FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279  
280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   >>   >|  
es cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law; nor administer justice in person, though he has the appointment of those who do administer it. The judges can exercise no executive prerogative, though they are shoots from the executive stock; nor any legislative function, though they may be advised with by the legislative councils. The entire legislature can perform no judiciary act, though by the joint act of two of its branches the judges may be removed from their offices, and though one of its branches is possessed of the judicial power in the last resort. The entire legislature, again, can exercise no executive prerogative, though one of its branches constitutes the supreme executive magistracy, and another, on the impeachment of a third, can try and condemn all the subordinate officers in the executive department. The reasons on which Montesquieu grounds his maxim are a further demonstration of his meaning. "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner." Again: "Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR. Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR." Some of these reasons are more fully explained in other passages; but briefly stated as they are here, they sufficiently establish the meaning which we have put on this celebrated maxim of this celebrated author. If we look into the constitutions of the several States, we find that, notwithstanding the emphatical and, in some instances, the unqualified terms in which this axiom has been laid down, there is not a single instance in which the several departments of power have been kept absolutely separate and distinct. New Hampshire, whose constitution was the last formed, seems to have been fully aware of the impossibility and inexpediency of avoiding any mixture whatever of these departments, and has qualified the doctrine by declaring "that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers ought to be kept as separate from, and independent of, each other AS THE NATURE OF A FREE GOVERNMENT WILL ADMIT; OR AS IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT CHAIN OF CONNECTION THAT BIN
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279  
280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

executive

 

legislative

 
branches
 

celebrated

 
joined
 

tyrannical

 

departments

 
meaning
 

powers

 

reasons


separate

 

entire

 

judges

 
administer
 

person

 

exercise

 
prerogative
 

liberty

 

judiciary

 

legislature


passages
 

instances

 
unqualified
 
explained
 

constitutions

 
establish
 

author

 

States

 

sufficiently

 

stated


briefly

 

emphatical

 

notwithstanding

 
inexpediency
 

NATURE

 

independent

 

doctrine

 

declaring

 

GOVERNMENT

 

CONNECTION


CONSISTENT

 

qualified

 
distinct
 

Hampshire

 

absolutely

 

instance

 

single

 

constitution

 

impossibility

 
avoiding