Demarcation of Law Separation Theory

Mr. Madison will cease turning over in his grave and may finally rest in peace. 

The category mistake in the conventional description of the Three-part Separation Theory was practically adjusted by recognizing that the judicial branch is inevitably responsible for the review of the law - adjudication. Therefore, the three branches that we interpret are the processing stages for the administration of the law: legislate, execute, and adjudicate. 

Law is what converts the will of the people into government powers. 

The Demarcation of Law Separation Theory suggests that we use the sections (separated qualities) of law to define all aspects of the government, checks and balances, constituency, and civil law itself; and that there is an order that can be deployed to align these aspects. 

The powers of government are primarily separated into three sections of law: sovereignty, administrative, and civil law. Sovereignty Law defines the constituency and includes boundaries, insignia, and social constructs. Administrative law is the section of law concerned with the operations of the government entities, and is assigned to the judiciary to enforce on behalf of the people. The civil law can then be subdivided into four administrative jurisdictions: diplomacy, commercial, trust, and property law. Providing a six-part separation system for balancing a more accurate distribution and control of the powers that should meet our modern expectations for checks and balances. 

The commissioning of administrative jurisdictions of civil law, each with its own executive security department, and graduated legislatures and adjudication systems will fulfill what was prescribed by Mr. Madison in the political science scholars' favorite essay, Federalist Papers Number 51: “each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others, . . . divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action.”

The unchallenged dilemma we endure is that the bicameral legislative assemblies are not commissioned exclusive jurisdictions of law to guard (principles of action), and that incalculable aspect surrendered the entire system to flawed partisanship. The addition of the Seventeenth Amendment, making the Senate elections public (modes of election) like the House of Representatives, captured the All-American duopoly of forever-wavering political parties. The primary doctrine of the duopoly evolved into doing whatever it takes to win public elections in the persistent effort to populate the three branches in partisan alignment to overrule the competing faction, rather than guarding the commission of the branch to check the abuses in the other branches.

Legislative assemblies commissioned for specific jurisdictions of law with graduated appointment rules are inclined to faction based on the arguable aspects associated with the isolated system of law, rather than the general political parties' promises to relieve artificial grievances. The Demarcation of Law Separation model with exclusive legislative assemblies and corresponding security departments will further fulfill the ambition to provide each partition with “a will of its own,” because each partition will have robust career paths for its members compared to the whimsical career paths for the present elected offices, isolated paths in the bureaucracy, and a stagnant judiciary.

I propose that executive and legislative powers can be measured and distributed

Administrative powers are exclusive and limited