The term “Separation of Powers” was coined by the 18th century philosopher

Montesquieu. Separation of powers is a model that divides the government into separate

branches, each of which has separate and independent powers.
The term "trias politica" or "separation of powers" was coined by Charles-Louis de Secondat,
baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, an 18th century French social and political
philosopher. His publication, Spirit of the Laws, is considered one of the great works in the
history of political theory and jurisprudence, and it inspired the Declaration of the Rights of
Man and the Constitution of the United States. Under his model, the political authority of the
state is divided into legislative, executive and judicial powers. He asserted that, to most
effectively promote liberty, these three powers must be separate and acting independently. 
Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into
distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The
intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.  
The traditional characterizations of the powers of the branches of American government are:

 The legislative branch is responsible for enacting the laws of the state and appropriating the
money necessary to operate the government. 
 The executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the public policy
enacted and funded by the legislative branch. 
 The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying
their interpretations to controversies brought before it.
Forty state constitutions specify that government be divided into three branches: legislative,
executive and judicial. California illustrates this approach; "The powers of state government are
legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not
exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution."
While separation of powers is key to the workings of American government, no democratic
system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of
powers. Governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap; they are too complex
and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized. As a result, there is an inherent measure of
competition and conflict among the branches of government. Throughout American history,
there also has been an ebb and flow of preeminence among the governmental branches. Such
experiences suggest that where power resides is part of an evolutionary process. 
This page provides resources for legislators and staff to use in addressing separation of powers
issues. It organizes them into broad categories and links to a diverse set of resources to illustrate
how the doctrine applies to specific issues under each category. The resources include law
review articles, court cases and legislative reports.

Montesquieu presented the theory of separation of powers, in which the powers should divided
among three parts of government legislative, executive and ...

Montesquieu's tripartite division appears to be based on a separation of functions--legislative,

executive (having largely to do with foreign affairs--Locke's "federative" power), and judicial.
Montesquieu's judicial power is not, however, Hamilton's or Marshall's; nor is it the Law Lords
sitting as a court of last resort. It appears, rather, in the form of ad hoc tribunals, juries of one's
peers who judge of both fact and law without need for the guiding intelligence of a professional
judge.
In part because such cities required all citizens to gather together to
deliberate, some political theorists argued that such democracies were only
appropriate to small cities or nations. The French philosopher, the Baron of
Montesquieu (1689–1755), a representative of the classical liberal tradition
that had great influence on early American thought, argued in The Spirit
of the Laws that large nations and empires necessarily required a single
ruler if they were to maintain control throughout the realm. Since the time
of the early Greeks, however, theorists and practitioners have refined the
idea of representation. Advocates of such representation argued that such
nations could continue to reflect popular opinion by relying on elections
to choose representatives who would represent their constituents. Indeed,
in arguing that it was possible to establish such a “republican,” or representative,
government over a land area the size of the thirteen colonies and
beyond, James Madison argued in Federalist no. 10 that such a representative
democracy was actually preferable to direct democracy in that it was

less likely to reflect factional, or partial, interests.

the Federalist Papers Summary and Analysis of Essay 7

<p>Summary
In this paper, Alexander Hamilton continues his argument for a union over a system of
multiple, independent American sovereignties. Hamilton argues that if the American states are
not united under a single national government they will have the same inducements to go to war
with each other as all other neighboring nations in the world. In particular, he details how
territorial disputes, commercial competition, and management of the public debt could all lead
to conflicts between the states.
He concludes by arguing that all these sources of conflict would ultimately cause America to
be weak, disunited, and at great risk of falling prey to the “artifices and machinations” of
foreign powers.
Analysis
In this paper, Hamilton continues his spirited defense of the superiority of the union dictated by
the Constitution over his opponent’s calls for a system of multiple independent American
states. He supports his arguments by creating a series of hypothetical situations in which
competing interests between the states could lead to war.
While in his previous paper Hamilton used the divisions of Europe as an example of how easily
neighboring nations can be drawn into war, he chooses in this paper to situate his arguments in
the context of current events in American society. In so doing, he is making his arguments seem
more relevant to his New York audience, who would surely remember the serious tensions
surrounding competing territorial claims with its neighbors. He furthermore constructs
hypothetical situations in which competing commercial interests between New York and other
states could lead to conflict and imagines situations in which different views on the public debt
could spark violence.
In essence, Hamilton is attempting in this paper to make more believable his claim that
disunion will lead to conflict and instability in America.
The Federalist Papers Summary and Analysis of Essay 8
<p>Summary:
Hamilton begins this Federalist paper by assuming that he has proven to his readers that the
union provides safety from foreign attack, and wants to proceed and address some of the other
consequences of the dissolution of the states. Of paramount interest to Hamilton is "war
between the states," something this author believes would be "accompanied with much greater
distresses than it commonly is in those countries, where regular military establishments have
long obtained."
While Europe has many fortifications against military advance, the United States has none.
Instead, the United States has a wide-open frontier, and geography that would create a situation
where the "populous states would with little difficulty overrun their less populous neighbors."
War would consequently be more deadly than in Europe. Because of this fact, standing armies
would soon become a necessity and standing armies, regardless of the form of government,
"compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security, to institutions,
which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights."
The weaker states would have the first need of standing armies, an institution Hamilton
despises, and would thus, in Hamilton's opinion, make the state governments evolve towards
monarchy, because a strong executive is necessary during war. The small states, in Hamilton's
suppositions, would have more power over the larger states, and the larger states would result to
the same methods of defense that the smaller states first resorted to.
Next, Hamilton distinguishes between countries with military establishments who are
frequently subject to invasion, and states that do not deal with this dilemma. A country that is
not subject to invasion has no excuse for a standing army, while a country constantly under the
threat of an invasion has an excuse for an army. In a country where there is a standing army
because of the constant threat of invasion, people's liberties are infringed upon. Great Britain is
a country in the first situation. Because of the sea insulating it from attack, the people would
never stand for a standing army, and thus, liberty is defended. Hamilton concludes, "if we are
wise enough to preserve the union, we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an
insulated situation," thus holding off Europe and her colonies and putting all of the states at the
greatest advantage possible.
Analysis:
It is interesting that Hamilton, Madison, and Jay (but most of all Hamilton, as the instigator
of this project) chose the safety of the nation as the first topic of discussion in the Federalist
Papers. While this subject may seem repetitive and almost absurd to the modern day reader,
who reads the Federalist Papers for entirely different reasons, this was the main thrust behind
the people's ratification of the Constitution. Reading this paper it becomes clear that this was
originally intended as a work of propaganda, not a philosophic discourse.
The main thrust behind this paper is that the United States will prevent internal wars by
becoming united as a country, rather than falling apart and battling each other. The analogies
between Europe and the United States are interesting to ponder. Hamilton's belief that the
United States would only be insulated from war by joining together leaves an analogous
question: would Europe have suffered as many deadly wars had they become a united country?
While this is impossible to answer because the parallels and opportunities were never provided,
as well as the fact that the barrier of language and culture was much more of a problem, it is
worth noting as an intellectual consideration.
Notice the reoccurrence of the founding father's reliance on ancient Greece as an example.
Although Greece does not fit the paradigm that Hamilton is drawing, he feels it is important
enough to note why Greece was an exception. In The Federalist Papers, however, the founding
fathers were deliberate in using experience as their guide. John Adams wrote in 1786, "the
History of Greece should be to our countrymen what is called in many families on the
Continent, a boudoir, an octagonal apartment in a house, with a full-length mirror on every side,
and another in the ceiling. The use of it is, when any of the young ladies, or young gentleman if
you will, are at any times a little out of humor, they may retire to a place where in whatever
direction they turn their eyes, they see their own faces and figures multiplied without end. By
thus beholding their own beautiful persons and seeing, at the same time, the deformity brought
upon them by their anger, they may recover their tempers and their charms together." Such was
the Founding Father's reverence for the history of Greece, something not duplicated in our own
culture
</p