Upon founding of the United States government, not all three branches were to share the same amount of power. In fact, “Congress was the most powerful branch of government” (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, p.43). However, over time, due to representation responsibilities and compromise, Congress has lost much of the lawmaking influence. “...the president has taken the lead in...national defense and foreign policy, and...domestic policy such as fiscal policy” (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, p.44). Under Article I of the Constitution however, Congress holds many exclusive and monumentary powers, including but not limited to: budgetary powers (taxation, control of national debt), military powers (declare war), lawmaking (passing federal legislation), representation of constituents, investigation, and serving its consittuents.
However, looking at the statistics such as Bill Clintons presidency, in the first 2 years which was a united government, Congress exercised limited oversight, and when needed to, asked softball questions, however , when Republicans took over Congress, things got much harder as they seek to hold the President to account, and after a while, impeach. Although this shows that things are more different when it is a united or divided government, Congress still has a task to do in which they must do oversight on President, so, it being united or divided government should not affect the task Congress are suppose to do, as they are an independent
This led to dominance over the cabinet and Blair being seen more as a ‘President’ than a Prime Minister. During his time, Blair didn’t include the cabinet into policy decisions as much as previous leaders. This resulted in an increase in the ‘centralisation’ of power within the executive. An example includes the declaration of war with Iraq, before this decision was made, Blair didn’t gain consent from the cabinet, which shows the power he exercised. Blair also favoured the use of special advisors over his cabinet which lessened the role of the cabinet.
This could be one reason why the American President can only stay in power for two terms. If the ministers surrounding the PM cannot take collective responsibility for their decisions then it is easy for not only the public but your opposition to place blame for a particular issue on the PM’s head. Thus creating a great deal of ill will towards that PM over time. Thatcher’s ‘sofa cabinet’ has been an idea carried on by Blair and Cameron as both tend to surround themselves with advisors of their own choosing as opposed to the cabinet ministers, acting very independently. However, it was Blair that truly started the media frenzy surrounding Prime Ministerial candidates around the general election.
As the America's leader, the president is considered our countries head figure who stands and acts for the American people as a whole. Many of these implied powers, which are assumed as granted under the Constitution although not explicitly listed, branch from a president's responsibilities that increased over the past few decades. Many presidents have used their implied or informal presidential powers to enhance their personal influences, and often the power and potential influences of later presidents. These informal powers are also derived in part from the president’s use of the image and reputation of the office
More dominant figures such as Thatcher and Blair have capitalised heavily on both strength of their personality and their parliamentary majorities. The creation of a more developed policy unit in Downing Street is effectively creating a "Prime Minister's Department". However it can be argued that the prime minister such as Tony blair, has not got a chance of effectively being a president, for example he prefered to dominate foreign and international affairs. The individuals of the UK, could argue that instead of focusing on other countries such as Pakistans, Afghanistan, he should of helped the UK more, improving and making it a better place to live in. An example of where this is present is, he distanced himself from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so cut himself off from civil servants that could have questioned his views.
The single most important point of our government structure is that we have a system of checks and balances across all three bodies. Power cannot manifest in any body without the consent of the others. I believe that this is first and foremost in protection against a tyrannical sense of government. The main reason that I feel that checks and balances are so important and crucial in today's society is because we live in a world where someone else is going to always be to blame. If something goes wrong, blame it on the president.
President Nixon started to present the idea that the federal government was too powerful, and that the states needed to have more power back and begin a form of decentralisation and a return of powers back to the states. He felt that the federal government should be small to promote self reliance and the American idea of 'rugged individualism'. As a reaction to creative federalism and the great society programme, he severely reduced aid to the states, and instead of issuing categorical grants, he would give states block grants, which would effectively strengthen the 10th amendment. This is one reason why federalism has changed since the 60s, because a new president had a different idea on how much the government should be intervening on state issues. Another reason why federalism changed since the 1960s is due to the fact that President Carter, a democrat president carried on Nixon's ideas of New Federalism.
One is to score him firmly as America’s chief executive. The other is typical view of the president only as a politician. From the Machiavellian perspective, Bush’s primary goal was to increase his power, rather than to confront America’s problems – to maintain the appearance of leadership while exhorting his position. Since taking office George W has been confronted with many new tests, including an unsure economy and global climate change. On the other hand, George W was very scrupulous as a politician.
Presidential Debate 2012 Tuesday’s debate was punchy between President Obama and Mitt Romney. The debate opened with testy exchanges on energy in which the president accused Romney of ignoring renewable power. But Romney, too, attacked Obama for allowing over rising gasoline prices and faking support for fossil fuels. What was out of the ordinary was that, in the last Presidential Debate, Romney had been the aggressor while Obama was calm and not as irritated. In my personal opinion, I think Obama showed that he can lead the U.S. even in crucial times and that he will fight for us and still manage to keep a positive attitude.