‘chukware 00 Bellarmine (72 SOP “ys Vidlbiy — Seyeatin OF — Powers rect be Guulated ihe @ hele wr pop MARTIN H, REDISH AND ELIZABETH J. CISAR , Louis and Harriet Ancel Professor Lug of Law and Public Policy, Northwestern University AND Law Clerk to Chief Judge William Bauer, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit 94. CFgy (1991 Duke 63. 449, PG.LN) % Sin summary, Ro defender of separation of nawers-can-ntave- with certtude SP that, but for the existence of separation of powers, tyranny would be t! Tnevitable outcome, But the question is whether we wi -/ ‘Given the obvious severit sult. Given both the_ Bye _Teratively limites he great 2k “Severity of the harm sought to be avoided, one should not demand a great cal. showing of the Tikelihpod tha rm_would result. For just-as-tr-the case cia] of the threat ofcnucleaywas) no one wants to be forced into the position of saying, "T told you $0. Tyron Seyeat ive ° fovers hey pewst Trey MeDowell Institute of Politics at Harvard's Kennedy Schoo! of Government. $8 {Gary Ls Curbing the Courts Pg 81) 9, (We coraituon separate for wor 4) Te fit obvious — 10 wold aciton wrote, The Acme LS bot all power in the same hares... ray justly be pronounced the yrs Se er Tie cua rn, pobage mae ‘aT yranny.")" The second reason, pethape more subtle | 448 ba equal import, hat the weperaon of power es > AT Ziteiney inthe administration ofthe necessary powers of gov© ' | impact SP sul 212 Soy 273 |chukware ‘00 Bellarmine |. YOU MUST REJECT EVERY VIOLATION OF THE SERPERATION OF POWERS MARTIN H. REDISH AND ELIZABETH J. CISAR , Louls and Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy, Northwestern University AND Law Clerk to Chief Judge William Bauer, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit ,91 (1991 Duke L.J. 449, PG.LN) One could, we ae at assumed to be an unacceptable soe Fesult -- as the undue accumufation of political power, yet nevertheless adopt. O either the “undus rretion” 9) Jear-and-ore: danger” modifications of Be examination reveals, St neither is acceptable. The reason to reject ph the “und C meee ee rater eee eet Experiential, common-sense analysis that led the Framers to Pht of powers structure in the first place. ferson recognized, once the power v Gee accreted it will, a5 a practical matter, be virtually fm ossiblelto: if "The time to guard against corruption and tyranny. 1s before they shall have Gotten hold on us. It_is better to f the fold, than to trust_ torgrawing-Mis-teeth and talons after he shall have entered-~.085 The far wiser methodology, then, would be to Tocus on the means to 6: the Tist piace. It's this Teagoning tha ; se ; THE SEPERATION OF POWERS IS KEY TO CHECK TYRANNY AND MAINTAIN: DEMOCRACY MARTIN H. REDISH AND ELIZAGETH J. CISAR., Louis and Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy, Northwestern University AND Law Clerk to Chief Judge William Bauer, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit ,91 (1991 Duke L.J. 449, PG.LN) : However, we believe that the separation of powers provisions of the Constitution are_treméndously important, not merely because the Framers imposed them, but reepi hy i fi today as they were af the time the Framers established them, For as the old. adane aes, “even paranoids have enemies." it should not be debatable that existed in-a constant state-of vulnerability. : his has been almost as true inthe vgars-since the Constitution's ratification as it had been prior to that time. 017 as one of the key methods of dramatically increase that vulnerability. What is called for, then, is an interpretational model that will avoid the diluting impact that recent Supreme Court doctrine has sometimes had on the beneficial protective force of separation of powers. The model we recommend 's a tvoe of “formalistic”™ ; 5 rcise an fi itlonall is delineated powers, 180) impect chukware '00 Bellarmine Separation of Powers masks judicial tyranny [kelleenen "SIC Merk, Stafelt, Cottrl bepalShelss pa9q3 ROS In tying to denigrate the Process school’s emphasis on maintaining a ‘ston separation of power, the Cito have nat onls questions fhe ‘eeparate, legitimate sphere of power. Itis, of course not predetermined hat menage one SHeuld takeaway iLone believes dmultsnoudy that ere is neiths ly legtimau tgfically or factually legitimate set of democratic frst ep st ta LS nc tert oof por allron he ‘sional public det Bindiag defection, At the same time, 1 look (0a Wis believe, in their attacks on the Process school that CLS adherents Cen Sis soe ci te ee ea Gaby Be ting for ouF beat wee te ubcion cuyomaroeatee al pel bpeocay Congressmen, as Hany degice of empowerment wholly within the tra: ‘simply, as Tfave noted, a 0 cours eon.