There’s a reason we have three branches of government and two houses of Congress.

The Founding Fathers were men of substance and property, and they wanted to remain that way. They knew history, and they realized that public passions are easily inflamed and manipulated.

Put a few buffers between the angry mob and the levers of power, the founders figured, and we’ve seen the wisdom of that philosophy ever since.

AIG’s Financial Products division became the focal point of the nation’s fury recently when its CEO revealed it would pay about $170 billion in bonuses to many of the same people who drove our financial system to the brink of failure.

The Obama administration went on the offensive, denouncing the bonus payments, calling them “outrageous” and promising to “pursue every single legal avenue” to recover the money.

Then the U.S. Congress jumped in, staging a day of rage to express the indignation of the American public. It called Edward Liddy – the insurance executive brought out of retirement to help clean up the AIG mess – to Washington for the sort of public thrashing usually reserved for auto executives.

Congress may be slow and unresponsive most of the time, but it can move with the fleet-footedness of a basketball point guard driving to the hoop when there is righteousness indignation to express.

Within 24 hours, the U.S. House of Representatives had passed a “claw-back” taxation measure calling for a 90 percent tax on any bonus paid to any executive of any firm receiving federal bailout money.

And, boy, did that feel good … for a few days.

By the end of the week, though, there were second thoughts.

Banks, some of which felt bailout money was forced upon them, started talking about returning it, threatening to defeat the original objective of adding liquidity to the system.

Many began wondering aloud about the wisdom of using the tax system to punish small groups of people.

Others pointed out that the Treasury Department had actually requested a bonus guarantee be added to the bailout legislation.

Still others questioned the constitutionality of the House legislation, predicting it would be tied up in the courts for years.

Finally, even healthy banks said they would be reluctant to participate in future federal programs for fear of such after-the-fact rule changes.

By last Friday, President Obama was saying it was OK to be angry, but that we needed to “channel our anger in a constructive way,” which left a lot of ordinary American scratching their heads.

And, by Sunday, he had regained his balance. In an interview with “60 Minutes,” Obama wisely said, “We can’t govern out of anger.”

Indeed, we cannot. Too often, the first impulse is the wrong one and, by allowing it to guide our thinking, we wind up punishing ourselves.

The Founders knew that policy is better made by people with cool heads rather than hot tempers.