He appointed Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State, General Henry Knox as Secretary of War and General Edmund Randolph as Attorney General. By doing this he hoped to keep a stable government. He did have a rule though, the right to empower executive officers and the right to remove them if necessary. ( www.whitehouse.gov/history) From early in life, he played an active role in developing our country. He fought in the French and Indian War and also for the independence of the American Colonies in the Revolutionary War.
The institutionalized Executive branch now includes the White House Office (WHO) the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Executive Office of the President (EOP). These offices provide modern presidents with layers of bureaucracy that they can use to enhance their power and influence to achieve their policy goals successfully. However, some presidents have found that the White House bureaucracy can actually make them feel out-of-touch with his position and powers. As many political programmes within the Executive branch mainly the White House Office developed, so did the agencies that ran them. These agencies have strong connections with Congress as it is Congress that authorizes their existence and finds the funds to finance them.
How far do you agree that the role and influence of Parliament increased steadily throughout the years 1485-1603? Tudor Parliaments were an essential aspect of English government and administration in the Tudor period. Parliament was needed by the monarch in order to pass legislation, to secure the power of the monarch, to be a point of contact between the Crown and nation and most importantly for finance by raising money through taxation in exceptional circumstances for example in times of war. However it can be argued that the role and influence of Parliament was limited at this time due to a number of factors; The most important being the monarch had the royal prerogative and power over Parliament as they chose when Parliament was called, prorogued and was dissolved. The monarch also decided what Parliament discussed.
This certainly gives the impression of more individual dominance rather than collective decision-making – as has been the case for other recent PMs But when we consider such developments in terms of actual increases in power for the PM, it may be a matter of style rather than substance. David Cameron has a new problem of trying to fabricate presidentialism within the current government, but knows that it’s going to be
How far do you think Russia had moved in the direction of a parliamentary system of government by 1914? A parliamentary system of government is where there is a government in which members of the cabinet are appointed from elected members of an assembly, and in order to remain in power, must hold the vote of the majority. Right from 1613, Russia had been an autocracy ruled by Tsars. The tsar had no limits on his power and one of the Tsars strongest supporters was the official State Church, the Russian Orthodox Church. The Tsar had advisers, but he was not bound to listen to their advice, and laws were made by imperial decree.
To what extent is it reasonable to describe modern British prime ministers as presidents in all but name? Few, if any, now doubt that the office of prime minister dominates the British political system. As long as the holder of that office is not faced by too many limiting factors, such as a small parliamentary majority or a divided party, the British system has moved away from the traditional ‘cabinet government’ model to a ‘prime ministerial’ model. We argue that the system has now become ‘presidential’. * PMs perform most of the functions of a head of state: The prime minister has come to be, effectively though not legally, the head of State, the leader of the nation, irrespective of party allegiance.
Due to the increasing presidential style of recent prime ministers and the party loyalty of the executive one can consider Parliament’s control of executive power minimal. However, due to the development of independent bodies surrounding Select Committees and the delaying of legislation by the House of Lords it can still be argued to be effective. The government usually has an overall majority. This is due to our voting system of FPTP which gives preference to the two main parties, normally giving them majorities (and increasingly large ones) as opposed to coalitions and minority governments which are produced through other voting systems such as AV in Scotland and Wales. Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
2. The United Kingdom has a legislative and executive branch but both are automatically headed by the same political party, since the prime minister is chosen by members of the majority party in Parliament. 3. President can make executive agreements (a formal agreement between the U.S. president and the leaders of other nations that does not
Overtime, the role of the cabinet may have increasingly been seen to be less and this may have changed peoples’ perception on the system of government used in the UK. The fact that a Prime Minister can dominate parliamentary proceedings gives him/her great power, and this has been linked to the concept of an ‘elective dictatorship’. Prime Minister dominance has occurred in recent years, with the leadership styles of Thatcher and Blair being of particular significance. Blair as prime minister used bilateral meetings with ministers, to discuss important policy decisions. This led to dominance over the cabinet and Blair being seen more as a ‘President’ than a Prime Minister.
Arguably the elected MPs are the reason that a representative democracy flourishes with the elected MPs superseding the knowledge of the public. However, it could be argued that MPs have the interest of toeing the party line, or even acting in their own interests rather than the constituent’s interests. Nevertheless, MPs are learned individuals who would make the correct decisions with the interests of their party, their constituency and themselves, effectively fulfilling the role of an MP. The government within a representative democracy is advantageous as it is held to account for its