The Separation of Powers
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018)
"How do you spell ICE in German? GESTAPO."
First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.
Pastor Martin Niemoller (c. 1946)
As I noted in a recent column, for the past thousand years or so it has been recognized that there are three primary functions of any government, which have come to be entitled as the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. For most of the time that formal governments have existed, the ultimate control of those functions has been held by one person or body-led-by-one-person. In the mid-18th century, the French political philosopher, Montesquieu (who went by only one name), was one of the first to develop that in then-modern times, a fairer, and more effective form of government would have control of those primary functions somehow separated among three independent-of-each-other-within-the-overall-government branches. A half-century or so later, his thinking and writing provided a major inspiration for the framers of the U.S. Constitution.
The Framers, or The Founders, if you will, had several unique, and indeed revolutionary ideas for formulating and then forming a new form of government for the 13 colonies which collectively had declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776. In Great Britain, as in all of the nations that had organized governments at the time, all of the powers (and power) were ultimately concentrated within the hands of one induvial or single body (most commonly they former). There was no separation of powers. (As it happens, the concept of separation of governmental powers, on paper at least, goes all the way back to the writings of the Greek philosopher Aristotle.) Few modern nations have it written into their governing documents, although India does.
As is well-known, six years after the successful conclusion of the Revolutionary War (with a formal peace treaty between the British Crown and the then still separate 13 colonies), the Constitution for the new nation was promulgated in Philadelphia. Constitutions of one sort or another had in fact existed in England (eventually Great Britain) since the Middle Ages. But the new U.S. one had a variety of unique features, beginning with the very clear separation of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial powers in it (see Articles One, Two, and Three). As is well-known to most historians, specialists in government, and indeed politicians (except for, very clearly, Donald Trump), the written separation powers and the existence of check and balances between them, is perhaps the most important feature of U.S. government that distinguishes, and has distinguished, it from that of other modern, democratic, governments.
I (and many other observers as well, to be sure) have written extensively on this issue, and how the prime objective of Trump, his party, and the people/forces behind Project 2025, is to end the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances in the U.S. government. Indeed, just the other day, Trump said: I have the right to do anything I want to do. I’m the President of the United States. Lets just unentangle that one for a bit.
First of all, he uses the word right. Well, there is no such statement of right for a President in the Constitution. In fact, if one reads Article II (one has to wonder whether Trump has ever read Article II, much less the entire document), the powers of the President are rather narrowly drawn. They have become radically expanded over time through legislation, court decisions, and customs. But never, until now, that is, have they concluded I have the right to do anything want to do. That is, using a careful analysis from U.S. history and politcal science, off the wall.
But of course, given the Presidents personal predilections, his slim majorities in Congress (but majorities nevertheless), and his far-Right-wing Supreme Court majority (on which sit, as is well-known, three members appointed by Trump --- which, for example, has made up out of whole [far-right-wing] cloth the doctrine of Presidential immunity from prosecution for a rather broad range of crimes that a President might commit while in office), and the likelihood that Trump could well say Article II? Just what Article II are you talking about? we are at the edge of the cliff over which the central tri-partite concept of U.S. government could fall.
As I have written on more than one occasion the explicitly expressed and, it would seem, primary goal, of Project 2025 is to end tri-partite government in the United States. As I have noted previously: One Kevin Roberts, of the Heritage Foundation, a long-time Trump-influencer, has pronounced the coming of the 2ndAmerican Revolution (see P2025), without bothering to tell us exactly why one is necessary or how exactly it is to be accomplished. He will stay at Heritage, presumably to offer more advice, which might be implemented with or without the consent of, say, the Congress.
In time times past, unitary government power was concentrated in the hands of a King or an Emperor (most recently, see the Prussian, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian Empires, each of which lasted through the First World War). In the 20th and 21st centuries, as is well-known, the concentration of power in one set of hands is known as fascism. (See just below for one of the [very similar] definitions which I am currently using for that term.)
There is a single, all-powerful executive branch of government. There is no separation of the principal governmental powers: executive, legislative, and judicial. There are no independent media. There is a single national ideology, based on some combination of racism, misogyny, religious bigotry, homophobia, and xenophobia. There is a political party supporting the movement. There is a state propaganda machine using the big and little lie techniques. There may be a full-blown dictatorship, a charismatic leader, engagement in foreign wars, and the use of the mob/private armies to enforce governmental control."
As I have said on more than one occasion, The TrumpRepubloFascist Train is Roaring down the Track. It is now, literally, arriving in Union Station in Washington, D.C., and would like to take over Union Station in Chicago, IL as well. Our nation is literally on the brink of an at least partial fascist takeover. The opposition, focused on the same goal of preventing the advent of TrumpRepubloFascism, but separated by ultimate goals, geography, and relative levels of power, is forming fairly rapidly. Of course, whether it, as it is currently constituted, will be able to turn back the fascist tide, remains to be seen. For, to repeat, Trump and his minions are currently giving the nation a very fast lesson in how the "separation of powers" principle can be over-ridden, if there is a political force that wants to do that, e.g., the Trump-Republo-P2025-fascist force that is fast changing the nature of government in our nation.
But do remember here that the central issue is the maintenance, or not, of the central feature of U.S. Constitutional government, written right into the form as well as the content of the document, is the separation of powers.