Presidents Vs Prime Ministers Essay

Firstly, the House of Commons has the ultimate check on government power via a vote of no confidence, this last happened in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher was able to be elected due to the Labour government's failure.

Based on the way that the President’s office was created, the makeup of the Congress can present a challenge or an

The U.S. President has a veto right over any bill approved by Congress. This practically means that "if the president doesn't like a bill, he or she vetoes it" (Kowalski 2012: 22). Even with this, his authority can be challenged if two-thirds of the senators and House of Representatives vote accordingly. The Congress also has the ability to limit the president's actions as a result of the fact that it has power over the finances. Similarly, each body in Congress can check the other, considering that all proposals have to be issued

In recent times many commentators have pointed out that the UK’s Prime Ministers are increasingly acting like Presidents- of course the UK Prime Minister cannot actually become a President as the system would not allow it. Below I shall be analysing and explaining the factors that highlight the growth of presidentialism in the UK, as well as the points which suggest that the UK’s Prime Minister is still a Prime Minister.

When a president is sworn into office, he or she takes on a multitude of titles. One of the many titles the president is issued is the role of Chief in Legislator. This means that the president plays a crucial part in the legislative process or lawmaking. This title holds much authority in the eyes of Americans (Hoffman & Howard, 1317). Though this title does not give the president absolute authority, it does grant him or her strong jurisdiction in the legislature. The framers of the Constitution did not want America to be a monarchy the way they were when under the rule of England. As a result, the framers purposefully outlined the president’s limited power in the constitution, creating a democratic

The relationship between the president and Congress has changed drastically in the past two hundred years. The framers of the constitution did not want an executive power in charge of the whole country in fear of it turning into a monarchy. They knew they needed a leader for America though. The framers did not want political parties. “Political parties established after Washington left the presidency” (Mandate). The relationship between Congress and the president changed in a very visible way. In the past, the president would meet to discuss issues with Congress, but that is not how it is today. Also the president would have to go through congress to pass a bill or an amendment, but presidents found a way around going through congress. The president can sign a bill without congress’s approval. For example, president Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln wanted to pass an amendment that would end slavery but Congress said no. Lincoln then did what the people wanted and signed the emancipation proclamation anyways to end slavery. Also known as the thirteenth amendment. Some presidents even put the people in power.

If the President is suspected of unlawful acts, he can be impeached, or tried by the Senate for misusing his power. The Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. If he is found guilty, he can be punished but his sentence can be no more than being thrown out of office and being forbidden to hold any government office. Furthermore, if the President wants to spend money, his request must pass through Congress, since it has control over spending. Lastly, Congress can re-pass a bill that was vetoed by the President. Congress also has checks and balances against itself. The President can veto a bill from Congress, and although Congress can override a veto, obtaining a two-thirds vote to do so is very difficult. Public speeches by the President may also concern the public with an issue, putting pressure on Congress to act upon it. The Judicial branch exerts control over the other two by deciding whether or not actions made by the President or Congress, i.e., laws are constitutional.

The framers experienced the abuse of the English monarchs and their colonial governors. As a result, the framers were skeptical of the excessive executive authority. Furthermore, they also feared excessive legislative powers. This was something that the Articles of Confederation had given their own state legislatures. The framers of the constitution deliberately fragmented power between the national government, the states, and among the executive legislative and judicial branches. The framers of the United States Constitution incorporated a system of separation of powers. They divided the legislative powers between the President and the Congress. The separation of powers authorized the President with the veto power. The veto power is found in the Constitution in Article one, section seven. Only two-thirds of the majority of both chambers to override the president’s veto. Secondly, the president is expected to set the national agenda. This happens before the decline in popularity. The President is focused on legacy rather than on re-election. They want a policy that is good and lasting. Unfortunately, the framers did not intend for the President to set Congressional policy agenda. Only in the times of crisis is the President to act, or call Congress into session. This power is stated in Article two section three of the Constitution. In

The president is constantly looking toward the state of nation’s defense. All major decisions and strategies are his to make alone. Likewise, the president is the nation's number 1 political boss. People look to the president as the leader for public opinion. Even though the president seems like he couldn’t take on many other roles, he is also the Chief of State, he is the leader of the rituals of the American Democracy.

The president also has the power Veto laws passed by congress. The president has the power to make political appointment and negotiate treaties with foreign countries, however this power also requires the approval of the senate. The President is responsible for making a for appointing his cabinet and federal judges. The president is capable of calling congress in session and the power to adjourn congress.

Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to preclude the formation of absolute power. Critics and followers of Canadian politics argue that the Prime Minister of Canada stands alone from the rest of the government. The powers vested in the prime minister, along with the persistent media attention given to the position, reinforce the Prime Minister of Canada’s superior role both in the House of Commons and in the public. The result has led to concerns regarding the power of the prime minister. Hugh Mellon argues that the prime minister of Canada is indeed too powerful. Mellon refers to the prime minister’s control over Canada a prime-ministerial government, where the prime minister encounters few constraints on the usage of his powers.

In recent years, congress has been incredibly adversarial to the president, providing that it is not controlled by members of his (the president) political party affiliation. The main source of this weakness is that congress and its members are defined by partisanship, they value tribalism, and are rewarded based on their loyalty to their party and antagonism to their opposition. This makes congress a breeding ground for viscous opposition where any room for compromise between parties is villainized, because of this the president can only govern efficiently when his party controls a significant percentage of both or either house. The major cause of this new political culture is highly contested, some say it is because political parties have come to gain too much power by way of their influence and ability to build campaign war chests. Others believe that political parties are too weak, citing that special interests and third party intervention has made members of either party less responsive to their leaders causing them to govern based on their fiscal supporters, which, would not allow compromise between two single groups. Regardless, it is very appropriate to cast the blame of a dysfunctional congress upon party politics. To illustrate this relationship between the executive and partisan congress we will look at the presidency of Barack Obama,

One major issue that allows the Prime Minister execute such a high degree of ministerial power is the Cabinets ability to use party discipline to ensure it has its party’s support. MPs of the party must always “toe the party line” to guarantee the will of the PM is carried out. If any elected member of the Prime Ministers’ party were to vote against the PM, the PM has the executive

Presidents of the United States of America have been around since the country became it’s own. Each president is given certain responsibilities and rights. Presidential power is listed in the Constitution but since then, there’s been room for more responsibilities to come into play. The powers exercised in the modern world surpass those included in the Constitution. Today, the president has a number of offices and departments serving under him. These institutions help keep the government together and everything running smoothly. The presidents rely on a number of other things. Some include elections, political parties, interest groups, the media, and public opinion. There are different kinds of powers granted to the president. While some

Presidential power has increased immensely over recent years and little is being done in an attempt to restore the original intent of the Constitution. There are multiple factors that affect this, including the executive orders of presidents, the Constitution giving an unequal distribution of power between the executive and legislative branch, the failure to use checks and balances, and the ineffectiveness of Congress. With the lack of congressional involvement in legislative decisions, the president has the ability to take matters in their own hands.