Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Separation of Powers AC
We’ve come here today to provide an answer to the great question: to compete, or to cooperate? As
such, my philosophy is that competition is superior to cooperation as a means of achieving excellence.
Let’s start with definitions. I will define competition and cooperation from a common-man point of
view: how we use them in daily life.
Competition: The act of competing in order to achieve a goal.
Cooperation: The act of cooperating in order to achieve a goal.
Next is my Value, or rather anti-value. I value any system that is inherently non-tyrannical.
I’ll be explaining to you in 3 basic contentions why the philosophy of cooperation would subject human
beings to my anti-value, and how competition is the only solution. This requires a third definition:
Separation of Powers: The constitutional allocation of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers
among the three branches of government.
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT. OF EDUCATION SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS GLOSSARY, no date,
doe.sd.gov/contentstandards/social/docs/SS_Glossery05-15-06.rtf (HEG)
Now let’s get into my contentions: I’ll show you in 2 steps why competition is superior to cooperation.
Will Malson Separation of Powers AC Page 2 of 3
A. SOP provisions were devised by the framers to provide checks and balances to prevent
tyranny. Martin Redish 91
Martin Redish, Law Professor, Northwestern, 1991 (DUKE LAW JOURNAL, December, p. 453) (HEG)
Although one may of course debate the scope or meaning of particular constitutional provisions, it would be difficult to deny that in
establishing their complex structure, the Framers were virtually obsessed with a fear -- bordering on what some
might uncharitably describe as paranoia -- of the concentration of political power. Almost every aspect of their
ingenious political structure was in some way related to their implicit assumption that, simply put, "power
corrupts." Thus, much as a modern urban resident bolts his door shut with several different locks (so that
if one fails, another may keep out the dangers of urban life) so, too, the Framers chose to rely on a
number of different structural devices to check what they assumed to be the natural and inherent
tendency of government to proceed toward tyranny. In structuring their unique governmental form, the Framers sought to avoid
undue concentrations of power by resort to institutional devices designed to foster three political values: checking, diversity, and accountability. By
simultaneously dividing power among the three branches and institutionalizing methods that allow each
branch to check the others, the Constitution reduces the likelihood that one faction or interest group that
has managed to obtain control of one branch will be able to implement its political agenda in contravention of the
wishes of the people. By dividing power on a vertical as well as lateral plane (i.e., between the state and
federal governments), they sought to assure that not all policy decisions would be made at one political
level. And by implementing a diluted form of popular sovereignty, they assured that those in power would be generally responsive to those they represent
while reducing the danger of a tyrannical majority.
In conclusion, the choice before you today is thus: to embrace the separation of powers, preventing
tyranny, via a competitive internal government, or to embrace the tyrannical implications inherent in
cooperation. The choice is clear. Thank you.