Talk:Separation of powers

message: This article is missing the most important point of separation of powers, which is that by separating them, they are not held by the same person.  For example, the Roman Empire inherited a lot of different offices from the Roman Republic, but there was no real separation of powers because the offices were personally concentrated in the Roman Emperor or in people controlled by him.  In the United States today, a person generally cannot serve in two branches simultaneously and must resign from a branch before taking office in another.  This principle is taken for granted by Americans, which is why they find the Westminster system to be very bizarre in that the leadership of the executive branch is constituted by the party that has a majority in Parliament. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. That seems to me to be correct. I came here to say that the intro's so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with those of the other branches is wrong, which is the same point. Note that it is also unreffed William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is missing the most important point 

message: The New Separation of Powers by Bruce Ackerman. This is an interesting read. Komitsuki (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Separation of Powers 

message: Any public system may gain efficiency by separation of powers. Take the road transport system f x. The execution of constructing and maintenance of roads and bridges should be organized at one authority. Legislation on safety rules for roads, for road vehicles and for drivers should be organized by a second authority. Control and evaluation of efficiency and failures (f x vehicle crashes w severe bodily injuries) related to either or both execution and legislation, should be organized by a third authority. This puts pressure on efficient execution as well as legislation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.6.195 (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of powers in any public system 

message: The concept of the New Separation of powers is interesting. The concept of the separation of powers can be considered as ideal to some extent; i mean the three arms of government are operating under the same government. Thus, the overlapping of functions is quite unavoidable. And also, political parties tend to compromise the aspect of the Separation of powers doctrine.--41.78.77.245 (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if this is a comment or request. I could use some feedback here. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk   16:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Separation of powers 

message: It uses subjective thought and opinion with a distorted perverse complete disregard for the truths and protection of the organic Constitution for the united States of America66.8.197.38 (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia: A system of creating ambiguity 

message: It is almost certain that the author of the Czechoslovak constitution (1920) was NOT Hans Kelsen. He was a great influence on some of its authors, but as a Czech lawyer myself I have never heard that he would actually put his pen down to the paper on Czechoslovak constitution (he did make draft of the Austrian one, but that's a different story). Czech Wikipedia actually claims as the author to be Jiří Hoetzel, a Czechoslovak lawyer. I have for now added , but somebody should probably fix it.
Ceplm (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional Act of Czechoslovak republic (1920) 

message: How about a linguistic note about "arms" vs. "branches" of government? Is one term British and the other American? How many countries/people use each variant? — RFST (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arms or branches? 

message: Quote from article (01/14/2017, 4.58 PM): "Typically this was accomplished through a system of 'checks and balances', the origin of which, like separation of powers itself, is specifically credited to Montesquieu."
According to both the Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=check), and the online unabridged version of The American Heritage Dictionary (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/checks-and-balances?s=t), the expression 'checks and balances' appeared in English between 1780 and 1790 (and referred, perhaps, originally to machines) and was an internal development (not taken from French).
Does anybody know of any French predecessor that goes back to Montesquieu?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.213.1 (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The expression may have an English origin, but the concept was Montesquieu's. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  'checks and balances' attributed to Montesquieu? 

message: I feel sort of insulted that in such a big article no body remembered to even mention the fourth power that existed in Brazil between 1824 and 1889 and in Portugal between 1826 and 1910. It was called moderator power and has a very noteworthy history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.63.10.117 (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't protected. If you believe this article needs this sort of improvement, you're probably right. Please add it. CityOfSilver 19:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the moderator power? 

message: This article seems to attribute to Montesquieu the statement that "The judiciary was generally seen as the most important of powers, independent and unchecked". The source quoted is his The Spirit of Laws. I have noticed that no other publication which I have been able to find so far quotes a source. In addition, the reference to a book without indication of chapter or page is unacceptably vague. And if that is not enough, I have not been able to find the statement in a copy of The Spirit of Laws which I downloaded. The source used to be Adam Przeworski, JM Maravall, Democracy and the Rule of Law (2003), till it was removed by a one-time IP editor. Since the statement is indeed found on page 13 of that publication, and does not mention Montesquieu, the source should be Democracy and the Rule of Law, and not Montesquieu.
Looking for the specific source of the second statement in that same paragraph, namely that the judiciary is dangerous, I found another serious problem, in addition to the sourcing issue mentioned above. Wikipedia mirrors obviously mirror the statement that the judiciary is also dangerous, but many other sources actually state that Montesquieu considered to judiciary to be the least dangerous of the three powers. Based on the fact that this statement is more specific, and addresses the key subject of the three powers, as well as because of the fact that these sources were obviously independent of Wikipedia, I am inclined to say that this version is the more accurate one. Especially in view of the fact that the change was made by a another one-time IP editor. However, this statement too can be found on another page of Democracy and the Rule of Law, so that must have been the source. 
Interesting what it says on pages 223-4. Help in finding that text would be much appreciated Debresser (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution to Montesquieu 

message: @User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, I realize not all parliamentary systems have a Westminster-style arrangement wherein the members of the executive branch are also members of the legislative branch, but that's not the only cause of an overlap. Another source of overlap within parliamentary systems and semi-presidential systems is the fact that the executive leadership (or part of it, in the case of semi-presidential systems, as in those systems the president also has executive power) is held accountable to the legislature. As a result of this, the two are not mutually independent, hence there isn't a clean separation of power, like you would find in a presidential system. 
If you are in agreement with that point of view, and now see that my edit to the lead was appropriate, I would like to revert your last revert. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 02:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parliamentary systems and the overlap between executive and legislative branches 

message: I hesitate to change the very first sentence since this seems to be a pretty actively edited page. But the first sentence says, "The separation of powers is a representation for the governance of a state." It's not at all clear what that even means. What I think the sentence is trying to say is that "The separation of powers is one (method/model/system/approach) to the governance of a state." Novellasyes (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence? and intro in general 

message: This text from the first section appears to end with an incomplete sentence:
"The typical division is into three branches: a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary, which is the trias politica model. It can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in parliamentary and semi-presidential systems, where the executive and legislative branches"
What is the intended text? "..where the executive and legislative branches ARE INTERMINGLED" or similar?
Cryan.dublin (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete sentence? 

message: This sentence (135 words) is unclear because it is too long and complex. It should be broken up. Things unclear to me:
suggest begin new sentence here
The two "between"s show there is a nested comparison with three elements. It's not clear which pairs are being compared/contrasted.
This is not grammatical. 
Do you mean "The kingship that Plato defined as the executive"?
who is referred to by 'whom'? Plato? The king? The combination of executive, aristocracy, and democracy?
--Ttulinsky (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very long unclear sentence in Checks and Balances 

message: The assembly of scholars and professionals had checks and balances on the monarch. The monarch was bound to follow the Raja Dharma, and if not could be deposed.
Indian concept of monarchy is not strictly hereditary, as in European or Japanese sense. The capability to rule even took precedence over heredity in succession, as Indian system of ruling preferred meritocracy.
It is the Ancient Indian political doctrines that made the foundation for the concept of welfare state, and regular audit of state institutions. 112.134.223.66 (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be getting distracted. Sep of powers is nothing to do with the welfare state. I don't find your addition falls convincingly within "separation of powers". Every tribal chief had a "council of ministers" William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of Powers in the Arthashastra 

message: Thank the 103.136.95.181 (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of power 

message: I want to separate "check and balance" article with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Main in section because is another different concept for this https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/check-and-balance/ and others wikis https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8272977#sitelinks-wikipedia . If there is no objection, I will do so. 5.90.238.161 (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divisions

message: China and the socialist states do not practice the separation of powers but unitary power. In China, there is only one branch of government... All other state entities like the Supreme Court and the The Central People's Government are organs of the NPC. --TheUzbek (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  China and the socialist states 

message: Here's a thought. Why not move large parts of this article – the ones dedicated mostly to describing the structure of individual governments – to a separate article by the name "branches of government" (or something similar).
The way things are now, the principle and theory of separated powers is overwhelmed by the detailed and lengthy accounts of each country's arms of government, which I feel misses the point. I would consider "separation of powers" primarily a political philosophy, constitutional studies, and constitutional law concept, whereas the branches of government parts seem more like their own thing, mostly in the remit of descriptive political science (specifically, comparative government).
Readers might have an easier time finding what they are looking for if we distinguish these differing focuses. There's clearly a lot of interest in institutions and branches of government as a topic in itself, so it's probably worth its own article.
I think this split would also help better maintain WP:NPOV in the separation of powers article. Another pragmatic editorial reason to have two distinct articles is that they probably call for two somehwat different types of editor/expert: the more conceptually inclined and systematic ones for the separation of powers principle, and the more taxonomically inclined and particularist ones for the listing of different institutional structures of individual governments. 
I'm at the beginning stages of this idea, so I'm happy to brainstorm reasons for and against. So, my fellow editors, what say you?
—§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 19:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea. Pecopteris (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting off 'branches of government': The solution to finally advancing past 'start class'?