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.