. The separation of powers is more accurately described as "a sharing of powers by separated institutions" (Peltason, 1979, p. 24). Each branch of government has some control over the activities of the other branches, and a mutual cooperation among branches is necessary in order for the government to conduct its business. This intricate blending of powers among three politically independent institutions makes the concept of the separation of powers a workable, effective one.
When the Constitution was being drafted by the Framers, some critics feared that this blending of power violated a basic political maxim essential to the preservation of liberty: that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments ought to be separate and distinct" (The Federalist, 1945, p. 321). Writing in Federalist Paper No. 47, James Madison examined this objection, which held that "the several departments of power are distributed and blended in such a manner as to once to destroy all symmetry and beauty of form" (The Federalist, p. 321). Further, Madison noted, critics felt that "the essential parts of the edifice" would be exposed "to the danger of being crushed by the disproportionate weight of other parts" (The Federalist, p. 321). Madison argued that this particular criticism, while based on an enlightened view of liberty, fails to understand the true nature of the separation of powers.
To support his argument in favor of a blending of powers, Madison cited the great political philosopher Montesquieu, who used the British Constitution as the standard for judging political institutions and the preservation of liberty. In the British system of government, powers were indeed shared among the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments, disputing the idea that the three branches had to be totally separate and distinct. Thus when Montesquieu argued that "'There
...