What's the deal with the separation of powers?

In this week’s episode, Julia, Lee, and James tackle the separation of powers. They consider why it exists and explore its consequences for our politics in 2019.

This episode is also available on Apple, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Show Notes

James references Edward Corwin’s characterization of the relationship between Congress and the president as an “invitation to struggle” and argues that the conflict produced in that struggle prevents any one branch from transcending its limits under the Constitution.

Lee contrasts Bruce Ackerman’s Madisonian hope that dual legitimacy and struggle between the branches will lead to bargaining and negotiation with Juan Linz’s argument that the Constitution’s dual legitimacy creates irresolvable conflict in which presidents use their power to run roughshod over Congress.

James quotes James Madison in Federalist 58 when he describes Congress’s power of the purse as “the most complete and effectual weapon, with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” He also refers to Madison’s definition of tyranny in Federalist 47 to help make sense of how the Framers of the Constitution thought about the separation of powers.

Julia cites Josh Chafetz’s book, Congress’s Constitution: Legislative Authority and the Separation of Powers and her review in which she argues that it may be Congress’s Constitution, but it is the president’s politics.

Julia recommends Lee’s piece on the separation of powers in which he argues that partisan loyalty has triumphed over institutional loyalty. She also mentions Frances Lee’s recent book exploring how insecure parties impact the dynamics inside Congress and Lilliana Mason’s Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity.