The Myth of Coequal Branches: Restoring the Constitution’s Separation of Functions (Studies in Constitutional Democracy)

"The idea that the three branches of U.S. government are equal in power is taught in classrooms, proclaimed by politicians, and referenced in the media. But, as David Siemers shows, that idea is a myth, neither intended by the Founders nor true in practice. Siemers explains how adherence to this myth normalizes a politics of gridlock, in which the action of any branch can be checked by the reaction of any other. The Founders, however, envisioned a separation of functions rather than a separation of powers. Siemers argues that this view needs to replace our current view, so that the goals set out in the Constitution's Preamble may be better achieved"--Publisher's description. Read more... Most people think that the United States government is composed of three coequal branches. The idea is taught in classrooms across the nation, routinely proclaimed by politicians, and uncritically referenced in the media. This does not, however, square with The Federalist's proclamations that "in Republican government the legislative authority, necessarily, predominates" and "the judiciary is beyond compare the weakest of the three departments of power." In his latest work, David Siemers argues that not only is the notion of three branches equal in power a myth - neither intended by the founders nor true in practice - but one that hinders effective governance. Constitutional myths are not inherently problematic; some are very beneficial, like the idea that "the people" rule. But, as Siemers shows, adherence to the myth of equality has a problematic effect: it normalizes a kind of Newtonian politics in which the actions of any one of the three branches of US government can be checked or stopped by the equal and opposite reaction of any other one. This encourages the belief that institutional checks lay at the center of the founders' constitutional design - and yields gridlock. In response, presidents have come to act ever more unilaterally, effecting change through executive order, memos, executive agreements, and signing statements. The founders envisioned an effective government. They gave each of the three branches a specific job to do: the legislature writes laws, the president executes them, and the judiciary settles controversies under the law. Their plan was for a "separation of functions" rather than a "separation of powers." In this highly original and important new work, Siemers invites us to consider the myth of coequal branches and its negative effects, then proposes a path back to a separation of functions, to a federal government that is at once more faithful to the Constitution and more effective. -- From dust jacket. "The idea that the United States has three coequal branches of government is taught in classrooms across the nation, is frequently proclaimed by politicians, and is referenced uncritically in the media. But what does it mean? How does it square with the Federalist's proclamations that "in Republican government the legislative authority, necessarily, predominates" and "the judiciary is beyond compare the weakest of the three departments of power"? In this work, David Siemers argues that the idea of three branches equal in power is a myth, neither intended by the Founders nor true in practice. Siemers invites us to consider this myth more deeply and to consider whether its perpetuation is beneficial or harmful"-- Provided by publisher. "The idea that the three branches of U.S. government are equal in power is taught in classrooms, proclaimed by politicians, and referenced in the media. But, as David Siemers shows, that idea is a myth, neither intended by the Founders nor true in practice. Siemers explains how adherence to this myth normalizes a politics of gridlock, in which the action of any branch can be checked by the reaction of any other. The Founders, however, envisioned a separation of functions rather than a separation of powers. Siemers argues that this view needs to replace our current view, so that the goals set out in the Constitution's Preamble may be better achieved"-- Provided by publisher

The idea that the three branches of U.S. government are equal in power is taught in classrooms, proclaimed by politicians, and referenced in the media. But, as David Siemers shows, that idea is a myth, neither intended by the Founders nor true in practice. Siemers explains how adherence to this myth normalizes a politics of gridlock, in which the action of any branch can be checked by the reaction of any other. The Founders, however, envisioned a separation of functions rather than a separation of powers. Siemers argues that this view needs to replace our current view, so that the goals set out in the Constitution's Preamble may be better achieved.

Introduction: the myth of equality -- The public face of contemporary coequality -- The founding generation and interbranch power -- "The relative power of the ... branches has always ebbed and flowed" -- The presidency and interbranch power -- The judiciary: guardians of distinctive functions or guardians of coequal branches? -- The "first branch" becomes coequal -- "We the People" at a crossroads.