Usa

SECTION A - LEGISLATURE

Examine the ways in which the House of Commons and the House of
Representatives differ

Constitutional power:
UK - Commons is also a constituent assembly and therefore is competent to deal
with any measure of constitutional significance in the same manner in which it
passess or repeals ordinary laws.
Parliamentary Sovereignty.
US - House of Representatives cannot amend the constitution itself, it can only
propose amendments to the constitution and no constitutional proposal is valid
unless it is approved by the Senate.

Legislative power:
UK - legislative supremacy of the HoC is well established, with the HoL not being
able to act as a barrier e.g. it is only able to delay (non-money) bills passed by the
commons at most for one year (1949 Parliament Act).
US - HoR is a weak legislative body with legislative powers shared with the
senate, nothing that originates in the house can become law unless it is also
passed in the senate eg bidens 2021 build back better bill. Limited powers.

Financial power:
UK - HoC >>> money bills must originate in the house of commons and can
neither be amended or rejected by the lords. Eg lords can only delay money bills
passed by commons for at the most by one month.
US - HoR holds equal financial power to the senate. Exclusive power to initiate
money bills, but the senate has the authority to amend in any way desired
(therefore no real advantage overall).

Executive control:
UK - parliamentary form of government, implies that the cabinet is responsible to
the HoC. therefore can remain in office as long as it enjoys the support of the
majority of the HoC.
US - presidential form of government, based on the doctrine of ‘separation of
powers.’ therefore neither the president nor his secretaries are responsible to
the HoR.

Examine the methods of oversight of the executive in the US Congress and the UK
Parliament
Legislative : #1: Fusion of powers, PM = biggest, legislative dominance /
Congress has seperation of powers, eg Manchin and Schinema blocking Biden’s
Build Back

#2: Scrutiny in parliament via parliamentary measures like select, urgent //

Similarly congress uses judicial appointments to exert influence

#3: Cabinet governments have become more common since 2010, PM cannot act
however they want - backbench rebellions damage majorities // Pres has much
more power in theory, commander in chief & EOs

Examine how the powers of the US Congress and the UK Parliament are limited in
different ways (2020)

Examine the ways in which US presidents and UK prime ministers may seek to
influence legislation
SECTION A: Executive - No theory

Examine the ways in which US presidents and UK prime ministers may seek to
influence legislation.
Through the media:
UK - collective ministerial responsibility will impact the appearance of loyalty to
PM’s legislation, to influence public opinion
US - presidential persuasion, eg

Through their Cabinet:

UK -
US -

Electoral mandate:

Through the legislature:

UK - parliamentary majority, party whip can be used to control the majority.
While MPs from the PMs party may be naturally loyal, the PM can use the power
of patronage to encourage backbenchers to stay loyal and vote for government
bills.
US - president has no such ability, due to the separation of powers. This robs
presidents of patronage power and makes members of Congress more sensitive
to public opinion than to presidential wishes.

Persuasion:
UK - through the backbenchers, party whips
US - presidential persuation
Electoral mandate:
Campaigning manifestos:
UK - manifestos, salisbury convention
US - presidential manifestos, eg Obamacare

Examine the ways in which the US and UK cabinets are different

Political importance:
UK - more powerful/well-known, members generally politically known.
Reshuffles are watched carefully as a sign of political strength or weakness. Eg
even strong PM’s with good mandates can be brought down from within
(Thatcher).
US - less well-known/or as powerful politically.
Advisory role.
The President has full control over appointments (Senate limited). As they have
no mandate they aren't politically powerful as rivals.

Power of executive over Cabinet:

UK - power of patronage, party members will want to be loyal to get into cabinet
= party loyalty.
The US - president is a separate power to the legislature so has no such political
leeway to reward supporters.
Less political than in the UK, purely there to help run the huge government
departments and therefore if the president wants something done they will do
what they like no matter what the cabinet advises.

Examine the differences in the bureaucratic support for the US president and the
UK prime minister

Politicisation:
UK - civil service advisory role, no political bias. Administrative role.
US -

Permanent staff:
UK -
US -

The Cabinet:
UK -
US -

Examine the ways in which the roles of the US President and the UK Prime Minister
are different. (2020) omg

Separation of powers:
UK - Head of the executive + member of the commons (legislature). Fusion of
powers.
US - Separation of powers means the president is not the direct head of
government. Also means they cannot be part of Congress, e.g. Obama left his seat
in the Senate when he was inaugurated.
This means that the UK PM usually has more direct influence over the legislature
as the head of the dominant party in parliament.

Cabinet:
UK - PM makes appointments to the Cabinet, from parliament.
US - President also does BUT is required, by the constitution, to seek approval of
his Cabinet appointments.
This allows the UK PM considerably more flexibility in choosing the Cabinet,
however they are also constrained by the requirement to chose cabinet members
from within parliament, where the US president must chose from outside the
legislative branch.

Veto and Signing of legislation:

US - President has the ability to veto and sign.
UK - PM cannot, and the final signature on bills is the Royal Assent.
UK PM are therefore unable to completely block legislation they disagree with,
however as the P< controls the legislative agenda within parliament it is unlikely
that a bill they do not wish to pass would reach the final stages of the legislative
process.

Appointment of justices:
US - President has more influence over who makes up the judiciary, as all federal
and Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president.
UK - power to appoint lies in the hands of the independent Judicial Appointments
Commission, rather than with the UK PM.
Power of the Judiciary:???
UK - the PM is more able to have an impact because of the power of the judiciary.
Parliamentary sovereignty makes this far more difficult in the UK where courts
cannot overturn acts of parliament, which typically reflect the PMs will.
US - the courts can use the sovereign Constitution to overturn presidential policy
and action.