In order for many bills to get passed there is often a need for compromise between members of Congress as such favours are often exchanged in order to gain crucial votes on legislation. This complicates and lengthens the legislative process because it could result in other Congressmen rejecting the bill. An example of such is in 2005, where a $223 million earmark was included in a bill to provide funding for reconstruction efforts
Along with the rising number of back-bench rebellions and MPs defeating government’s proposals such as the Syria war in 2011, it can be seen that Parliament is performing well in making laws. However, although it has enormous power, Parliament is oftenly not expected to demonstrate that since by convention, government with the majority dominates and Parliament should support it. The whips system-a weekly outline sent to MPs with items underlined by 1,2 or 3 lines depending on how important the MPs attendance is- maintains party discipline and makes sure that rebellions are exceptional. Usually, MPs obey this system, therefore, Parliament in reality has not fulfilled this function. Parliament is believed to
This operation could cause for senators to accept passages against their desire. It could also get more than intended for proponents of this resolution. This procedure is very lengthy and is also why the resolution will be brought to a quick vote when all senators silence. Since it is a possibility that the minority Democrats would not like this idea they could possibly threaten with a filibuster or actually invoke one. This can involve many blocking tactics.
A function that demonstrates that the House of Commons is effective is because ministers are regularly questioned and held accountable. An advantage of this is that it increases constituency representation and scrutinises legislation. For example during Prime Minister question time MPs can bring different examples forward from their own constituencies which can allow them to demonstrates problems with a Bill, thereby representing people within their constituencies more. At election times the government becomes directly accountable to the people; for example in 2007 the Labour government saw popular support fall from 41%. In the House of Commons, Bills introduced under the ten-minute rule are one of the ways in which backbench MPs (private Members) can introduce legislation.
UK citizen are more informed and able to make analytical judgements in their best interest, this in turn, challenges the authority of the state to decide what is in our best interest. In light of these developments many UK citizens now want to be protected from the frequently exposed dangers of an uncodified constitution. On this basis it is fair to evaluate citizens need for safety overcomes the need for flexibility, thus a codified constitution is now needed to a large extent. Some argue the UK does not currently need a codified constitution because they already have a fragmented constitution. Where large parts of it are written down, in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law and ‘The Doctrine Of Parliamentary Sovereignty’ all of which clearly outline the laws, principles and established precedents according to how the UK is governed.
Are pressure groups becoming more powerful? (24 Marks) A pressure group is an organised group of people, who attempt to influence the legislature passed by parliament without actually selecting an electoral candidate. There are several different means by which pressure groups can seek public attention, whether it be protests, marches or lobbying. In the UK there is some concern as to whether pressure groups are too powerful and become undemocratic. One of the factors to this power is the many ‘access points’ to government.
However it could be argued that Parliament is sometimes overly responsive, many commentators agreeing that Parliament rushed to judgement too quickly when it passes the Dangerous Fogs Act after a number of highly publicised attacks by dogs on young children. On the other hand, there are also a number of arguments that Parliament is not sufficiently representative in certain key aspects. For instance, the fact that in
One could be its ability to prevent abuse of power. The amendment process in American was made deliberately complicated by the founding fathers to prevent rash changes being made. A two thirds majority is needed in both houses and a further ratification from three quarters of states. This may appear to make it outdated as it would not adapt as society evolved it still maintains the ability to be interpreted in order to be moulded to fit certain situations and viewpoints. It is claimed that the founding fathers worded certain parts of the constitution vaguely and in general terms in order to prepare for future changes without needing to make an amendment.
You could argue that MP’s are not completely representative because they are put under a lot of pressure sometimes to side with their party in the House of Commons even if it is not in their constituent’s interests. If they do go against the grain and vote against the party it may hinder their future in the party, for example he or she may be put up for a seat that is an opposition’s safe seat in the next general
This means that instead of making the House of Lords elected, it would probably be more practical just to get rid of it all together and just have the House of Commons. Also, the fact that the current chamber works perfectly well would suggest that it is very unnecessary to make the second chamber elected. Another argument against an elected second chamber is the fact that you would lose all of the expertise that the members of the House of Lords have built up over the years. This knowledge has made them very good at making political decisions that will be for the good of the whole country. However, the fact that they cannot actually prevent a bill from being passed but only delay a bill slightly contradicts this because their expertise can’t be