Many European countries have a prime minister. The United States has a president. In general, there are many different ways that presidents differ from prime ministers. The differences between the two, greatly depend on which country, we are comparing the differences to and which governmental laws are followed. These factors will be different for each country with a prime minister vs. a president.
One of the first differences of a prime minister compared to a president, are the powers that are given to each one that gives them the authority to lead. Different areas of the law and branches of government are ruled with different powers of authority for the government and state. Commonly, another way the president differs from a prime minister,
…show more content…
Depending on the country, some hold elections for a prime minister, in the legislature, once every five years. Our president may not be in the same party as the majority of those that serve in our legislature or other branches, as we see in the case for the prime minister. In the United states, the votes are cast by the people, to elect the next president. They are usually from the democratic and republican parties. We vote our president into office to serve a term of four-years. Once the president serves an initial four-year term, they may run again in the next election, against the other party nominee. If the current president should win that election, they may stay in office for another four years. The total term a president may serve, in office is eight …show more content…
However, I can only speculate, that the Founding Fathers, indeed would not expect the president to be any stronger or weaker than Congress. If the Founding Fathers had expected the president to be stronger than Congress, I am of the opinion, that they did not envision that it would surpass every branch of government. The Founding Fathers would frown to this day, if they knew the president would ever be allowed to overstep his or her role as the leader of our nation in manner. In the same regard, the Founding Fathers did not project a future where Congress was to have any more or any less power, strength, or weakness over the
As the President of the United States, a president have powers that other members of the government do not. Presidential power can be defined in numerous ways. Political scientists Richard Neustadt and William Howell give different views on what is presidential power. These polarized views of presidential powers can be used to compare and contrast the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
The farmers of our Constitution recognized the need for separate powers as well as checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This in turn helps to "provide for the common defense". Separation of powers prevents one branch from becoming excessively dominant over the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.: In order to accede to the preamble and adhere in its goals, the Constitution ensures this is by clearly stating the authority of the Congress in Article I Section 8 and the authority of the President in Article II Section 2. These fixed powers in the Constitution clearly state that one cannot act without permission or authorization of another. It is designed to that one cannot take action without consent of the other branch. This is prevalent in Article I Section 7 that states the process of how a law is passed. The fact that there are clear steps to the initiation of a law states the importance of separation of powers so that a single dominant branch does not arise.
It is obvious the president was not given enough power under the Constitution. This is in part because Article II of the Constitution was written in a short period of time with little thought. Many presidents have had to make unclear decisions with little information about the circumstance in the Constitution and the president is beginning to take over the government due to increasing implied powers. However the president’s power has recently proven that it has outgrown the constitution and is swiftly evolving. The Constitution gave the president broad but vague powers, including the authorization to appoint judges and other officials with the Senate’s consent, veto bills, lead the military as commander and chief and make sure “that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Many of these powers however are shared with the Legislative Branch, and cause conflict within the government.
... in office and how the congress will act toward the President; whether he be a President that demands respect or one who forfeits it and whether the Congress gives in to the demands of the Executive or if the Congress comes down on t he Executive like a hammer on a nail. This can be accomplished by viewing the circumstances in which a President takes office, the manner in which he carries himself during his term, and the way in which the President leaves as Commander in Chief. Conclusion: The President has neither gained nor lost power. There exists the same balance between Executive and Congress as there was when Washington was sworn in as America's first President. The only difference between then and now, is the fact that today we must wade through the layers of insignificance and precedents that history has forged against us, the political thinker and historian.
“Incumbency is the time during which a person holds a particular office or position.” (Incumbency) An incumbent candidate is a candidate who is returning to a position or office. The president can serve only two four year terms. Senators and legislators can serve an unlimited amount of six year terms. Since George Washington was president, presidents usually served two terms. However, Franklin D. Roosevelt served four terms. This resulted in the 22nd amendment limiting the amount of terms to two. The 22nd amendment was passed by congress on March, 21st 1947 and ratified by the states in February 27th, 1951.
The Founding Fathers limit the power of government in the Constitution utilizing many different tactics, many more than even the aforementioned. Their main intent was to make the nation less democratic and to keep the government small. The Constitution has accomplished the Founding Fathers' goal until now, and will hopefully continue doing so in the future.
The United States government is designed with checks and balances to ensure that no one branch can become more powerful than another. Though this may be the case, it is still possible that one branch of the our government can still be more powerful than the others. The equality of power in our government has constantly changed over the course of the life of the United States. Although these changes have occurred, we still have not made all of the branches equal and the inequality has been due to meet the demands of the time. For example, in 1938 our country was facing a depression and nothing was getting done. So, Roosevelt took it upon himself to give the Executive branch more power, to then in turn, help the country creep back out of the hole it had dug itself. After the country didn’t need the reform bills and the size of the government that Roosevelt had put it, things were then downsized and put into a more stable equilibrium. Though there were attempts to make everything equal, the Legislative Branch now holds the majority of the power, and is the most powerful branch that our government has.
Every four years our nation votes for the next leader of our nation; however, it is not really the citizens of our nation but rather the Electoral College who chooses the President of the United States. The Electoral College, which is the group of people who formally elect the President and Vice-President of the United States, has been part of our nation since its inception. There are 538 electors in the Electoral College, which comes from the number of House representatives and the two Senators each state has. To win the presidency, a candidate needs 270 of those electors. It is an indirect election since the people are not directly voting for the president but rather the people of voting for their elector. The electors meet in the Capital
In contrast, the Supreme Leader of Iran appoints key figures in the political system and not the president. 2. During these times, Obama and Rouhani do have the responsibilities to their countries, even though Obama does have more power by being the president of the United States. Other forms of informal powers are being used to make decisions without the approval of anyone else.
...n policy, especially in regards to the budget and treaties, the president remains the dominant power in decision-making with regards to foreign policymaking. This power is demonstrated by the authority that the president is given by the constitution and the way that is interpreted and how presidents have used their powers and challenged congress for more power. The power of congress has been asserted in many ways, and will continue to be as long as our nation remains. The balance between powers will also remain in fluctuation, due to events that change the course of history. I do believe Congress should have an important role in foreign policymaking because it is crucial to our system of checks and balances. If one branch maintains too much power, the work of our forefathers to create a system different from the parliamentary system in England would all be in vain.
Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, addresses the politics of leadership and how the citizens of the United States rate the performance of the president's term. We measure his leadership by saying that he is either "weak or "strong" and Neustadt argues that we have the right to do so, because his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system.
The power of the Executive branch has expanded over time to become the most authoritative division of government. In contrast to the Constitution 's fundamental designer, James Madison, who predicted the Legislative branch would dominate due to it’s power in making laws and regulating taxes/spending, the executive powers have proven to be superior and ever broadening. From the birth of the Republic, the President has sought to protect his rights and seek beyond his restriction of power. Setting the precedent as early as 1795, George Washington refused to relay documents relating to the Jay Treaty to the House of Representatives and saw his actions as a justified act of “executive prerogative.” Moreover, weaving throughout the Nineteenth century, presidents such as Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln conceived and added functions, such as the extensive use of the veto and the president’s direct and active role as Commander in Chief to their executive tool-belt. The Constitution communicates very little details regarding the President’s use of the power of veto and the role as Commander in Chief, but it was these presidents which established the major authority of the executive branch in these areas.
...utive branch to gain an amount of power it had never had before. Despite this, Congress retains the benefits of that original constitutional favor and the battle for supremacy between the legislative and the executive branches has become a close one. The legislative branch, however, has a stability of power stemming directly from the Constitution that allows it to remain steadily powerful regardless of circumstances. The executive branch is much more susceptible to the effects of the times and the nature of the people elected to the office. This stability of power makes Congress unquestionably the lastingly dominant branch of American government.
Those who feared that the federal government would become too strong were assured by Madison in Federalist No. 14 that “in the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administrating laws…The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other objects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity”
In a constitutional monarchy, a directly or indirectly-elected prime minister will serve as the head of government and will exercise poli...