How does separation of powers contribute to limited government

Through the study of history, the Founders learned about the division of power among judicial, legislative, and executive branches; about federalism; about checks and balances among divided powers; about redress and representation; and about the right of resistance, made effective by the legal right to bear arms, an ancient right of free persons. Liberty and limited government were not invented in ; they were reaffirmed and strengthened.

The American Revolution set the stage for extending the benefits of liberty and limited government to all. As John Figgis, professor of modern history at Cambridge University, noted at the beginning of the 20th century:. The sonorous phrases of the Declaration of Independence … are not an original discovery, they are the heirs of all the ages, the depository of the emotions and the thoughts of seventy generations of culture.

The roots of limited government stretch far back, to the establishment of the principle of the higher law by the ancient Hebrews and by the Greek philosophers. The story of the golden calf in the Book of Exodus and the investigations of nature by Aristotle both established — in very different ways — the principle of the higher law. Law is not merely an expression of will or power; it is based on transcendent principles. The legislator is as bound by law as is the subject or citizen; no one is above the law.

Those various movements reinforced each other in a multitude of ways. The assertion of the freedom of the church and even of its supremacy over the secular powers was bound up with the idea of the higher law, by which all are judged — emperor, pope, and peasant alike. Let the king therefore give to the law what the law gives to him, dominion and power; for there is no king where will, and not law, bears rule. The supremacy of the law over the exercise of power is a hallmark of the Western legal tradition.

The laws must be understandable and actually capable of being followed. Recognition of the principle of reciprocity between the holders of power and the general populace was also widespread. Rights were enumerated in constitutions and charters. Those rights were not gifts from the powerful, which could be taken away on a whim, but something on which one could take a stand. Tied up in the notion of a chartered right was the ancillary power to defend that right, even to the point of resistance with force of arms.

They were won over many centuries at great sacrifice. Just how precious that heritage is can be gleaned from comparing it with the history of Russia, where throughout its history there has been very little reciprocity between rulers and ruled and no independent power able to challenge the rulers.

The principality of Muscovy and its successors were highly despotic, with no charters of liberty, no power higher than the tsar or his successors, the Communist Party leaders and now Vladimir Putin , no limits on power — in effect, no law. They also remind us how important it is for us to maintain our heritage of limited government and the rule of law. The struggle for limited government was a struggle of liberty against power.

The demands for religious liberty and the protection of property were fused in the heroic resistance of the Netherlands to the Empire of Spain in their great revolt. The Dutch inspired the English to rise up against the Stuart kings, who sought to fasten upon the English the absolutism that had made such headway on the Continent.

The American Revolution was one link in a long chain of revolutions for liberty. The rise of the Dutch Republic must ever be regarded as one of the leading events of modern times….

For America the spectacle is one of still deeper import. The Dutch Republic originated in the opposition of the rational elements of human nature to sacerdotal dogmatism and persecution — in the courageous resistance of historical and chartered liberty to foreign despotism. The Dutch, like the British and the Americans after them, became a shining example of what was possible when people were free: prosperity was possible without the guiding hand of the king and his bureaucrats; social harmony was possible without enforced religious conformity; and law and government were possible without an unlimited and absolute sovereign.

The story of the attempts to institute absolutism in the Netherlands and in England was well known by the American Founders, who were, after all, British colonists. One cannot understand the American attempt to institute limited, representative government without understanding the history of England.

In other words, there are no limits to power. Distinct echoes of that view are still heard today. Days contended that the powers of Congress are plenary, that is, unlimited, unless, perhaps, specifically prohibited. What Americans need is not unlimited government, as Days proposed, but limited government under law, exercising delegated and enumerated powers.

That is how the equal liberties of citizens are protected. As the philosopher John Locke, himself an active participant in the struggles for limited government in Britain and the primary inspiration of the American revolutionaries, argued in his Second Treatise on Government :.

The end of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge Freedom : For in all the states of created beings capable of Laws, where there is no Law, there is no Freedom. But a Liberty to dispose, and order, as he lists, his Person, Actions, Possessions, and his whole Property, within the Allowance of those Laws under which he is; and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary Will of another, but freely follow his own. Typically, this system divides the government into three branches: the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch.

The United States federal government and forty states divide their governments into these three branches. Congress, in addition to other enumerated responsibilities, is responsible for creating laws. As a general rule, the nondelegation doctrine prohibits the Legislative Branch from delegating its lawmaking responsibilities.

The President approves and carries out the laws created by the Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch interprets the laws passed by the Legislative Branch. California illustrates this approach; "The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution. While separation of powers is key to the workings of American government, no democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers.

Governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap; they are too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized.

As a result, there is an inherent measure of competition and conflict among the branches of government. Throughout American history, there also has been an ebb and flow of preeminence among the governmental branches.

Such e xperiences suggest that where power resides is part of an evolutionary process. This page provides resources for legislators and staff to use in addressing separation of powers issues.