• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Branches of Government are NOT "Co-Equal"

This is a rhetorical canard too frequently uttered, and it is not "the plan" of the Constitution. The framers didn't say it, and didn't expect it.

If one studies the Constitution, and understands it, the incorrectness of the assertion is obvious. Yes, each branch (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) possess independent responsibilities and authorities, and they do have "checks" against each other, but the phrase used by the framers was "coordinate". They are supposed to work together.

Article I lays this out explicitly:

Section. 1.
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States
, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Section 8, of course, expands on those powers. But, what is most important is understanding that Congress passes the law. Congress directs how the government operates. Congress collects and spends the revenue.

Both the other branches are reactive. They execute the laws (that Congress passes) and the judiciary interprets the laws (that Congress passes).

This is why Articles Ii and III are so short. The meat is elsewhere. It is also why some issues are simpler than they are made out to be and why numerous judicial "doctrines" are so out of step with the Constitution. For example, there is no such thing as "presidential immunity" in the Constitution. It's simply not there. Another constitutional stupidity foisted upon us by the Supreme Court is the "non-delegation doctrine". Both are excuses that are used by the Court to use their authority to interfere with the operations of other branches, but neither have existence in the Constitution itself. They made it up.

It's not that Congress doesn't mess up. Sometimes they do things they can't do. After all, Article IV provides,
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The liberties of its denizens take precedence over even Congress' authority.

This is why Due Process is such an important issue right now, and why the Supreme Court's attitude about pushing Christian theology onto the nation is so jarring. It's extra-constitutional. As are its expansions of corporate personhood and invalidation of voting and civil rights.

Let's start the discussion!
PURE UNADULTERATED BULLCRAP


Thomas Jefferson championed the idea of co-equal branches of government, arguing that each branch (legislative, executive, and judicial) should have equal authority to interpret the Constitution and act independently. He believed that a concentration of power in one branch, particularly the judiciary, could lead to tyranny. This viewpoint, known as "departmentalism," was a reaction to the expansive power of judicial review established by John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.
See also
COEQUAL FEDERALISM AND FEDERALSTATE AGENCIES
 
PURE UNADULTERATED BULLCRAP


Thomas Jefferson championed the idea of co-equal branches of government, arguing that each branch (legislative, executive, and judicial) should have equal authority to interpret the Constitution and act independently. He believed that a concentration of power in one branch, particularly the judiciary, could lead to tyranny. This viewpoint, known as "departmentalism," was a reaction to the expansive power of judicial review established by John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.
See also
COEQUAL FEDERALISM AND FEDERALSTATE AGENCIES
You so obviously did not read your own citations. Sadly, a far too common fault.
 
PURE UNADULTERATED BULLCRAP


Thomas Jefferson championed the idea of co-equal branches of government, arguing that each branch (legislative, executive, and judicial) should have equal authority to interpret the Constitution and act independently. He believed that a concentration of power in one branch, particularly the judiciary, could lead to tyranny. This viewpoint, known as "departmentalism," was a reaction to the expansive power of judicial review established by John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.
See also
COEQUAL FEDERALISM AND FEDERALSTATE AGENCIES

So what ?
He didn't write the Constitution. James Madison is often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution" for his key role in drafting and shaping the document. Other prominent figures included Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin

Note the absence of Thomas Jefferson.
 
So what ?
He didn't write the Constitution. James Madison is often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution" for his key role in drafting and shaping the document. Other prominent figures included Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin

Note the absence of Thomas Jefferson.
Writing a decade after his Presidency and 30 years following its adoption (he's not a framers, as you note) he penned something vaguely confirmatory... unless you actually read it. It's certainly not how he governed.

Moreover, the actual authors wrote consistently differently. As Madison noted in Federalist 51: "But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense.13 In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.14"

I'll take Madison's contemporary view over Jefferson's post-hoc prevarication every day of the week.
 
Writing a decade after his Presidency and 30 years following its adoption (he's not a framers, as you note) he penned something vaguely confirmatory... unless you actually read it. It's certainly not how he governed.

Moreover, the actual authors wrote consistently differently. As Madison noted in Federalist 51: "But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense.13 In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.14"

I'll take Madison's contemporary view over Jefferson's post-hoc prevarication every day of the week.

Sorry, are you talking about James Madison ?

Are you saying that's he's NOT often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution" for his key role in drafting and shaping the document ?
 
Sorry, are you talking about James Madison ?

Are you saying that's he's NOT often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution" for his key role in drafting and shaping the document ?
Not at all. Read that again. I cited Madison's contemporary writing that "the legislative authority necessarily predominates". That was in response to the (incorrect) claim that Jefferson thought of the branches as equal. He made one reference 30 years later and after his presidency that is being deliberately shorn of its context. I was clarifying that Jefferson was not a framer.
 
Not at all. Read that again. I cited Madison's contemporary writing that "the legislative authority necessarily predominates". That was in response to the (incorrect) claim that Jefferson thought of the branches as equal. He made one reference 30 years later and after his presidency that is being deliberately shorn of its context. I was clarifying that Jefferson was not a framer.

So to be clear, you're saying that James Madison is NOT often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution" ?
 
Back
Top Bottom