Tracy Remy- Pol 101- Separation of Power

We consider the separation of powers as a representation of democracy when in actuality

the separation of power, according to Hudson, is far from it. When it comes time to hold a
representative responsible, Hudson states the vast amount of checks and balances between the
branches gives everyone a hand at the decision making; which ultimately prevents us from
narrowing the cause of certain legislative reforms not being passed. The different political parties
controlling different aspects of Congress does suport the overcoming the majority tyranny
aspect the Founders hoped to achieve, however it is one of the underlying reasons for many of
the promised reforms to be either rejected completely or even altered to only benefit the
minority. In the long run, what is meant to be conceived throughout the text is while the
separation of powers was set in place to prevent a tyrannous government, it ultimately caused for
minority powers to be taken more into consideration than majority concerns due to the
differences in political opinions in the Congress; which shows how the separation of power
ultimately takes the power away from the people, thus removing the democratic aspect of it.
In particular the political setback of the U.S presidents reform programs is somewhat
appealing when actually taken into consideration. Throughout the reading, Hudson shows
examples of the presidents inability to pass his initial reforms due to the lack of support in
Congress. What I find so interesting is the fact that the checks and balance system was set into
place to benefit the nation. This system however is what causes distress throughout our
legislation making process. At some points in history, Obamas first term being a perfect
example, the presidents have been unsuccessful at even convincing their own party members of
supporting their reforms due to the congress only paying mind to the electoral voices in order to

Tracy Remy-Pol 101; Separation Of Power

ensure a spot in Congress in the next election year. Expecting Congress to make up a unanimous
decision without alterations to the reform plan is impossible with the different political parties.
Throughout the recession subdivision of this chapter, Hudson continuously brought up
the aspect of the American peoples lack of trust with our government officials. This concept
reminded me heavily of our first reading from the We the People publication. The reading
states that only 19% of American people believe that the government is trustworthy when it
comes down to doing what is right1. This along with Hudsons argument over whether we can
correctly identify those responsible within our government, leads me to agree with the theory of
the Separation of Power being an indirect problem to our government.
Of all the components of Hudsons argument, I would have to agree largely with the
notion that the separation of powers allows the minority problems to overshadow the concerns of
the majority. He discussed in detail how Obamas Healthcare plan went from helping those
without healthcare to helping the prescription companies and other health insurance agencies.
The different political parties in Congress all have different minorities in which they are
representing and in order for them to ensure a seat in Congress during the next election, they
alter the legislation in order to benefit their needs. Knowing that's the only way the president can
actually pass their reforms which were promised, they must accept the alterations in order to at
least accomplish some of their reform plans which ultimately dont help the American people. At
the end of it all, the minority ultimately have too much of a say in government decisions while
the majority only have some of their demands met. So while yes the founders did set this system
in order to ensure the majority doesn't become tyrannous, it can be said that it ultimately made

Ginsberg, B., Lowi, T., Weir, M., Tolbert, C., & Spitzer, R. (2015). Introduction: The Citizen and
Government. In We the People (10th ed., p. 5). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd.

Tracy Remy-Pol 101; Separation Of Power

the majority practically voiceless when it comes to decision making, thus allowing the majority
to become overpowered.
The questions that should be raised is fairly simple, yet hard to answer. If the separation
of powers is a problem, how are we able to fix it to ensure it would become a benefit in our
government? The separation of powers is embedded into the government so unlike the Articles
of confederation, we cant merely start over from scratch. Should we remove the idea of political
parties as a whole; thus removing the citizens right to have different opinions in decision
making? Since the political parties are what cause the multiple objections in decision making,
restricting the amount of beliefs would benefit the legislation process. Should we limit the
responsibilities of the branches of government; allowing the people to figure out where the
problems in our government lie, thus removing the branchs rights to prevent tyranny within the
branches? With this we would be able to successfully assess the problems in our government and
alter it to our very whim; which could ultimately make the majority overpowered once again
which the Founders worked to avoid, thus bringing us back to the very start.
Not every democratic system is supreme and our government is a great example of that.
While the separation of power originally started off as a way to provide the need of everyone in
America, as the country began changing the same systems and methods, The Jeffersonian Model
in perfect example, began to become unresponsive thus creating what we have today; a cluster of
opinions.