Origin of Three Branches of Government?!?!?

[Hosnon]

Where/when did the concept first develop?

Does anyone know the origin of the idea, specifically why three?

Thanks DU

[SteppingRazor]

1. Um... the Constitution? n/t

[Hosnon]

3. Not our Government...small "G" government. nt

[SteppingRazor]

6. oh! My bad.

As far as three branches in which both the executive and legislative are democratically elected, the idea still originates with us -- at least in the modern Western world. Before that, of course, executive power resided with a monarch.

Initially all power resided in tribal chiefs, who made the law, controled the army to enforce it, and heard the grievances of the people. As populations became too large, it became impossible for one person to hear all of the people's grievances, so chiefs named magistrates to do this duty.

Meanwhile, counselors and advisors came to be both chosen by the king and nominated as representatives of the people -- usually, however, they were nominated by the people already in charge, as in the consuls of the Roman republic.

Such a body of advisors didn't have real power throughout the Middle Ages, until King John signed the Magna Carta, leading to the first parliamentary government.

So, to sum up what was a very long process, there is no "Origin of the Three Branches of Government." It's more an evolution than a simple starting point.

[Emit]

2. Ancient Greece and English and French philosophers

I'm sure there are better links, but here's a quick reference at Wiki:

The doctrine traces back to ancient Greece and was further developed by English and French philosophers.

More detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution

[Hosnon]

4. Thanks...I checked out wiki. I'm really looking for a detailed analysis.nt

[Emit]

5. I would look into the various names noted in that wiki link.

'google' Locke or Montesquieu and doctrine of separation of powers for starters.

Jeesh, just skimming some of this stuff makes me realize how keen these guys were -- sadly, they are all turning over in their graves!

[no_hypocrisy]

7. I believe this topic is reviewed in "The Federalist Papers",

a collection of publications by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay under the pseudonym "Publicus".

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:x9ncPr5JxM8J:https://www.leadership.opm.gov/lds/constitutional-reader/pdf/ConLit-III.pdf+federalist-papers+%2B+%22separation+of+powers%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

[1monster]

8. A lot of the ideas for the US government came from the Iroquois Nations.

http://tuscaroras.com/graydeer/influenc/page1.htm

I. INTRODUCTION


Historians unafraid of telling the whole story are beginning to delve deep within the archives, instead of footnote stealing and making biased opinions. They are beginning to look at the actual documentation, and they are coming to the conclusion that American Indians have helped to shape democracy. It has been the practice as Vine Deloria states that:

The accomplishments of Indians and their actual place in the story of the United States has never been remotely touched by other historians. The major reason for this is that a omission substantial number of practicing historians simply do not know the source documents with sufficient precision to make sense of them; consequently, they spend a good deal of their time stealing footnotes and ideas from each other. (1)

However, today there is a growing number of historians who acknowledge that the native peoples especially the Haudenosaunee (People of the Longhouse), also known as the Iroquois Confederacy, influenced the founding fathers. The Haudenosaunee influenced the founding fathers' perspective concerning democratic thought, and they helped to forge the idea of federalism that led to what has become the Constitution of the United States.

In order to accept the premise that the Haudenosaunee had a profound influence on the founding fathers' thoughts on what would later become the United States Constitution, two important steps need to be taken. First, one needs to step back in time and examine what was influencing the founding fathers during their era. Secondly, one must relinquish ethnocentric prejudices of native peoples being "uncivilized" and in need of assimilation because of the stereotypical belief that they were "too simpleminded to engage in effective social and political organization." (2)

In this paper, the Great Law of Peace (also known as the Iroquois Constitution) will be discussed through the perspective of a Haudenosaunee to show how the Confederacy functions. The influence that the Great Law of Peace had on the founding fathers and on the United States Constitution, as well as the interaction between the great Mohawk orators and the founding fathers, will be discussed. This paper will add an Haudenosaunee perspective, and will hopefully make suspect the judicial framework on which federal-Indian policy and Indian law is built, which in an ethnocentric way falsely stereotypes native peoples as savage, uncivilized, and in need of assimilation.

II. IROQUOIS CONSTITUTION

[Sailor for Warner]

9. Each has its own origin

The idea of Republic style governement evolved in Roman/Etruscan society as a response to the failures of the Democratic assemblies of Athens. The Romans had an Executive of sorts but he was from the Senate not independent of it. The Romans also developed the priniciple of Bicameral Legislature, they had a Lower House(Assembly) and an upper house (Senate) this style was also used with the British Houses where the upper house was made up of nobility and the lower house was made up of the elected plebean rabble. This style was close to what the founding fathers intended in our Congress. The House would be the people directly elected from the districts based on population and standing in as the representatives in a Athenean-style assembly. The Senate would be appointed by the "cooler heads" of the state legislatures to temper the dribble that comes out of the House and make it consumable for the civilized world. That is why the House can Impeach but only the Senate can sit in judgement. This system was of course thown off by the 17th amendment requiring the direct election of Senators.

As for the Executive, he was intended to be a sort of Consul type, elected by the electors with input from the people of the various states. Much of his powers are dictated by custom and precedent rather than constitutional bounds. The idea of the consul was replaced with that of the "Elected King" when George Washington took the office. Washington and the Federalists saw the President as having similar general authority as the Limited Monarchy (in theory) in Britain, where the King could propose legislation and block laws and conduct war, but congress (parliment) held the purse strings. They put some key limits on his power by giving congressional override power and impeachment power.

Judicially we are more unique, taking the concept of "the nation of Laws not Kings" that began in the English Civil War one step further by writing down our constitution and holding everyone to it. The scope of the Courts power was not realized though until CJ Marshall defined the courts role in constitutional interpretation.

Thats all I have off of the top of my head, hope it helps.

[Sailor for Warner]

10. Man, I type up this nice response and noone reads the damn thing

[NoPasaran]

13. Sometimes people read things

But don't feel they need to respond.

:hi:

[sweetheart]

11. hint: "the 13 colonies"

The colonies were most familiar with the English system, as they were English colonies
after all. Then the legislative and the executive has reasonable roots in the
british system, with teh courts given full independence from teh House of Lords (senate),
whereas the british supreme court (law lords) is part of the upper house.

[Sailor for Warner]

12. Good one

Forgot about that.