• 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!

What is your philosophy regarding the U.S. Constitution?

Essay on The Separation Of Powers


Over two hundred years ago our Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia, PA to rewrite the constitution. In rewriting the Constitution there was one change that they wanted to make above all. That was within this new government there would be a Separation of Powers of each branch of government. Developing a system that was fair and equal to all was also a big part of the equation. Another part was making a government that was centered around the Federal government and not the state. To create such a government meant creating a system that did not give to much power to any one person or organization. They accomplished this by fragmenting the government and creating a separation of powers.

By dividing the government into three separate branches it would take total power away from anyone group. Which also created a checks and balance system that would not allow any abuse of power by either of the branches. Although our Founding Fathers were extremely bright men who had minds of their own, they were still subject to outside influences when it came to writing the constitution and developing a new and improved government. A major influence on our Founding Fathers democratic beliefs was the Greek historian Polybius who wrote 40-volume Histories of Rome from 220 to 146 B.C. Some consider the French philosopher Charles Louis de Secondat Baron de Montesquieu the author of the checks and balance system the most prominent influence on our Founding Fathers.

They cite his work Spirit of the Laws as the authority in this area. James Madison was quoted as saying in reference to Secondat, "the oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu." There is no doubt that Montesquieu had and influence on the founding fathers, but even Montesquieu was influenced by others. A large portion of Montesquieu's work was borrowed from Polybius's theory of mixed constitution. This mixed constitution was a combination of three forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Each of the three branches of government checked the strength and balanced the weaknesses of the other two. This style of government leaves absolute rule in no single body but it is shared among all three. Polybuis believed that the Republic of Rome had avoided tyranny by developing a mixed constitution, a single state with elements of three governments at once. This is what our Founding Fathers benchmarked when they developed U.S Constitution.


A direct connection between Polybius and the Founding Fathers can be found in references made in their writings. Thomas Jefferson had several editions of Polybius' Histories in his own library. There are private letters written by Jefferson that reveal he was buying copies of the Histories for himself and friends. James Madison was also directly familiar with the work of Polybius. In the Federalist Papers No. 63 he cites the historian and he devotes nearly the entire No. 47 to the separation of powers. Below is an excerpt from No. 47:

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

This clearly illustrates how strongly James Madison felt about one person or entity having all the power. Other Founding Fathers were just as knowledgeable of Polybius and his mixed government and this is evident in the constitution.
 
ernst barkmann said:
Essay on The Separation Of Powers


Over two hundred years ago our Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia, PA to rewrite the constitution. In rewriting the Constitution there was one change that they wanted to make above all. That was within this new government there would be a Separation of Powers of each branch of government. Developing a system that was fair and equal to all was also a big part of the equation. Another part was making a government that was centered around the Federal government and not the state. To create such a government meant creating a system that did not give to much power to any one person or organization. They accomplished this by fragmenting the government and creating a separation of powers.

By dividing the government into three separate branches it would take total power away from anyone group. Which also created a checks and balance system that would not allow any abuse of power by either of the branches. Although our Founding Fathers were extremely bright men who had minds of their own, they were still subject to outside influences when it came to writing the constitution and developing a new and improved government. A major influence on our Founding Fathers democratic beliefs was the Greek historian Polybius who wrote 40-volume Histories of Rome from 220 to 146 B.C. Some consider the French philosopher Charles Louis de Secondat Baron de Montesquieu the author of the checks and balance system the most prominent influence on our Founding Fathers.

They cite his work Spirit of the Laws as the authority in this area. James Madison was quoted as saying in reference to Secondat, "the oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu." There is no doubt that Montesquieu had and influence on the founding fathers, but even Montesquieu was influenced by others. A large portion of Montesquieu's work was borrowed from Polybius's theory of mixed constitution. This mixed constitution was a combination of three forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Each of the three branches of government checked the strength and balanced the weaknesses of the other two. This style of government leaves absolute rule in no single body but it is shared among all three. Polybuis believed that the Republic of Rome had avoided tyranny by developing a mixed constitution, a single state with elements of three governments at once. This is what our Founding Fathers benchmarked when they developed U.S Constitution.


A direct connection between Polybius and the Founding Fathers can be found in references made in their writings. Thomas Jefferson had several editions of Polybius' Histories in his own library. There are private letters written by Jefferson that reveal he was buying copies of the Histories for himself and friends. James Madison was also directly familiar with the work of Polybius. In the Federalist Papers No. 63 he cites the historian and he devotes nearly the entire No. 47 to the separation of powers. Below is an excerpt from No. 47:

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

This clearly illustrates how strongly James Madison felt about one person or entity having all the power. Other Founding Fathers were just as knowledgeable of Polybius and his mixed government and this is evident in the constitution.
Click to expand...

can you tell us what your point is??
 
ernst barkmann said:
sure...that the power to make law, should never be placed in only one person or one entity having all the power, because to do so would lead to tyranny.
Click to expand...

and does somebody want to place the power in one entity???
 
James972 said:
and does somebody want to place the power in one entity???
Click to expand...

sure there is, its called a democratic form of government.

if the house is in the interest of the people

if the senate is in the interest of the people

and people want the president to be in the interest of the people by direct election, then what single entity has all the power?............the people.


"This clearly illustrates how strongly James Madison felt about one person or entity having all the power. Other Founding Fathers were just as knowledgeable of Polybius and his mixed government and this is evident in the constitution"
 
Last edited:
Federalist 48--An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. For this reason, that convention which passed the ordinance of government, laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time


"By dividing the government into three separate branches it would take total power away from anyone group."

"This mixed constitution was a combination of three forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Each of the three branches of government checked the strength and balanced the weaknesses of the other two".
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
sure there is, its called a democratic form of government.

if the house is in the interest of the people

if the senate is in the interest of the people

and people want the president to be in the interest of the people by direct election, then what single entity has all the power?............the people.


"This clearly illustrates how strongly James Madison felt about one person or entity having all the power. Other Founding Fathers were just as knowledgeable of Polybius and his mixed government and this is evident in the constitution"
Click to expand...

trivial issue since any group that might have power nowadays will be liberal so your only option is to persuade them that conservatism makes most sense. Do you understand?
 
ernst barkmann said:
Essay on The Separation Of Powers


Over two hundred years ago our Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia, PA to rewrite the constitution. In rewriting the Constitution there was one change that they wanted to make above all. That was within this new government there would be a Separation of Powers of each branch of government. Developing a system that was fair and equal to all was also a big part of the equation. Another part was making a government that was centered around the Federal government and not the state. To create such a government meant creating a system that did not give to much power to any one person or organization. They accomplished this by fragmenting the government and creating a separation of powers.

By dividing the government into three separate branches it would take total power away from anyone group. Which also created a checks and balance system that would not allow any abuse of power by either of the branches. Although our Founding Fathers were extremely bright men who had minds of their own, they were still subject to outside influences when it came to writing the constitution and developing a new and improved government. A major influence on our Founding Fathers democratic beliefs was the Greek historian Polybius who wrote 40-volume Histories of Rome from 220 to 146 B.C. Some consider the French philosopher Charles Louis de Secondat Baron de Montesquieu the author of the checks and balance system the most prominent influence on our Founding Fathers.

They cite his work Spirit of the Laws as the authority in this area. James Madison was quoted as saying in reference to Secondat, "the oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu." There is no doubt that Montesquieu had and influence on the founding fathers, but even Montesquieu was influenced by others. A large portion of Montesquieu's work was borrowed from Polybius's theory of mixed constitution. This mixed constitution was a combination of three forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Each of the three branches of government checked the strength and balanced the weaknesses of the other two. This style of government leaves absolute rule in no single body but it is shared among all three. Polybuis believed that the Republic of Rome had avoided tyranny by developing a mixed constitution, a single state with elements of three governments at once. This is what our Founding Fathers benchmarked when they developed U.S Constitution.


A direct connection between Polybius and the Founding Fathers can be found in references made in their writings. Thomas Jefferson had several editions of Polybius' Histories in his own library. There are private letters written by Jefferson that reveal he was buying copies of the Histories for himself and friends. James Madison was also directly familiar with the work of Polybius. In the Federalist Papers No. 63 he cites the historian and he devotes nearly the entire No. 47 to the separation of powers. Below is an excerpt from No. 47:

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

This clearly illustrates how strongly James Madison felt about one person or entity having all the power. Other Founding Fathers were just as knowledgeable of Polybius and his mixed government and this is evident in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Neatly copied and pasted Separation Of Powers essays

And several other links
 
James972 said:
trivial issue since any group that might have power nowadays will be liberal so your only option is to persuade them that conservatism makes most sense. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

dude you have no clue about the constitution, powers of government or the federalist, and you embarrass yourself when you talk of them.
 
ESSAY ON ROMAN CONSTITUTION

In the course of ancient history many nations rose and fell and many forms of government were tried. Some were successful, some were a terrible failure, and others were just sufficient. The Greek historian Polybius believed that the constitution and government of Rome at the time of the Hannibalic War was by far the best of any form of government ever set up by any other nation (Polybius pg. 311). The Hannibalic War took place from 218-201 B.C., Polybius (205-118 B.C.) was writing in the second century B.C. (Polybius - Author details and biography - The Quotations Page). To Polybius the greatness of Rome’s government was that it combined three forms of government; aristocracy, monarchy, and democracy and utilized the best aspects of each while each had some form of a check and balance on the others to help curb the vices of each (Polybius pg. 317). Polybius believed Rome had set up a balanced constitution that had advantages over any others, but he did not foresee the political and social pressures that led to the downfall of the Roman republic.

Roman government consisted of two consuls, the Senate, and the people. Consuls were an elected office. The people were represented by an assembly and elected tribunes, of which there were originally two to match the two consuls. There were other magistracies in the Roman government, but they are not necessary to mention for this paper. The Senate was made up of the men who had held consulship, been tribune, or held any other magistracies (Shelton pg. 207). Once a man was a member of the Senate he was so for life (Shelton pg. 207). The consul, the people and the Senate represent the three kinds of governments (monarchy, democracy and aristocracy) that Polybius believed balanced Rome’s constitution and set it apart from others (Polybius pg. 311).

For Polybius the Roman constitution, its form of government, carried out by three branches, was so interdependent and checked and balanced...

Essay on Roman constitution essays

Thomas Jefferson, a fervent supporter of mixed government,28 had numerous editions of Polybius’ Histories in his personal library.29

James Madison also knew Polybius’ work. He cites the historian in The Federalist Papers No. 63 and devotes nearly the entirety of No. 47 to the separation of powers:33

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.


As John Adams wrote to Benjamin Rush in 1790:

No nation under Heaven ever was, now is, nor ever will be qualified for a Republican Government, unless you mean ... resulting from a Balance of three powers, the Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical ... Americans are particularly unfit for any Republic but the Aristo-Democratical Monarchy.

John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

James Madison from the federalist paper #40 --THE second point to be examined is, whether the [ constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention--4--12 June 1788 --But, Sir, we have the consolation that it is a mixed Government: That is, it may work sorely on your neck; but you will have some comfort by saying, that it was a Federal Government in its origin.

From Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 9 February 1797
To James Sullivan

Where a constitution, like ours, wears a mixed aspect of monarchy and republicanism, it’s citizens will naturally divide into two10 classes of sentiment, according as their tone of body or mind, their habits, connections, and callings induce them to wish to strengthen either the monarchical or the republican features of the constitution.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
hey thanks for finding it again online, i have already posted this essay in the forum before
Click to expand...

It's always good to post a link, otherwise people will think that you wrote it...
 
SmartCat said:
My philosophy regarding the U.S. Constitution is that it is an often ambiguously written guideline on how a representative democracy is to be organized. It is not the Absolute Truth. There are parts I would like to change. Nevertheless, as long as the American people are as polarized as they are I think we should delay changes, especially major changes.

The disadvantages of what exists can be seen and mitigated. The disadvantages of what has never existed can only be guessed at. Nevertheless, they may be worse than what exists.

The U.S. Constitution has lasted as long as it has because it has been flexible enough to respond to changes in popular opinion.

Also, the United States today is a very different country than the country that created the Constitution. We should not assume that the kind of government that existed right after the Constitution was signed is the kind of government that would work best now.

Concerning the "Founding Fathers," they were intelligent, and well educated for their time. We should study what they wrote with respect. We should also study other political thinkers before and after their time. I believe that a political thinker should be read for insight, rather than doctrine.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you said. But feel strongly that the constitution is perfect. Not as it is written, nor interpreted. But solely because it is amendable to fit changing times.

If we don't follow rules, we descend into chaos, based on the whims of the people in even the slightest majority. The rules are difficult to amend so that they are not done so on a whim.

Though I'm often in favor of what the Supreme Court decides, it irks me terribly to see them skew the interpretation of the constitution to adapt to the law being passed. For me personally, I'm often against a legislative act, not because it's a bad idea, but because my interpretation of the constitution doesn't allow it. I'm all for amending the constitution more frequently so that it more clearly keeps up with the changing times. I'm very against enacting these huge changes with a simple majority. When 51% of the population can cost the other 49% so dearly (at least in their opinion), it's a terrible crime.

That being said, I'm one person, whose interpretation is obviously subjective. Which is exactly why we need a strict interpretation. If we let loose interpretations rule the land rather than literal words, then the appropriateness of the law becomes extremely subjective and inconsistent.

The constitution needs serious updating to fit the laws, before the laws are passed. I cannot imagine Congress or the Judicial Branch believing we would need an amendment to pass prohibition again today. The interpretation is absolutely getting looser.
 
fredmertzz said:
. Which is exactly why we need a strict interpretation. If we let loose interpretations rule the land rather than literal words, then the appropriateness of the law becomes extremely subjective and inconsistent.
Click to expand...

The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819
 
It should be set in stone. Our freedoms are non-negotiable. Down with the ten commandments (not really so no one be offended) and up with the constitution. I hate the idea that we could just vote away our freedoms.

Now stuff like... idk say the 27th amendment. Those yeah amend away I don't care. But our basic rights/ individual freedoms shouldn't ever be on the table. Set those in a higher constitution. The golden law book. If I could I would put all our basic freedoms in a giant diamond plaque with gold bars surrounding and holding it up. It would be the most holy thing that exists. We'd even come up with a story of how God himself came down and gave me the idea to do that. To give it more of a holy touch to it. Hell for all I know maybe God really did give me the idea. Idk if God exists or not but who knows. (work with me here, I'm trying to convince myself I'm a prophet lol)

Anyways yeah I'll further add that even if 99% of the population wanted to abolish free speech, ban guns, reinstate slavery, skip fair trials and just torture people, whatever it is, in no way should they be amended. Also no constitutional amendment should ever restrict freedom. Like... Prohibition... the most impulsive "hey lets ban alcohol, oh woops never mind lets unban it." amendment in US history. That should have never happened.
 
Last edited:
At least they had the decency and common sense to REPEAL the Volstead Act and 18th, just a few years later.

We have suffered under the other drug prohibition for over a century now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom