It is happening because the powers of the prime minister are not well defined and mostly contained in unwritten conventions which are a mystery to most people. This means an individual prime minister like Thatcher or Blair can act in a presidential way without any constitutional controls. In the USA the written constitution states clearly what powers the president has and if he oversteps the mark the Supreme Court can step in. The British Supreme Court cannot do this because we do not have a codified constitution. This
This showed the UK constitution to be very beneficial, and furthermore the Queen and the Royal Prerogative did not have to be consulted, which would have been different in a codified system and made the process much slower than in an uncodified constitution. Some may disagree with what seems to be one of the reasons why the uncodified constitution is advantageous and turn it on its head and say that the easiness of changing the constitution creates instability and unlawful action. An example of this was the use of rubber bullets and water cannons on the rioters in London. If the London riots occurred under an entrenched constitution there would have been no chance of the police being allowed to act in such a way legally, but under an
Also, no power to regulate commerce, and lastly no executive branch to enforce laws; but limited by checks and balances. Lastly, the Bill of Rights had a lot of amendments and all were important. A couple of them were Freedom of Speech, Religion, and press; Right to bear arms; and Rights in Criminal Cases. In conclusion, this is my essay on a couple of reasons on how the colonists’ experiences prior to and during the Revolutionary War influence features of state Constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, and the ConstitutionTo begin with, one of the experiences was that the Declatory ACTS was parliament’s ability to tax without representation, and the influence to that was that the Articles of Confederation restricted congress from taxing. Also, another experience was the Tamp Act, and the influences were taxation without representation.
For instance, the President is not able to directly pass legislation, although he or she may recommend laws to be created; however, the congress has no obligation to follow through with the Presidential recommendation (Singh 130). Thus, the President may officially be the head of the executive branch; however, power is limited by other branches of government. This is in contrast to the Canadian Parliamentary style of government there is little to no separation of powers between the different levels of government; therefore, the executive and legislative branches are decidedly connected to each other. Therefore, the Parlamentary system in which the ministers of the executive branch are drawn directly from the legislature. Therefore, the role of Prime Minister and cabinet is one which is much more encompassing than is the role of President.
His views on life tenure and judicial reviews were split upon the framers and intimidated anti federalist, but it is the most methodological way to deal with the separation of powers and prevent different branches from overpowering one another. Although I agree with his claims that the Judicial branch is the least dangerous, because the lack of direct involvement and inability to initiate a change, I believe that without the Judicial branch, the separation of powers would be missing a key feature to prevent a tyranny. Without the Judiciary, it would be easy for the government to take advantage of their powers and overrule the
They had no power to tax. Lacked power to regulate commerce. All the power rested in the states, and the national government could not do anything independently. * Describe how the Constitution deals with the writ of habeas corpus, ex post facto laws, and bills of attainder. * Writ of habeas corpus- A court order that requires jailers to give reasoning as to why the prisoner is in custody.
But in reality, especially in the “domain of foreign affairs”…the central legal issues rarely come before the Court at all. The law is effectively settled within the executive branch or by the informal agreements between the president and Congress” (Caplan 21). The other branches of government are aware of the overuse of presidential power but do not know how to address the issue to somehow resolve or better the situation. Too much executive power could lead to the abolishment or stacking of Congress, the judiciary system, the House and the Senate. By doing this it would lead the democracy to a dictatorship.
In agreement, I believe all shall follow for strictly guidelines and restrictions, not to be precise within each Amendment, not one should uphold detail. The unwritten Constitution refers to traditions that have become part of our political system. Although George Washington warned us against Political Parties, they nominate candidates for office. Political Parties are not written into The Constitution, yet the people of the United States are left to vote and decide who the winner of the elections will be, and who will take the position as the next President of the United States. Yet, another reason why we, as a nation, alter the Constitution in our own ways, still allowing each part as an indication of mandate.
Some say a dictatorship is better because the people don’t know what is and isn’t good for them. Others might claim that a democracy isn’t necessarily the better option because there could be a lot hidden between the lines that people vote for without a second through. Both can be abused, and both can be
The people didn’t have a choice whether or not to elect a new leader. In the movie, the High Chancellor rules the United Kingdom as a totalitarian state, meaning there are no limits to his authority and he tried to control every aspect of the people’s life that he possibly can. Democracy is the only real form of government that gives the people liberty and equality. Democracy gives people rights, like the right to vote. With the Chancellor’s totalitarian rule, the people had no rights and no way to vote him or any other officials out of office.