Review of the Separation of Powers Section of the Federalist Papers Essay

Review of the Separation of Powers Section of the Federalist Papers 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 - Essay Example This paper seeks to focus on sections federalist paper. Federalist Papers #47 In this essay, the principle of separation of power is addressed. At the time, the constitution was opposed, as it was perceived to breach separation of power. Those against asserted that the three arms of government are not adequately distinct and independent and power was irregularly distributed. Their worry was that the government would fail, and that freedom would be affected. Madison concurs with this notion on separation of power, mainly on the threat posed by unequal distribution of power. He claims that excessive authority in one branch is a recipe for authoritarian rule and it did not matter the number of men in authority. He claims that no further argument was needed if claims were objective. In contrast, he asserts that these claims lacked basis. He relies on Montesquieu, French in supporting his argument. Montesquieu relied on British constitution as his model. Montesquieu points out that the go vernment branches in constitution are not absolutely separate or distinct. British king could intervene in legislative function when signing treaties. On the other hand, the king has authority of hiring and firing judges. ... Federalist Papers #48 This essay propounds that the three branches needed not be absolutely separate and independent. It argues that each branch of government required minimum power to control the other two. Each branch is given some power by the constitution; however, it was to be controlled to avoid overexploitation of the power. He wrote that it was essential to differentiate between the three branches to be able to protect legal power vested on each branch of government. Madison concurs that conflict of interest are likely to arise due to power overlap. He states that theoretical checks expounded by the constitution are not adequate. He argues that the original drafters of republican government failed to draft laws that could check legislature. This created ways for legislature to abuse its power. He concurs that in hereditary monarchy the king is feared, likewise in direct democracies executive is feared, as legislature is ineffective in controlling powers of executive. This is because in direct democracies, the size of legislature is enormous, and power is scattered hence solving conflict is a challenge. In their envisaged government, the legislature was more likely to abuse the power as more power had been granted to it. On the other hand, legislature controlled a huge chunk of the money and controlled salaries paid to government employees. This was a recipe for corrupt dealing. In comparison presidential and judicial power was just simple and under extreme regulation. There existed no chance for the two branches to breach authority vested on the congress and any attempt was easy to detect (Project Gutenberg, 1992). Federalist Papers #49 Jefferson highlighted the