The importance of the seperation of powers

[DMACM]

Americans are taught at an early age of the importance of seperation of powers. It was clearly of great importance to framers of the constitution. Other countries like Canada have little seperation of powers. Why is seperation of powers important or is it important at all?

[tomdemaine]

Could you define separation of powers for me? As you see it.

[DMACM]

What I think of is the tripartite system of the United States. The legislature is responsible for legislative activies, namely writing laws. The executive is responsible for executing the laws. The judiciary is responsible for trying cases and is independent from influence by other branches. I know that there cannot be total independence of the three branches but I am curious as to how important people see independant branches and separation of powers to be.

[tomdemaine]

What is the purpose of it?

[DMACM]

It prevents too much power from being centered into one person or group's hands. It creates "a government of laws and not of men." I'm curious as to what other people see as its benefits and drawbacks.
Are you from the U.S. tom?

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
It prevents too much power from being centered into one person or group's hands. It creates "a government of laws and not of men." I'm curious as to what other people see as its benefits and drawbacks.
Are you from the U.S. tom?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm not sorry for all the questions but I'm trying to understand. How much power is too much to be in one person or a group of people's hands? Who is it that writes and enforces the laws in a "government of laws" if not men?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
It prevents too much power from being centered into one person or group's hands. It creates "a government of laws and not of men." I'm curious as to what other people see as its benefits and drawbacks.
Are you from the U.S. tom?

[/ QUOTE ]



So it seems the moral argument is that centralization of power is bad and decentralization of power is good.

Is this correct?

If this is correct, what would be the logical conclusion of this argument?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Other countries like Canada have little seperation of powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you say that? Federal, municipal, and provincial powers all have different scopes and jurisdiction.

[bobman0330]

I think the verdict of history is that separation of powers just isn't necessary. Lots of Western countries have much more unitary governments than the US and do just fine.

Also, this thread is exactly what people think of when they say "AC hijack." Not so much because tom's point is irrelevant, but because 2/3 of the posts in this thread are about it and he still hasn't actually made any kind of point.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the verdict of history is that separation of powers just isn't necessary. Lots of Western countries have much more unitary governments than the US and do just fine.

Also, this thread is exactly what people think of when they say "AC hijack." Not so much because tom's point is irrelevant, but because 2/3 of the posts in this thread are about it and he still hasn't actually made any kind of point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't mentioned anything of the sort I'm just asking questions to get a clear idea in my mind of the OP's position on the separation of powers. The OP seems pretty open ended to me.