How can we ensure that our government works as efficiently and consistently as possible? Trias Politica has spread to other countries. How did they integrate it into a checks-and-balances system? How do we correct a major flaw in our system? These topics will be explored by comparing the modern Great Britain’s separation of powers to our own.
The U.S. Constitution’s three first articles outline the rights of the federal government. They will be divided among three distinct powers: the executive, legislative, or judiciary. Each branch is distinct and independent. They may not override or arrogate another branch’s functions. The branches can be complementary. They can support one another, and they prevent each other from trying too hard to acquire or take over too much power. This is known as checks & balances. This flexible and complex system of safeguards was created by the Constitution’s framers to protect the nation from tyranny (Collins). It allows each branch to modify and contain its own power. The legislative branch creates laws. The executive enforces the laws. And the judicial branch executes these laws. This idea of an integrated, organized system came from where?
Although there has been talk of a bipartite or mixed system since ancient Greece, it wasn’t until Charles-Louis Montesquieu, a French political philosopher, published anonymously in 1748. His work, “The Spirit of the Laws”, accurately described the separation of power into judicial and executive to preserve political liberty. Montesquieu explained that the independence of a judiciary had to be true and not only apparent. Montesquieu stated that the judiciary was considered to be the most powerful of all powers, unchecked and independent.
This creates “judicial Review”, the largest power, although it isn’t mentioned in Article 1. Judicial oversight is the power of the judiciary to examine the Constitution and strike down any acts that are too powerful for the executive and legislature. Marbury V. Madison (1803), the landmark case that defined the boundaries for constitutionally independent judicial or executive branches, was the catalyst for this procedure. This doctrine has had a significant impact on our checks & balances system. It provides a solid foundation to ensure consistency.
Great Britain has a similar structure, but the distribution of power is different. While the legislature is controlled by Parliament, executive power is split among the prime minster, cabinet, government department & civil servants, while the courts are in control of the judicial. Great Britain employs a “fusion or fusion of power” to ensure that their national legislature is functioning as intended. This means that parliamentary systems are sometimes combined with the executive.
The UK’s executive, for instance, is a part of its legislature. The prime Minister is the chief executive. The prime minister also had an influence over the courts up to 2009, when the Supreme Court of the UK (United Kingdom of Great Britain) was established as Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act of 2006. This Act allowed for greater separation of powers. Although the prime minister has a crucial role in both executive and legislative roles, he can also be elected to the House of Commons or as a peer in House of Lords. Due to the merging of and uniting of powers, the UK constitution has been described as having “a weak separation” rather than a “fusion” of powers.
They have more control over judicial review because of the Great Britain’s parliamentary structure. This is not a doctrine or process, but a challenge of the decision making and not the right and wrong outcomes. The United States has a different system of judicial review. It plays an important part in our system for protecting rights, consistency, productivity, and other benefits. Although the concept of separation has been adopted by many countries, Great Britain has successfully integrated it into its parliamentary structure. As the world changes, law and consequence develop, examine doubts, and change. This makes it easier to organize and justify inequalities, disputes and overlaps of law.
