When the framers wrote the U.S. Constitution, one of their core beliefs was that government had to be limited in order to protect the republic from tyranny. Government was intended to derive its power from the consent of those governed. One of the framers biggest concerns was that one of the three branches of government (executive, judicial, and legislative) would usurp the power of the others, thereby upsetting the balance of power so carefully crafted into the Constitution by them. In HamiltonÆs Federalist No. 78, he urged the High Court to focus on legal power and leave the exercise of political power to the legislative and executive branches. The three branches of government are guided by the limits imposed on them by the U.S. Constitution. However, the judicial branch has the potential to be all powerful, especially as regards the Supreme Court, which determined the outcome of the presidential election in the 2000 election. As James Madison maintained, ôYou must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself,ö (Collier and Collier, p. 48). Because of the danger inherent in a disruption of the balance of power, the doctrine of separation of powers continues to surface in the study of law which regulates agency procedures and behavior. This analysis will explore why this doctrine continues to remain highly significant in this area.
The overarching intent of the first three articles of the U.S. Constitution is to create a tripartite national government in which the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches function as checks and balances upon each other and thereby work to ôestablish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the General Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty,ö (U.S., p. 1). The doctrine of separation of powers continues to surface in matters of administrative law, because laws must be enacted from...