1. What were the reasons America's forefathers divided the government into the legislative, judicial, and presidential branches? How does this benefit the three branches?

The idea that power can be abused if monopolized by one individual is not a new idea. Ancient history is replete with examples of absolute rulers who terrorized neighboring societies as well as their own people. The Roman Caesars drove the Roman Empire to ruin through their megalomania and abuse of power. Louis XIV and Louis XVI of France provided a similarly disastrous leadership style in France. Lord Acton, famed British historian and moralist wrote the following in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." William Pitt served as the British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778. The dissatisfaction and resentment in the American colonies was building and would lead the Patriot leaders to embrace open rebellion against England in 1776. In 1770 William Pitt, in a speech before the House of Commons, made the following insightful quote. "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it." (McClellan, 2000)

The colonists had experienced enough madness and corruption under King George III of England. Having won their freedom by 1781 they set about establishing a government that would provide for the national defense of the new nation while at the same time guaranteeing the public freedoms that had been so brashly trampled on by the British king. The way they sought to do this was by providing for a system of checks and balances in government. By denying access to absolute power they were attempting to limit the possibility or at least the probability of government abuse of power. (Kesler, 2007)

2. What obstacles do the division of power present to enactment of important legislation?

The division of power is obviously not a panacea for all government deficiencies and problems. As a matter of fact some would claim the division of power actually hamstrings government. It is important to understand that the founding fathers envisioned a government that while protecting its citizens and guaranteeing them certain rights was to be largely uninvolved in the daily lives of its citizens. It was expected that citizens govern themselves. The government would be responsible for protecting individual rights but was not meant to be the caretaker of its citizens. The government was meant to protect not provide. Therefore, for the type of government that the founders envisioned, the system of checks and balances and division of power worked perfectly.

In today's society however our vision of government has changed considerably from the original concept developed by the founding fathers. Our society tends to see government not merely as the protector of individual rights. Rather than asking government to protect our right to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we have come to expect government to promise us an easy life, protect lewd behavior and provide for the happiness of its citizens.

Because of our perspective of government we are drawn to the conclusion that the division of power is something that hinders government. It is undeniable that the division of power makes decision making a long and arduous process. It results in seemingly endless debate and long hours spent in committee meetings discussing the merits of certain legislation. Therefore one obstacle that the division power presents to the enactment of important legislation is that it

increases the amount of time it takes to make a decision. Another obstacle is that this long time frame spent debating a piece of legislation can end up costing the public more money than if a quick decision could be made. Another obstacle is that almost every piece of legislation ends up becoming a partisan tactic for gaining public favor. (Synel, 2008)

3. How was the conflict between supporters of a strong federal government and champions of states' rights characterized then as opposed to now? Identify specific issues.

There have been some twists and turns in the evolution of the ideas of federal power versus states' rights. Originally those who supported a strong federal government typically represented the merchant class and "big business." Alexander Hamilton was the champion of the strong federal government position. On the other hand the states' rights group led by Thomas Jefferson; were concerned with the interests of rural and southern states. In other words, those advocating a weaker central government were most concerned with the rights of the rural poor. Today this position is typically described from a different point of view. Those in favor of big business generally also favor states' rights and a weaker government. Those in favor of a big central government cite the protection of the rural poor as a main reason. (U.S. Department of State)

Another interesting fact is that Hamilton, supporting a strong central government, insisted that the U.S. government pay its debts in full and pay off the national debt entirely. Today the mentality of the central government being fiscally responsible is inconceivable. Jokes are constantly made regarding the wastefulness of government and their inability to abide by an agreed upon budget. The national budget deficit is skyrocketing and there are no signs of the government being willing to rein in spending in a significant manner. (U.S. Department of State)

References:

James McClellan, Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government (3rd ed.) (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2000). Chapter: Separation of Powers at the Crossroads. Retrieved from http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/679/68488 on 2011-02-16

Kesler, Charles. (2007). What Separation of Powers Means for Constitutional Government. First Principles Series Report #17. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/12/what-separation-of-powers-means-for-constitutional-government

Synel, Blake. (2008). Federalism and Separation of Power. Government. Retrieved from http://socyberty.com/government/federalism-and-separation-of-power/

U.S. Department of State. (n.d.) Hamilton v. Jefferson. Retrieved from http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-41.htm