Where else but in Utah could you hear Republican legislative leaders complain that the governor - a fellow Republican - has too much executive power? Then, five minutes later, those same Republicans are proposing our current president should have more power than he already wields in shaping world events?

That seemed the most intriguing slice of discussion served up at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics on Wednesday, when a panel addressed the value in separation of the three branches of government, and checks and balances on their powers in Utah and beyond. In some ways, it was like the best eighth-grade civics lecture ever, with real public servants explaining why the U.S. and state constitutions require them to work in tandem while also preventing them from just skipping along in perfect unity.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. was there, representing the executive branch, Utah House Speaker Greg Curtis and Majority Leader Peter Knudson spoke for the legislative branch and State Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham represented the judiciary.

Robert Huefner, U. professor of political science, brought a dash of academic expertise, including this unsettling thought: "I'm seriously concerned we may be losing some valuable aspects of the separation of powers, especially at the federal level. . . . To the extent we don't maintain that separation we're likely to have all the problems of group-think and to stay locked into the policies we are pursuing" even with detrimental results.

Huefner was wandering onto neo-conservative turf here, challenging a prevalent view - especially among President Bush's close advisers - that the chief executive should be freed up to fill a vacuum of power created by an increasingly ineffective legislative branch. Congressional leaders would argue they are merely practicing their constitutionally mandated skepticism of the executive.

Best case in point: Wiretapping fellow Americans, in the name of post-9/11 protection, whom security experts deem a potential threat to the nation. While Bush and his advisers maintain the eavesdropping was perfectly legal, his adversaries in the Congress have argued otherwise. He (the executive), never took it up beforehand with the Senate (the legislative branch) and before it's all over, we may hear from the court (the judiciary).

Now you might think that Huntsman, a loyal Republican, would feel fine about widening the president's scope of power. But the governor is also fresh from a trip to Iraq, where he saw the ugly sectarian breakdown playing out in full color. If, in times of world crisis, there is a vacuum of power, the president would be the likely person to fill the space, Huntsman conceded.

"But that must happen with close collaboration with committees in Congress, and before rather than after the fact."

Curtis reasoned that "we don't have a traditional war here, and we are struggling with its definition." Ultimately, he said, "it will fall upon the president to make these difficult decisions."

Which was fascinating. The president, apparently, could do with more power. The Utah governor, in the eyes of the speaker, could do with less. Curtis was still smarting over the death of SB70, which would have axed a requirement that new or expanding commercial radioactive and other waste sites have approval of the governor, local officials, state regulators and legislators. Huntsman vetoed the bill; the Senate overrode it.

The House decided not to risk an override vote in the waning days of the session.

"We created the problem ourselves when we gave the governor power to veto this legislation unilaterally," Curtis said. "Then we said 'whoops, we shouldn't have done that.' "

hmullen@sltrib.com