In Federalist 47, Madison considers the adequacy of protections against consolidation of power. He defended the framework as adequate. Maybe not.
… One of the principal objections inculcated by the more respectable adversaries to the Constitution, is its supposed violation of the political maxim, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments ought to be separate and distinct. In the structure of the federal government, no regard, it is said, seems to have been paid to this essential precaution in favor of liberty. The several departments of power are distributed and blended in such a manner as at once to destroy all symmetry and beauty of form, and to expose some of the essential parts of the edifice to the danger of being crushed by the disproportionate weight of other parts. No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded.
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. …
The scoreboard is not looking good.
| Executive | GOP | “He who saves his country does not violate any law.” – DJT & Napoleon |
| Legislative | H: GOP 218/215 S: GOP 53/45 |
“Of course, the branches have to respect our constitutional order. But there’s a lot of game yet to be played … I agree wholeheartedly with my friend JD Vance … ” – Johnson |
| Judiciary | GOP 6/3 | “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” – Vance “The courts should take a step back and allow these processes to play out,” – Johnson “Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity.” Trump v US 2024 |
| 4th Estate | ? | X/Musk/DOGE WaPo, Fox … Tech bros kiss the ring. |
There have been other times in history when the legislative and executive branches fell under one party’s control. I’m not aware of one that led members to declare that they were not subject to separation of powers. I think what Madison didn’t bank on is the combined power of party and polarization. I think our prevailing winner-take-all electoral systems have led us to this point.