First of all, it is true that the Governor of Texas is constitutionally weak, yet he enjoys a range of important functions that he is able to implement. For example, the Governor controls the regional planning and federal grants applications. Also, he has the right to veto on the legislature, which in most cases is an absolute power. In addition, the Governor of Texas is the commander in chief of the military forces, and he can control others law enforcement agencies during difficult times. Furthermore, Texas Governor might not have the direct control over the state, yet he has the control over the presiding officers of appointed board and commissions, as being the head of the executive branch on the state government.
Due to the lack of formal powers with the Governor of Texas, this power of persuasion is all the more important. Using the Governor’s personality, image and advisory staff, in today’s media frenzy world the Governor can use the power of persuasion smartly to overcome some of the shortfalls created by lack of formal power. In my opinion, the plural executive can have significant side effects, especially in today’s electrically charged partisan politics. Having a set of people who do not share a common vision and goal may be detrimental to the strategic growth of the state. On the other side, I agree with the argument that concentration of power can often lead to abuse of power.
I personally say that strength is not given but earned by what you do to get others to approve your intensions. In other words, strengths and weakness depends on a personal capacity to influence the conduct of those in government. Power seems to be based on how influential or persuasive one can be. However, I also think that no matter how much the President tries to get what he wants during his term, the President will never be the most powerful man in the country. He is always sharing his power due to the checks and balances system.
The main difference between these officers and those at the state or federal level is they are the initial enforcement front for all criminal laws. Police Chiefs are usually appointed by the mayor but sometimes elected to office. They can be anywhere from a detective to a dispatcher to jailers that protect us as citizens and enforce laws passed at all levels of government. Their activities are generally limited to the jurisdiction they're assigned to, as opposed to officers at the state or federal level. State enforcement officials are normally elected by county voters in most states.
Furthermore, neither the Prime Minister, nor the cabinet signs a bill once it has been passed; rather the Governor General signs the bill. The parliamentary bill to law process is superior to that of the congressional process, because the American system, creates inefficiencies due to the all or nothing veto which the President has. Furthermore, this all or nothing veto system; creates what is called Omnibus legislation. Which is where several bills are bundled together; therefore, if the President really wants a bill to pass he or she may have to also accept a number of unrelated bills. Essentially, a President may be enacting a bill into a law, for which they know nothing about.
Another way that Edward IV proved that he was not a ‘puppet king’ as Henry VI was seen as was by removing Warwick’s brother, George Neville, as chancellor. However, although these events showed that he was not controlled by Warwick, there were many failures that outweigh his successes when it came to dealing with the over mighty subjects. Edward was said to have ‘alienated’ Warwick, which then caused him to become over mighty. Warwick was the biggest land owner in England and therefore had a lot of power, maybe even too much power as some people thought when it came to Edwards’s decision. Edwards marriage to Woodville was said to show favouritism as he subsequently gave the Woodville family titles and arranged the best marriages possible for Elizabeth’s sister, meaning that Warwick’s daughters did not get the desired marriages.
By creating a government divided into the presidential, legislative, and judicial branches meant that no one’s power could come into absolute power. There is however a downside to having three branches of government. If there is a democratic president and one of the branches is a republican run branch they may not agree on some of the same ideas. When we have different branches vetoing bills and not making them laws this in turn affects the citizens who may need the change. Checks and Balances The system of checks and balances is part of our constitution.
During Bedford’s absence, the government of England was headed by Henry V’s other brother, Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, who was appointed Protector and Defender of the Realm. His duties were limited to keeping the peace and summoning parliament. Also Thomas Beaufort, duke of Exeter was made to protect and bring up Henry VI. These men had the most amount of influence and power during the period of Henry VI’s minority, and there is much debate on whether the minority and what come of it, had any success or not. There are many historians that argue if the minority council had influence over the causes in either the long or short term causes of the War of the Roses.
With that being said I believe that it is a weakness because it leaves such a broad area and base for the state governments to create their own laws and constitutions. Another weakness would probably be that in the Missouri Constitution it states that in order to be a member of either the House or Senate you only have to be a resident for one year in that state. I think this is a weakness because I want somebody that is more devoted and educated on my state to represent
John Locke would not agree with the constitutions set up for the executive branch. He would want them to be stronger then the constitution sets them up. Locke believes a weak government will not be able to effectively pass laws. The Influence of Locke…) The judiciary Branch is the only branch not selected by the people and it is a system of courts that