How can we ensure that our government works as efficiently and consistently as possible? Trias Politica has spread to other countries. How did they integrate it into a checks-and-balances system? How do we correct a major flaw in our system? These topics will be explored by comparing the modern Great Britain’s separation of powers to our own.
The U.S. Constitution’s first three articles describe the three powers that the federal government has. They are divided into three distinct powers: executive, legislative, and judiciary. Each branch is distinct and independent. They may not override or arrogate another branch’s functions. The branches can be complementary. They can support one another, and they prevent each other from trying too hard to acquire or take over too much power. This is called checks and balances. The Constitution was created to protect the country from tyranny. Simply stated, the legislative and executive branches make laws. The executive must enforce these laws. It is the responsibility of the judicial branches to execute those laws. This idea of an integrated, organized system came from where?
Although there has been talk of a bipartite or mixed system since ancient Greece, it wasn’t until Charles-Louis Montesquieu, a French political philosopher, published anonymously in 1748. His work, “The Spirit of the Laws”, accurately described the separation of power into judicial and executive to preserve political liberty. Montesquieu stated, “The independence of judiciary must not be apparent merely.” Montesquieu stated that the judiciary was considered to be the most powerful of all powers, unchecked and independent.
This makes “judicial reviews” possible, which although it is not specifically mentioned in Constitution, is the most powerful. Judicial oversight is the power of the judiciary to examine the Constitution and strike down any acts that are too powerful for the executive and legislature. Marbury v. Madison (1803), an important case that defined the boundaries between the constitutionally separated judicial-executive branches, established this procedure. This doctrine has had a significant impact on our checks-and-balances system and serves as a strong foundation for consistency.
Great Britain has a similar structure, but the distribution of power is different. While the legislature is controlled by Parliament, executive power is split among the prime minster, cabinet, government department & civil service, and the courts. Great Britain has a “fusion in powers” approach to its national legislature. Parliamentary systems sometimes combine or “fuse” their powers with executive.
The UK is an example of this. The prime minister sits as a member and chief executive. He also had an influence over the courts up to 2009, when the Supreme Court of the UK (United Kingdom of Great Britain) was established as Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act of 2006. This Act allowed for greater separation of power. Although the prime minister has a crucial role in both executive and legislative roles, he can also be elected to the House of Commons or as a peer in House of Lords. Due to the merging of and uniting of powers, the UK constitution has been described as having “a weak separation” rather than a “fusion” of powers.
They have more control over judicial review because of the Great Britain’s parliamentary structure. It is not a doctrine and a procedure, but rather a challenge in the process of a decision being made. The United States uses judicial review differently. This is a crucial part of our system to protect rights, consistency, efficiency, and productivity. While the concept of separation of power has been adopted in many countries, Great Britain has incorporated it into its parliamentary structure. As the world changes, law and consequence develops. They also investigate doubts and ideas and become more sophisticated, making it easier to organize and justify inequalities, disputes and overlapping areas of law.