Comparison of British Parliament and American Congress

'The House of Lords is now more effective than the House of Commons in checking government power'. Discuss

The US federal legislature is bicameral, therefore it consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and in theory they should both be of equal power. However, in reality it is the Senate which is considered to hold the most power, although there are arguments to in favour of them having equal rights. In order to reach a balanced judgement I will consider both sides of the argument, beginning with the claim that the Senate is more powerful than the House of Representatives.

This written report is appertaining to the book How Congress Works and Why You Should Care, written by Lee H. Hamilton. This book is published by Indiana University Press in Bloomington, IL, it was copyrighted in 2004 by the publisher.

Throughout the lifespan of the American government, there have been changes to the different branches. One cannot simply claim that they are exactly as the Founding Fathers had designed them and pictured them; they have become so much more. Among these changes are the adoption of the 17th Amendment, the general surrender of control of power to the executive branch, and the centralization of power to a couple of congressional leaders in recent years. These are some of the most important changes that have altered the Congress and the American government in general.

One of the most interesting events that occurred in the early days of Congress occurred when George Washington brought the Senate the very first treaty to be ratified. Upon his delivery of this treaty Washington expected, being the President, an immediate ratification. However, before this instance a treaty had never been ratified by the Senate, so they informed Washington that they would have to discuss it. Thereafter, Washington paced the halls of the Capital Building, until the Senate, establishing their newfound power, informed him it would take a day or two to be finished (Burns, 1988). This interaction between the President and the Senate, is a crucial example of how early adaptations of power in America allowed for the

The United States Congress is more than likely the most significant representative institution in the United States government. Each member of Congress has a primary obligation to the district, to his or her constituency. Though Congress is divided into two parts, called the House of Representatives and the Senate, they both play different roles in the legislature process. Senate is more deliberative and the House is the more centralized and organized. Congress is supposed to represent the American people but they will not always make the “right” decisions, according to some individuals. Obviously it is impossible to please everybody, but surely the laws that are being passed are because Congress views some sort of usefulness from it. There are two different types of representation that was spoken about in the chapter including sociological and agency representation. Sociological is based off of the idea that if two individuals have similar background, character, interests, and perspectives, then they can correctly represent others’ views. Agency is when a representative is held accountable to a constituency for when that constituency is represented poorly. The constituents have the power to hire and fire their representatives.

In “Congressional Government”, Woodrow Wilson tries to explain the system of Congress and in it he thoroughly discusses the predominance of Congressional Committees in the legislative body. He argues that our legislature is more analogous to a conglomerate, not a homogenous body and that “we are ruled by a score and a half of ‘little legislatures’”(Wilson p. 323). There is little unity in the House and party organization is not strong according to Wilson. The many distinct, disconnected committees has leads Congress to have weak leadership and therefore decreases decision making. Also Wilson shows how multiple committee jurisdictions creates a system where there is no clear voice on the issue and since committees differ in political ideology broad questions of policy suffer. Lawrence C. Dodd also discusses the committee system in “Congress and the Quest for Power”. In it, he argues that the solution to congressmen’s need for power is a decentralized congress with a committee system that allows members to gain considerable power in their small committees. “Each member wants to exercise power, to make the key policy decisions. … Given this widespread power motive, an obvious way to resolve the conflict is to disperse power”(Dodd p. 335). Dodd argues that the solution to member Congress constantly seeking power is the current

Parliament has a central function in carrying out a scrutiny role. It carries close inspection and where it is necessary, amendments maybe proposed this is carried out in both houses. It holds the government collectively and the PM and other ministers accountable for their actions. It does this in debates, question times and through the work of Departmental Select Committees (DSC). However it maybe be argued that is not enough since scrutiny does not often involve blocking legislation. It is not expected that parliament will make substantial changes, but it does

The Australian Parliamentary system reflects a variety of qualities of democratic purposes. This is noted since the Australian system is an accountable and responsible government, which means that the government debates the passage of a bill in parliament and through the committee system. It must also submit itself to election within three years of taking control of the House of Representatives and the senate goes to election every six years. This

It was John Adams who noted that "men in general, in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also little too acquainted with public affairs for a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own."1 This shared attitude guided the Founding Fathers in their establishment of what has become America's modern day political system. When today's modern day student is asked just what sort of system that was, it seems the answer is always "democracy." In reality, the House of Representatives is the nearest idea in accordance with a system of democracy that this country would ever reach.2 Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were the wealth and success of their time, and coincidentally, it was these same

Arguably, the scrutiny of Public Bills has depended more on the House of Lords than it has on the House of Commons in recent years. The term “scrutiny” means the critical observation or examination regarding the Public Bills. The “effectiveness” of the scrutiny could be measured in a variety of ways, such as the period of time the bill stays in parliament for, and whether parliament can take on board evidence from committees and implement the bills into legislation. In order to determine if the House of Lords has been more effective than the House of Commons in scrutinising public bills, it is crucial to compare and contrast the effectiveness of the procedures used in both houses.

An important point made in Weissert and Weissert concerning Congress and its committee structure is that the majority of the work in Congress is done through committees. They perform the majority of research on issues and possible solutions, get legislation written, re-written and amended, and support it as it moves through Congress and finally gets passed. They are the “workhorses of the legislature” (Weissert and Weissert, 29).

Advocates of the parliamentary form of government suggested a few competitive strengths of this system of government. Since it has gained a stable parliamentary majority, the government is able to smoothly process its legislative project. In addition, the government is adequately furnished that it could still choose to adopt measures designed to support the national interests while many strong sectional groups oppose such measures (Dyck, 2012). The prime minister is the leader of this type of government, who is obliged to be responsive to all its people’s demands. Also, the people have the right to vote and replace the prime minister due to any incompetency of governance that does not address and fulfill their desires. This is known as the non-confidence vote; the government may be removed when it has lost confidence in the parliament, and cause the head of state to resign a new government (Dyck, 2012). An example of such measure occurred in Britain on March 28th, 1979. When James Callaghan’s labour government was defeated in the House of Commons just by one vote, it was forced into an early election that was won by the opposition leader Margaret Thatcher (Dyck, 2012). In this case, it can avoid or at least reduce the period of legislative gridlock, because of its flexibility in elections and the power is centered in the country’s prime

The rulebooks of the Senate and the House of Representatives were nearly identical in 1789. In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr claimed the Senate’s rulebook was messy and suggested the elimination of the “previous question” motion. Later in 1806 when the Senate convened, they dropped the motion from the rulebook. In contrast, the previous question motion was kept by the House of Representatives which permits a simple majority vote to limit debate time. The Senate’s lack of this rule permitted filibuster use though it was not formally utilized until 1837 (Binder,

As you can see from these examples though this problem is not just unique to Congress. It can also be seen in the "state legislatures of the colonial era, and in the British House of Commons of the sixteenth and twentieth centuries"