Appointment by legislature was considered, as that was the method most states used to elect the governor; however, delegates feared it would upset the balance of the three branches of government by making the president beholden to congress (Johnson 12-13). They then considered a direct election by the people. This method was viewed as being the most democratic, but presented a myriad of problems. Most significantly, small state delegates were apprehensive to a direct vote by the people, as they worried votes in their states would be overpowered by votes in larger, more populous states (Johnson 12). With appointment by legislature considered a threat to the balance of powers, and a direct vote
The U.S. President and the British Prime Minister are both very powerful with respect to their government, but there are fundamental systematic differences that are important to understand. The American President is the head of the government as well as the head of the state, the nation’s foreign policy, and commander in chief. Every government has a head of state, but America’s is the head of government as well, which is far different from the head of state. It is debatable weather this is too much power to be in the hands of one individual, but it also allows for any process to be expedited if required. Over the past 200 years, power in the U.S. has shifted towards the President; President Regan, who wanted to give power back to the states instead of centralizing it, challenged this.
Article III of the US Constitution establishes the judiciary branch - the Supreme Court. Although the US Constitution includes democratic principles such as checks and balances and the separation of powers to ensure the equal balance of power amongst the government branches, the legislative branch was designed to be most powerful. The organization and qualifications of Congress also contribute to the democratic shortcomings of the US Constitution. One of the biggest of these government decisions is electing the president, for which the system of the electoral college is in place. The US Constitution did not abolish slavery, and an interesting guarantee regarding slavery was included in Article IV of the Constitution.
Although only Congress can declare war, the President has the power to authorise the force of troops for a 90 day period without Congressional approval. However, the separation of powers and “checks and balances” limits the Presidents power which is held in back by both the Congress and the Supreme Court. For example, the President proposes changes in the law but it is the Congress that must pass them. Also, any law passed by the Congress by congress and signed by the President may be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. As Commander-in-Chief the President is undoubtedly the most powerful person in the USA in regards to foreign affairs.
Although I just listed the few most important powers that the president has there are still many others that have great importance as well that I will explain shortly. A power that a lot of people might be familiar with if they know anything about the military is that the president has power that decides to commission all federal officers throughout the country and that is because of his other power that he serves as the Commander-in-Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces. This is important but I feel overall that this can still be handled at the lower level. Another power that the president has is to grant pardons and reprieves known as Executive Clemency. What this powers main purpose is to waiver off someone or a group of people who have committed a crime but possibly the punishment was unjust in most cases.
On the one hand, you would say that there are too few limits to prime ministerial power, because of his ability to affectively do anything he wants as he is the head of the government. For example, when Tony Blair wanted to go into league with George Bush and America to invade Iraq, he was able to do so with ease by putting it to a vote in parliament and won using his huge majority in government, this then suggests that there are too few limits to Prime Ministerial power as something as big as going to war can be decided by one man rather than the elected democratic body, showing that there is too much power held by one man when he has a large majority, like Tony Blair back in 1997. On the other hand you could argue the point that there are too many limits to a prime ministers power, because of the amount of focus that is on his job. For example, scrutiny as it says in source 2, the prime minister can get scrutinised by everyone. For example, the opposition party in government have the specific job of scrutinising him and his cabinet, so at the moment, labour scrutinise David Cameron and members of the cabinet on policies they are coming up with, like through committees and Prime Ministers questions.
One could say that the President indirectly makes some of the most important decisions to our country because he chooses the people that will directly make the most important decisions. The President is one of the only people qualified to make the decision of who should be on the Supreme Court because he was elected by the people to make such decisions. Not only does the President have to okay the Justice but the Justice has to be accepted by the Senate also. Any person who can make it through the Presidents judgment and the Senates must be qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. A citizen would have to believe that the President would never choose a Justice nominee if he did not believe that they could serve a life term and if he did somehow choose an irresponsible Justice the Supreme Court would surely not allow such a person to be accepted as a Justice.
Because some populations are so high in certain areas, a large amount of the representatives elected to the House, anti-federalists feared, would be only the prominent and wealthy men of the area. This meant that even more power would be given to the government with the titles the men already had before being elected. Not only did the power of the government make the anti-federalists nervous, the lack of a bill of rights kept them agreeing with the constitution. They wanted a set rights guaranteed so that the central government didn’t have all the power that the anti-federalists were afraid of. The anti-federalist’s opposition to the constitution was
This view is ultimately a right wing argument; this is because that the right want a small government which would be ensured by strong checks and balance which promoted gridlock which is against the idea of certain branches being overextended as overextended powers lead to less gridlock which leads to larger government making this issue a right wing one. It can be seen that the powers of the executive have increased far past the intended levels in particular the president’s power can be seen to be increased for example the president has far too much power in terms of foreign policy i.e. the president is allowed to go to war without consulting congress if he/she doesn’t officially declare war, he/she can also negotiate with other foreign entities without the consultation of congress so the president essentially has as much power as they wish in
After its final pass through both houses, the bill is sent to the president. If he approves, he signs it, and the bill becomes a law. If he disapproves, he vetoes the bill by refusing to sign it and sending it back to the house of origin with his reasons for the veto. The objections are read and debated, and a roll-call vote is taken. If the bill receives less than a two-thirds vote, it is defeated and goes no further.