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?

[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.

[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?

[DMACM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad for the questions. I didn't think this topic would interest many people. I don't fully understand the rationale behind this concept myself. Of course its men that write and enforce the laws. However it might prevent abuse by not allowing the same person to write and enforce a law against a particular group that he or she disliked.

[tomdemaine]

But you used the phrase too much power which implies that you think that there is a correct amount of power that individuals or small groups of people in the government should hold over others right?

[qwnu]

I think the basic theoretical rationale is "checks and balances". Too much power concentrated in one group is thought to be a bad thing, and so the various branches have the authority to independently "check" the power of the others.

[By the way, this is a different idea than the divisions based on federal/state/local mentioned earlier - most (every?) US state has its own executive branch (Governor), a legislative branch, and a state court system.]

Think about "Law and Order" when the cops want to search the home of a suspected criminal. They can't just break down the door and look for evidence. They first have to convince a judge that they have "probable cause" and he has to give them permission to conduct the search in the form of a "search warrant". In theory, the judge provides an independent check on the police powers, and should limit the abuses of power which would otherwise occur.

These are probably good jumping-off points:
Separation of powers - Wikipedia
Separation of Powers under the US Constitution - Wikipedia