Is Congress a watchdog or lapdog? Personally, I believe that Congress is a watchdog, whether it is a united or a divided government. However, many people may disagree with this because they may believe that whether or not the Congress is a watchdog or lapdog depends on the government being divided or united. The reason for this is: if it is a united government, Congress will not want to embarrass the President by constantly putting him into account. However, this is not true because the Congress is both an independent and co-equal branch of Government.
To 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. Lastly, the Articles of Confederation had a lot of influences. Such as no taxing power given to national government constitution and elected officials can create laws to collect Revenue. Also, no power to regulate commerce, and lastly no executive branch to enforce laws; but limited by checks and balances.
This contradicts a democratic society and is seen as a dictatorship because elections are the cornerstone of a democracy. So if two out of three powers that are running the UK are not elected, this itself questions whether or not we are living in a democracy. Furthermore, having a monarchy is very important yet traditional but not in the same aspects of Parliament, as they have more authority over
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.
However the other two will check the one wanting to exceed thus, balancing out the power and securing citizens from a dictatorship type of government. Another reason would simply be when he states, “If men were angles, no government would be necessary.” In other words since we are not angles but are men if we had power in our hands we would abuse it. Then he continues that even though the powers are shared and are equal the government should still be able to control not only the people but, themselves. This will only help protect the people’s individual rights including the minority. In the end he says that in order to have a balanced government the majority must agree on justice.
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
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
Having many officials of the executive branch elected by voters rather than nominated by the Governor seriously curtails the powers of the gubernatorial office. This setup creates a “plural executive” where the powers, which usually rest with the chief executive, are distributed among many independently elected individuals. Unlike the President and the Vice President of the United States, the Governor and other officials do not run on a common ticket and are not elected together. Various senior officials which would usually be part of a cabinet like, the Lieutenant Governor, the Attorney General, the Comptroller, the Agricultural Commissioner, the Land Commissioner and the Railroad Commissioner, are elected directly by
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
The federalist created the House of Reps which was directly voted by the people. This was simply put, a way of shutting them up. The federalist also made it clear that no one branch of government would gain too much power over another with the checks and balances system, which was a good