For several years, construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring oil from Canada to Texas, has been stuck in political debates. The Obama administration has been dragging its feet on the decision to move forward for years, so many in the government are acting on their own. A bill passed last year, called HR3 – Northern Route Approval Act, was intended to approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline by forcing President Obama's hand. John Locke I believe would side with members of Congress in forcing the President to approve the pipeline. Locke's ideas helped create our form of government by calling for the separation of legislative and executive powers. Based on Obama's actions, Locke would agree that this bill is necessary because he is ignoring his duty. However, Locke's idea of ​​separation of powers is different from ours, given what he wrote, there is evidence that he would be willing to side with those who want to force the President's hand on this issue. John Locke's idea of ​​separation of powers is very different from our idea. Locke believed in a limited monarch, and we clearly don't. The American government is also created about 100 years after Locke. In Locke there is no balance of power, but more sharing. What Locke is talking about is what is needed in the state of nature and how to place it in a society. However, from what he writes in his book, Second Treatise on Government, one can understand that he would be in favor of forcing President Obama's hand. One reason is his support for majority rule. President Obama hasn't actually taken a position on the controversial Keystone pipeline, because if he approved it it would shock his base, but it would hurt the red state Democrats who support it. Congressional support is. A... middle of the paper... thinks the executive branch should be. The bill goes on to state that “whether by executive order or provision of law, no presidential permit will be required for the pipeline” to ensure that the Obama administration does not flout the law. Looking at this evidence it is clear that Locke would approve of what Congress is trying to do. If Locke lived now, he would agree that the president should be powerful, he lived under a monarchy, but delaying something for political reasons is wrong. With his belief in majority rule, that would be enough. There should be some divisions between the two. Locke and our idea of ​​separation of powers are different, but he would agree that certain powers should be left to those necessary to perform such actions. If one fails to do so, such as the President, the people, in this case Congress has the right to act on their own.