![separation studio log in separation studio log in](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/33/1f/7b/331f7bf19645b22494f007bcf5bad0e3.jpg)
![separation studio log in separation studio log in](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2c/8e/a8/2c8ea8a71bc8445d3d47c3aec7057e60.jpg)
![separation studio log in separation studio log in](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/37/9f/ab/379fabf34a65cb08f2760263a256b12a.jpg)
John and Ken move on to discuss with the studio audience whether the system in this country has unintentionally promoted an imbalance of power, and whether this is a good, bad, or indifferent thing in terms of our lives. Ken tries to draw a distinction between the formal idea of separation of powers and the pragmatic realities of the system.
![separation studio log in separation studio log in](https://www.koningenart.com/wp-content/uploads/magictoolbox_cache/cf3e6ec01aac7cb79461bcfe9d0d075e/3/0/30559/900x900/3100093879/space-separate-orbits-insitu.-1.jpg)
Ken returns to the discussion of political parties, and Kathleen Sullivan and Congresswoman Eshoo discuss the interaction between party loyalty and separation of powers with examples from recent political events. Congresswoman Eshoo believes that something like that is happening, although maybe not in so many words. John asks whether Anna thinks that given the dominant Republican power in government, party loyalty will break down in an attempt to balance power and create a more just system. to have this conversation, responds to Ken's questions. Ken wonders whether party loyalty trumps branch of government loyalty-that is, are people in the judiciary or the legislative branch more jealous of party power or institutional power? Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, who kindly invited Philosophy Talk to Washington D.C. John brings up the point that original ideas of separation of powers didn't consider political parties to be a big issue, and Kathleen talks about the historical changes which have brought us to associating separation of powers with limiting the power of one party. Ken continues to question why elections can't be sufficient enough to check government power, and Kathleen responds with a thoughtful argument which uses a diet as an analogy for what separation of powers is meant to do. Kathleen says separation of powers is absolutely necessary, even though it makes government a bit inefficient, the founding fathers were rebelling against monarchy and wanted to ensure that radical changes could not be made easily in their system. John asks Kathleen whether separation of powers is really necessary given the fact that we can vote a president in or out every four years. The founding fathers supported the separation of powers so wholeheartedly that they didn't think a bill of rights was necessary-John and Ken discuss how much the view of government has changed since those days, and introduce Kathleen Sullivan, the Stanley Morrison Professor of Law at Stanford University and the author of most widely used textbook on Constitutional Law. Ken discusses how even Plato believed that the birth of a tyrant begins by small increases in one man's power, often with the approval of the people. Ken thinks there's no question: the executive is running wild, the legislative never gets anything done, and the judiciary is out there making all the laws with court decisions! So given that power is out of balance, is it necessarily a bad thing? John claims it is, using traditional arguments against tyranny and the consolidation of power for the support of separation of branches of government. John begins by questioning whether power is out of balance in government today.