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.
Alcala, Jesse TTH Pols MO3H 11:30 10/16/13 Essay Topic #2 Many individuals define Democratic in many ways. What I defined democratic to mean is based upon the principles of democracy or social equality. Therefore a democratic branch would offer the equality to the majority of citizens as well to the minority groups. Equality means the state of being equal in status, rights and opportunities. The branch that is most democratic has the view of both the minority and majority party in the decision making process.
In order to limit the power of congress it is divided into an upper and lower house. As we see presently in our congress the Democrats control the Senate and the Republicans the house. This has two implications I’d like to point out, one negative and one positive. The negative being that it contributes to gridlock in Washington where not so much as a budget is able to be compromised on and passed. However, the positive side, neither party has a majority and are able to impose their will through legislation upon the
Matthew Carney Final Exam Weeks 1, 2, 3, and 6 W1. The United States isn’t a democracy in fact it’s actually a democratic republic. In a contest between a direct democracy and a democratic republic I would have to choose the latter. In a direct democracy people would tend to vote more along the lines of how they feel rather than by law. Electing representatives that can spend their time going over budgets and bills as their job is being more efficient.
If I had to choose a type of government, I would support the Federalists. The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution. Basically, they argue that the constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments, there was no bill of rights, the national government could maintain an army in peacetime, Congress, because of the `necessary and proper clause,' wielded too much power and the executive branch held too much power. The Antifederalists, were generally farmers, debtors, and other lower class people who were loyal to their state governments. Antifederalist leaders, including Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, typically enjoyed more wealth and power than the people they led.I am sure these seemed like legitimate claims at the time, however, they are really fears unfounded by any proof.
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.
Such judicial action is rare. It is time, say campaigners, that these powers are defined and limited in a constitution. Their extent shouldn’t be left in the hands of judges who too often tend to favour state power against individuals. Nor should parliament be denied the right to exercise some control over such government
Democracy is only one form of government in the world and it may not be right for every government in the civilized world. With these two examples it is easy to try and interpret other governments in comparison because in some way they encompass ideas of them all. In conclusion, neither form of government is necessarily better then the other; its more an issue of what works best for the people and what is in agreement with their
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.
The two main political parties in the United States, the Democratic and Republican parties, have opposing social, economic, and political views. Because of the opposition, it is possible for different views to be enacted into governmental matters. It is impossible for all people to agree in a democratic nation, and because of this the institutionalization of political parties allows for different views to be heard and for change to occur in order to satisfy the people. If one party’s views were the only opinions heard in the government, the government would in turn only have one source of power and therefore be despotic. The institutionalization of political parties avoids despotism.