This article draws on the resources of a little-known political theorist, Philip Hunton, to explain the function of “murky” jurisprudence in the maintenance of separation of powers over time. In the era immediately before the drafting of the United States Constitution, separation of powers was a touted remedy to tyranny. But if government is thus moderated, a critical question arises: who will judge the precise contours of each institution's powers? This article addresses this longstanding question by comparing the solutions offered by Philip Hunton, John Locke, and the United States judiciary. I conclude that the judiciary's decried inability to clarify the limits of its own power is justified by Hunton's obscure explanation that separation of powers can only function so long as murkiness shrouds questions of ultimate institutional authority.

中文翻译：

---

与 Philip Hunton、John Locke 和美国联邦司法机构一起保持复杂性：论三权分立法理学中模糊性的优点

本文利用鲜为人知的政治理论家菲利普·亨顿 (Philip Hunton) 的资源，解释“模糊”的法理学在长期维持三权分立方面的作用。在美国宪法起草之前的那个时代，分权是被吹捧为对付暴政的一种补救措施。但是，如果政府因此得到缓和，就会出现一个关键问题：谁来判断每个机构权力的精确轮廓？本文通过比较菲利普亨顿、约翰洛克和美国司法机构提供的解决方案来解决这个长期存在的问题。我的结论是，司法机构因无法阐明其自身权力的局限性而受到谴责，亨顿认为这是合理的。