Talk:Separation of powers under the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Separation of powers under the United States Constitution is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 9, 2004.
Article Milestones Date Process Result June 25, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

i love meeh hahaha

Contents 1 26 Jun 2004 2 9 Jul 2004 3 Regarding the "Conclusion" section 4 No mention of "tyranny by the majority"? 5 Federalism 6 Legislative power 7 Exective power 8 Judicial power 9 Merge section Separation of Powers#The United States

[edit] 26 Jun 2004

I was under the impression that FDR's presidency marked a major shift in the balance of power between the president and Congress. Before FDR, was it common for a president to push legislation? Certainly it has been common since then (The Fair Deal, the War on Poverty, No Child Left Behind, etc) but I thought FDR was the first to do this. Isomorphic 02:13, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 9 Jul 2004

In its prototype of the United States Constitution, the phrase separation of powers never appears, but is clearly dictated by the structure of the Constitution, with checks and other powers delegated specifically and exclusively to each.

What is this bullshit? the Supreme Court is appointed directly by the president, already a big cross through the trias politica, also the president is both supreme commander of the military (executive) and the main legislative body so at least in the top there is no seperation between the trias politica whatsoever. But not a mere hint of that is to be found in this article.

how did this ever made it to a featured article?

normally i should have replaced the whole article with a stub so people could write a proper one, but since it's a featured article i won't but i strongly suggest an entire rewrite of the article, so it doesn't exist only of patriotical bull --62.251.90.73 15:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The suggestion that I, who created this article, am biased in favour of the United States is clearly laughable, noting especially that I am no citizen of, and am not "patriotical" [sic] in regard to, the same. Clearly the above commentator has disregarded the section "Checks and balances," which notes that separation of powers is not absolute. Nor has he or she failed to neglect that criticism of the system has been pointed out. Furthermore, the commentator is clearly mistaken in implying that the President is "the main legislative body." It is entirely absurd to suggest that there is "no separation ... whatsoever." -- Emsworth 17:33, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Well i see that dispite the absurdness of my comment still made some changes in the header, and I think it's a whole lot better now :)

Nor has he or she failed to neglect that criticism of the system has been pointed out. Well there is criticism pointed out in the 'views on' section, but that was criticism on the efficiency and not on the amount of seperation and although it is mentioned that Separation of powers is not absolute it is not critized, or criticism or the theoretical dangers of that mentioned.

Yeah saying that there is "no seperation whatsoever" is a bit absurd indeed, but on the top there ain't much, and what happens on the top more or less, at least theoretically, works it's way down.

Sorry if i ranted a bit, i like that, just filter out what you think is usefull :P --62.251.90.73 12:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Um, since when is the Executive branch the main legislative body? The Congress is in charge of legislation. Also, the Congress controls the purse-strings of the Government and may prevent military action by failing to fund certain military activities. The Supreme Court is appointed for life and should be nearly immune from tampering, which is more important than basic political leanings of each justice - as long as they don't have to fear the executive, they SHOULD be chiefly responsible for upholding the Constitution. To appoint a justice (as it's usually only one - either a replacement for retirement or death) and then require the approval of the Congress doesn't take away from the separation of powers, in fact it upholds it. Seriously, I think this article is pretty well written. --Abqwildcat 22:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with your statement that the Judiciary should be the chief protectors of the Constitution. I recognized immediately that the Constitution is incredibly explicit about the checks and balances between the executive and the legislature. The fact that it is silent about something like Judicial Review is very telling. Why so detailed about the powers between Congress and the President and then leave out Judicial Review? It can only mean it was never meant to be. Remember the Constitution is a framework for Government, while the Federalist Papers were political propaganda intended to convince people to adopt the Constitution. Political documents are not a basis for Government Powers. I consider the Declaration and Constitution to be strong Constitutional documents, but the Federalist Papers are not. The Judiciary should have decided cases on their merits, setting up an American, national common law (similar to English common law, which was a basis for many laws and legal traditions in America). Instead, the Supreme Court turned away from common law as its function and invented Judicial Review. I believe they hurt America in the long run. They made people believe that they were somehow the only experts on the Constitution. The Constitution is not a very difficult document to understand. Most people can read it and get a fairly firm grasp on its real intentions. Instead, hardly anyone bothers to actually read it through, believing the experts of the court are the only ones who can penetrate its mystic words. The People are the defenders of the Constitution, not the Court. The People's vote is the check against Congress, not the fairy tale that is Judicial Review.

[edit] Regarding the "Conclusion" section

In general, I'm not a fan of titling things that contain valuable information as "conclusion" since such a title conveys no information of what to expect from the section ("click here"). Since this section contains expert/informed opinions on Separation of Powers in the US, and what it should be, perhaps it could be titled in a more expressive way. Something like "Views of separation of powers in the USA" might work. Also, such a title might encourage more contributions of famous or expert analyses of the topic. Note, since its a featured article, I didn't want to just change it, while it was linked from the main page, so I posted here (; —siroχo 00:25, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of "tyranny by the majority"?

That is Hamilton's bread and butter (why no mention of Hamilton either)? Is tyranny by the majority info perhaps best added elsewhere? zen master 05:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Federalism

I'm not sure about the accuracy of this statement: "Another strict constitutional principle delineated in the United States Constitution and referred to as a separation of powers, is that between the federal level of government and the state level. This principle is more often referred to as federalism." I don't think anyone ever really refers to federalism as "separation of powers"? --JW1805 02:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legislative power

The non-delegation doctrine is not very clearly presented (it should be clearer that it is effectively a dead-letter). Also, the problem with the line-item veto isn't excessive delegation, but rather the Presentment Clause. Amcfreely 06:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is not the appropriate forum for the following remark, so please have patience with me... If the founders were serious about the importance of seperations of powers, why does the Vice President have the casting vote in case of a tie (cf. the discussion in relation to the Tim Johnson affair)? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to secure the separation of powers by giving the casting vote to a party not occupying the executive power? Would be very interested to receive a comment on my this remark. PJ 17:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exective power

What's noteworthy about independent agencies is not that the President is not entitled to control any particular agency, but rather than they can exist at all. The problem with the legislative veto is not interference with executive officers, but rather the Presentment and Bicameralism requirements. Amcfreely 06:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judicial power

Should mention Northern Pipeline and Schor and should link to Article III court Amcfreely 06:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge section Separation of Powers#The United States

The section is too detailed for its place. If not deleted, the content should be merged here. Unless a better qualified person steps forward, I'll be bold. --Swift 06:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)