Why Each Branch Should Not Be Separated

596 Words2 Pages

Although each branch are separated they should not be separated too much as to having no control with each other. Each branch should not be separated so much that they can not check on each other and have no control if one branch has too much power. In “Checks and Balances” it says that “The three branches should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other.” If one branch was to not be checked on then that one branch will have more power than the others. The branches should not be separated so much because they would each have their own strong powers and not be able to “connect” to the other branches. Each branch is separated for a reason because if they were to be all together they then could become tyranny. The three branches have their own specific jobs to do and to take care of. The Legislative branch is to make the laws, the Executive branch is to enforce the laws, and the Judicial branch is to …show more content…

Having the branches being separated could be a bit easier to have tyranny, but that is why it said in the constitution that each branch should be checking each other so that each branch can have their own rights and equal powers.
“The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.” Maximilien Robespierre. May of 1787, 55 individuals, who were mainly white men and wealthy, came together from 11 disunited states. They wanted to create a new constitution, which could create a stronger central government. With having to want a new government the men were scared that the new government may have tyranny, which is an unfair leader or government. The constitution guards against tyranny by using a system of checks and balances and by having a separation of powers within the

Open Document