Madisonian Misrepresentation? The Federalist’s Separation of Powers Reconsidered

• In Event: Exploring the Foundations of American Constitutional Thought

Abstract

Separation of powers is often presented in Political Science and law literature as a merely negative limitation on government where power is separated among branches so that no one possesses too much. Yet some scholars have argued that the founding understanding of separation of powers was to empower government by placing separate governmental functions in the branch best constituted to exercise its given function. This paper identifies one potential culprit for the confusion over separation of powers: James Madison. The empowering conception of separation of powers can be found in Madison’s Federalist essays upon close analysis, but Madison’s essays largely frame the separation of powers as a limitation on government. This may have been a rhetorical strategy to appease concerns over the proposed Constitution or could reveal a deeper divide between Madison and his co-author on the degree to which the new government would be empowered. Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist essays on the executive and the judiciary unequivocally frame separation of powers as an empowerment of each branch necessitated by the logic of the Constitution. This apparent difference between Madison’s and Hamilton’s essays demonstrates a possible split personality in Publius, or at least a difference in emphasis, that can explain the later break between the two founders and persistent confusion over the separation of powers.

Author

• Benjamin Joseph Slomski, Purdue University Fort Wayne