Talk:Separation of powers under the United States Constitution

Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star

Separation of powers under the United States Constitution is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

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)

---

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)

---

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)

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)