches, which is exactly what ended up happening.

Madison’s main argument made in Federalist Paper Number 10 was not far off from Montesquieu exactly. Madison, however, took a completely different approach on the whole totalitarianism thing. Instead of explaining what would work, he went into detail about how bad the government that they had in place was. He basically took more of an Erwin approach as opposed to a Patterson approach. He focuses heavily on the problem of factions formed within the American government. He defines these factions as a number of citizens, whether a majority or minority, who were united and actuated "by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." He then goes on to talk about how to break up these factions in two distinct ways: 1) to remove its causes and 2) to control its effects. However, putting the theory of separate powers into play makes these factions almost immediately going away, seeing as that it is unlikely and almost completely improbable that everyone in the legislative, executive, and judicial branch all have the same views on every issue, and support the same political party. Therefore, Madison didn’t explicitly state it, but he was an avid supporter of the theory that Montesquieu had birthed, and hadn’t even bothered to mention his name within the paper. They would have made great friends.

Emily Agnew Faction-Sep. of powers

Emily Agnew

AP Gov & Politics Per. 3

Ms. Gordon

October 2, 2015

Separate Powers Cures Blocking Factional Control

                 The theory of separate powers is a cure to blocking factional control. Factions, which are the parties created when broken away from a major party are threatening to the government. A french theorist named Montesquieu argued that "the power of government could be controlled by dividing it among separate branches rather than investing it entirely in a single individual or institution." (Patterson p.38). This idea was called separation of powers. In Federalist No. 10, Madison ponders the strategy of favoring the majorities, rather than what is just. Every citizen differentiates their own opinions; in which factions are created. Citizen's natural rights and freedom to express opinions are absolute rights. However, if a certain faction obtained power, it would try to use the government to forward itself at the expense of everyone else. Separation of powers prevents this from occuring. Dividing the government in a way in which "granting all legislative power to the legislature, all judicial power to the courts, and all executive power to the presidency. This total separation would make it too easy for a single faction to exploit a particular type of political power." (Patterson p.39). Each branch of government has the complete power to check or regulate other branches. The branches have to work together, which helps "compromise" and "moderate".

Charlie Maxwell Separation of Powers and Factional Control Essay

Charlie Maxwell

Ms. Gordon

AP U.S. Gov and Politics, Period 3

2 October 2015

Montesquieu and Madison

James Madison was an American political activist in the late 18th century who debated upon and helped frame this nation’s Constitution. Madison, along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, actively voiced his opinion about the strengths and possible weaknesses of having a strong federal government in America. In The Federalist Papers, Madison and Hamilton argued that the Constitution would fix the problems of the Articles of Confederation while obtaining the necessary power to create a secure union, all without stripping the states of their liberty and strength.

In Federalist No. 10, Madison explains the possible threat that factional control may pose to the concept of limited government. Madison defines a faction as a group united “by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” He, along with other federalists, worried that these groups, which were very similar to what we now call “interest groups,” could potentially corrupt the American government.

Madison noticed that Americans naturally divided themselves into opposing geographical, economic, ethnic, religious, and other distinct groups. He feared that without what French theorist Montesquieu proposed--a separation of power between branches of government--a federal government could fall victim to the selfish motives of increasingly powerful factions. This concept of separation of powers was extremely popular in America because it demonstrated another attempt to erase the possibility of tyrannical rule.. Nonetheless, as Madison asserts in Federalist No. 10, a separation of powers alone was not enough to deter the factional control of a powerful majority.

Because of this concern, the framers of the constitution decided that dividing the government’s power as Montesquieu suggested--apportioning all executive power to the president, all judiciary power to the court system, and all legislative power to the legislature--insufficiently protected the liberty of the American people. If each branch of government independently controlled all of its responsibilities, it would be much too easy for a certain faction to gain control of them.

Therefore, the framers of the Constitution created a system of overlapping powers so that no one branch of government could impact the American people without the approval of the others. This improvement upon Montesquieu's idea of separation of powers is called the system of checks and balances. This elaborate system of interlocking grants and limitations of power provides a fitting solution to James Madison’s fears about the potential threat of factional control. The framers of the Constitution acknowledged Montesquieu's concept but, due to the validity of Madison’s concerns, realized that it would not be enough to keep these factions at bay.