his meaning as his own words impar, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the whole power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the whold power of another department , the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted
Can anyone please explain to me what this means in laymens terms?
What a terrible sentence!!!!!
Let's see if we can break it down to make some sense.
his meaning as his own words impar, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this,
that where the whole power of one department is exercised
by the same hands which possess the whole power of another department,
the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted
Essentially it says that the Constitution guarantees a separation of powers.
i confused on this too.. the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. none of them ought to possess directly or indirextly, an overruling influence over the others, in te administration of their respective powers.
i think it means this but im not sure...The powers that each branch possess should be kept to that branch and that branch only and not shared with the other branches. none of them ought to possess a lot of power over another branch, the must stick to their branches powers respectively.