|
1
|
- One of the principal objections inculcated by the more respectable
adversaries to the Constitution, is its supposed violation of the
political maxim, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary
departments ought to be separate and distinct.
|
|
2
|
- In the structure of the federal government, no regard, it is said, seems
to have been paid to this essential precaution in favor of liberty. The
several departments of power are distributed and blended in such a
manner as at once to destroy all symmetry and beauty of form, and to
expose some of the essential parts of the edifice to the danger of being
crushed by the disproportionate weight of other parts.
|
|
3
|
- 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.
|
|
4
|
- Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the
accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous
tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be
necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.
|
|
5
|
- The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the
celebrated Montesquieu. If he be not the author of this invaluable
precept in the science of politics, he has the merit at least of
displaying and recommending it most effectually to the attention of
mankind. Let us endeavor, in the first place, to ascertain his meaning
on this point.
|
|
6
|
- From these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be
inferred that, in saying ``There can be no liberty where the legislative
and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of
magistrates,'' or, ``if the power of judging be not separated from the
legislative and executive powers,'' he did not mean that these
departments ought to have no PARTIAL AGENCY in, or no CONTROL over, the
acts of each other.
|
|
7
|
- His meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as
illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this,
that where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same
hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the
fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted.
|
|
8
|
- [The separation of powers would be violated] in the [English]
constitution examined by him, if the king, who is the sole executive
magistrate, had possessed also the complete legislative power, or the
supreme administration of justice; or if the entire legislative body had
possessed the supreme judiciary, or the supreme executive authority.
|
|
9
|
- The reasons on which Montesquieu grounds his maxim are a further
demonstration of his meaning. ``When the legislative and executive
powers are united in the same person or body,'' says he, ``there can be
no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or
senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical
manner. '‘
|
|
10
|
- Again: ``Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life
and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for
THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR. Were it joined to the executive
power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR. ''
Some of these reasons are more fully explained in other passages; but
briefly stated as they are here, they sufficiently establish the meaning
which we have put on this celebrated maxim of this celebrated author.
|
|
11
|
- It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of
the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by
either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of
them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence
over the others, in the administration of their respective powers.
|
|
12
|
- It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that
it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned
to it. After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes
of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or
judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical
security for each, against the invasion of the others. What this
security ought to be, is the great problem to be solved.
|
|
13
|
- Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these
departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to
these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power?
- This is the security which appears to have been principally relied on by
the compilers of most of the American constitutions.
|
|
14
|
- But experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been
greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably
necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the
government.
- The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its
activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.
|
|
15
|
- In a government where numerous and extensive prerogatives are placed in
the hands of an hereditary monarch, the executive department is very
justly regarded as the source of danger, and watched with all the
jealousy which a zeal for liberty ought to inspire.
|
|
16
|
- In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the
legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity
for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious
intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be
apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same
quarter.
|
|
17
|
- In a representative republic, the executive magistracy is carefully
limited both in the extent and the duration of its power;
- the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by
a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its
own strength;
|
|
18
|
- [The legislature is] sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions
which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of
pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes;
- it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the
people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their
precautions.
|
|
19
|
- The legislative department derives a superiority in our governments from
other circumstances. Its constitutional powers being at once more
extensive, and less susceptible of precise limits, it can, with the
greater facility, mask, under complicated and indirect measures, the
encroachments which it makes on the co-ordinate departments.
- It is not un-frequently a
question of real nicety in legislative bodies, whether the operation of
a particular measure will, or will not, extend beyond the legislative
sphere.
|
|
20
|
- TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in
practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments,
as laid down in the Constitution?
- The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior
provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, 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
|
|
21
|
- 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.
|
|
22
|
- 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
|