The Judiciary’s foremost role is to defend and uphold the constitution and to assure rule of law prevails in a country. In some ways it is the watchdog for rights and liberties of the citizens. The Judiciary acts as a guardian of the constitution arbitrates between the people and the legislature. Having said that has the Judiciary become puissant? Should we cap the amount of power it posses at present?
It starts off by telling us about the background history of the Constitution and the making of it. Why is the Constitution important to us? At the time that our nation was still in its prime, there was great debate over what would become the structure of the United States government that we know today, the Constitution. The nation was split between two groups, the Federalists, or the supporters of the Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists. The chapter then goes on telling us about the different types of powers of our government and how it entitles the way we act in our society.
Over the years since its creation the initially equal powers have become unbalanced, but to understand how the scales have been tipped, one must understand each branches powers that allow them to carry out their mission, the powers that they have to balance out the other two branches, and the circumstances that have led to a change in the power equation. For any national government to maintain order and ensure freedom they must first legislate the policy to which they feel its citizens should follow. The first portion of our checks and balances system is the legislative branch of government. Their share of the overall authority is addressed in the first article of the Constitution because the framers "thought lawmaking was the most important function of a republican government" (Janda, Berry, Goldman, & Hula, 2009). This branch is referred to as Congress and is split into two sections, one is the House of Representatives and the other the Senate.
This push and pull has also been sewn into the historical narrative of national security policy-making. As the national security needs of the nation have evolved, so too have the ways, means, and agents of the national security policy-making process. An “Invitation to Struggle” The constitution granted powers in such as manner as to prevent any one branch from dominating in the policy-making process. Within the executive branch, the president serves as commander-in-chief of the armed forces (Snow, 2014, p. 135). To balance this, Congress is charged with raising and supporting the military forces, as well as with making the rules that govern and regulate those forces.
In this paper I will demonstrate how both nations evolved constitutionally and illustrate the factors resulting in the United States developing a presidential system and the United Kingdom developing a parliamentary system. Moreover, I will demonstrate the implications of both governing styles on each country’s policymaking and
1. By whom and what means can bureaucrats and bureaucracies be held accountable for in public policy? Congress keeps an eye on things. To minimize such risks, the government must somehow rein in the bureaucracy. Bureaucratic accountability which is the ability of the government, especially the president, Congress, and the courts to hold the bureaucracy responsible for it performance and its actions (study,com).
Antifederalists favor promotion of local interests through likeminded congressional representation. Government should be as close to the people as possible and representatives’ actions should be based on their constituent’s wishes. Political compromises were reached as demonstrated in the constitution and subsequent composition of congress. The debate concerning the nature of democracy and representation continues today, reflected in the differing and competing goals of redistricting, in part due to the vague nature and wording within the constitution. Both Federalist and Antifederalist views are reflected in modern politics however American politics has consistently moved towards an Antifederalist ideology since the decline in power of political parties.
This paragraph will proceed to the clarification of what decision-making is. Decision-making is one of the ‘faces’ of power in a democratic polity. In politics it is often thought that decision-making or law making is solely based in the legislative branch, but the executive branch is increasingly involved in policy-making through their cabinets, thus they complement the legislative branch in law making. (Heywood, Andrew, p.287) Some political scientist argues that as Supreme Court judges do their interpretation of the constitution in a given case, they are actually involved in law making as well, as their “output” could have decisive consequences. A few examples worth mentioning is Brown vs. Broad of education (1954) and Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965).
Nowadays, the legal order and the rule of law within the state system play a forefront role in the developed democracies. Undoubtedly, the notion of democratic state itself is closely associated with the high standards of legal system in it. However, in order to define what the high standards of legal system actually mean, it is important to answer the question what one would perceive as the real democracy. Although, we used to describe the democracy as the will or voice of majority in general terms, there are many more other factors of the modern democracies such as the separation of power, for instance. Based on this, we may assume that a constitution is a way of organizing all these into a single universal binding document to reach, and subsequently retain, those principles within a society.
The main focus area of this paper, as directed by the question, will concentrate on the advantages of Parliamentarism, but due to the ambiguous nature of the democratic process and the diverse political cleavage that can make up the electorate, arguments have raged over which democratic system is best suited for a sovereign nation to adopt (Schmitter and Lynn 1990). By definition, having an advantage puts one in a favourable or superior position over another. This, by definition, instructs this essay to espouse the benefits of Parliamentarism contrasted against Presidentialism. The paper will endeavour to explain the meaning and structure of Parliamentarism, which in turn will allow the essay to examine what advantages and disadvantages it holds juxtaposed against Presidentialism. This endeavour has echoes of being a straight forward task, but when you take into consideration the varied forms of Westminster styled parliaments fostered in sovereign countries like Canada, Australia, Germany, Ireland and New Zealand among others.