Comparing Executive Legislative Structures

The Executive Branch of the United and States and the Missouri Executive Branch are much similar to one another, since they were created for the same basic objectives, to implement and enforce laws; however, they do have some differences. As the US president, the Governor of Missouri serves a four-year term and may only serve two terms, nevertheless, while the president must be at least 35 years old and a US resident for 14 years, the governor must be 30 years old and a Missouri resident for ten years. Both, the president and the governor have the power to formulate a government budget; to pardon, reprieve, parole and commute sentences; and both act as the Commander-in-chief of military force. The two of them have the power to veto laws, however,

Under the British constitution, parliament is sovereign. This means, amongst other things, that Parliament has a monopoly on making and amending laws. The British constitution, and the three functions of government which operate it often falls short of creating a definitive separation. Separation of powers refers to the idea that the major institutions of government should function independent of each other, in a utopian world there should aim to be a balance between the Crown and Parliament. In practice however, separation between the executive and legislature is near enough non-existent, an example being that government is made up almost entirely of MPs. Contrast this with the USA where no member of Obama’s government is equally a member of congress. However, the USA does have a codified constitution, a constitution written to delegate a clear separation of power. As we are well aware the UK doesn’t have such a constitution, the rules that

The United States judicial branch to the general American public can seem insulated from politics, because of their adversarial system, that does not allow judges to choose their cases. The judicial branch unlike, their two counterparts, the legislative and executive at large rely on the respect of the American people and the heads of the two other branches. In appointing members of the federal judiciary, Presidents appoint members who resemble their political ideologies and their likelihood of confirmation in the Senate, the Senate confirms these members based on their performance on the litmus test and Senatorial courtesy. Courts, specifically the Supreme Court, make decisions based on the Constitution, but the legislative branch has the

The power that the legislative branch holds over the judicial branch is that even though the president gets to pick the judge, the legislative branch gets to approve the judge. And like with the president the legislative branch/ congress also has the power to impeach the judges.

This allows the executive branch to determine the makeup of the judiciary branch, and through it exercise power over the legislative branch. Because the men and women appointed to the Supreme Court remain there for life, with no public elections to possibly remove them, a president can affect politics through his choice of appointees for decades after his time in office has ended (Romance, July 29). But this, too, is limited by the Congress as the president’s judicial appointments are subject to the consent of the Senate (Landy and Milkis, 289).

THESIS: The Legislative Branch consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate which forms the United States Congress; the Constitution grants Congress the single authority to pass legislation and declare war, the right to approve or reject Presidential appointments, and significant investigative powers.

Judicial deliberations are different from that of the legislature because judiciaries at the federal level do not represent constituents or seek to be reelected. Judicial independence at the federal level provides a guarantee that judges are free to rule in an honest and nonpartisan manner that is in line with the law and evidence, without concern or fear of interference, control, or improper influence from anyone. This guarantee is provided because judges at the federal level are appointed for life, and need not to worry about partisanship. Contrary to the legislature, the government does not pose a consequential threat to the power of judicial independence because it is at war with itself. However, it is commonly seen that judges at the federal level rely too heavily on

I believe that the author started the book by explaining that most people were not ready to call themselves Americans in order to show the audience how people living in former British colonies considered their home colonies as its own country or nation and did not want to be connected to the others in any way. I could use this point as a way to activate background knowledge when first reading this book with my students to understand their meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

Reviewing the Various Branches of the United States Government in Understanding the Checks and Balances System

Federal judges can only be removed by being impeached by the House of Representatives and conviction through the Senate. Otherwise, judges and justices serve limitless terms. They serve until retirement, death or conviction by the Senate. By design, this insulates them from the temporary passions of the public, and allows them to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns (The White House). The other branches, on the other hand, are forced to worry about elections and popular opinion, which may lead to unjust policies and a blurred view on the American

The Constitution of the United States of America says that all federal judges should be appointed to the bench and have lifetime tenure. This is so federal judges may maintain judicial independence and not judge a case for political reasons, but rather how the law applies to the case before them. However, many states still choose to elect their judges by popular vote and justify this because judges make decisions that affect constituents directly. These states maintain that constituents should have the right to choose who is best for them. An election by the people sounds like a fair and trustworthy method, but ultimately, large corporations pump millions into Super PACs to ensure their choice candidate is elected. Judicial elections are often exposed to attacks from special interest groups and Super PACs, thus sometimes making an uneven and corrupt playing field. The fates of fair and impartial courts are at stake, and they should not be for sale.

Another set back by the Articles of Confederation was the lack of separate branches of government. The document only allowed one legislative body. In our United States Constitution that enviably made the Articles of Confederation was the three branches of government the executive, judicial, and legislative branch. One of the most important features about the three branches is the separation of power. The three branches work independently from each other and cannot be more powerful than the other. The executive branch job is to carry out and enforce the laws made by the legislative branch. The Judicial Branch, however, interprets the meaning of the law and decides whether or not it is constitutional. That means if the law in question can be

Some states supported the constitution but only did it if they made a Bill Of Rights

There is a dire need to come with a system that is better than both of these systems as it affects apposite working and faith in judiciary. Executive and Judiciary are both are different poles in mode of appointment of judges in higher judiciary, there is a great divide in this matter.

Executive is separated into useful groupings, and every department has a leader directly accountable to the Parliament, as a result department head are more responsible.