For a start we have no written constitution, so politicians can make things up as they go along! The separation of powers mentioned by others is not as rigid as in the USA, for the 'administration' - the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues at all levels are also members of the 'legislature', unlike the US President and his cabinet. Everything the administration does is subject to control by the legislature - in theory, for as the Prime Minister has such patronage by way of ministerial appointments and because party discipline is very strong, it is unusual for the PM not to get his way. One member of the Cabinet, the Lord Chancellor, is additionally a member of the judiciary as the senior judge in the country.
The Prime Minister is not the Commander in Chief of the armed forces - technically that is the Queen who, I suppose, could send them to war, a thing she would never, in practise, do. All legislation is passed in the name of the Queen, although, again, once a bill has been passed by Parliament, she would not refuse to give it her 'Royal Assent'.
There are two chambers to Parliament, as in the US legislature - The House of Commons which is elected by universal franchise on a 'first past the post' system, and The House of Lords. That was originally made up of entirely hereditary peers, although in the 1960s 'life peers' were introduced - people from all walks of life whose experience was thought worth having. The hereditary principal was abolished by this Government. Most hereditary peers were stripped of their powers, although a few were permitted to remain. Now plans are afoot to make the second chamber either entirely, or in part, elected. The H of L has revising powers only - it cannot, basically, refuse to pass a bill which has passed all its stage on the lower house.
You must also remember that the UK is much more centralised than the USA. Whilst there is local government, that only has powers to act in accordance with powers given by Parliament. If it did otherwise, its actions can be challenged through the Courts. Parliament also has the final say as to how and now much revenue local government may raise through the 'council tax'
The Courts have no power to overturn an Act of Parliament as 'unconstitutional', but they do have wide ranging powers of 'interpretation' - saying what Parliament meant by certain words, and the Courts are no shy at doing this!
Remember also, that everything the UK Parliament does is subject to it being in accordance with EU law and regulations - so a law can be challenged, for example, as being contrary the Human Rights directives.
2007-02-03 23:18:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by rdenig_male 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
we're well aware of that. the point of much of the Constitution, as clarified by James Madison, is to provide the government with just enough power to do what only the government can do and not a whit more. There is nothing much to prevent the American government from becoming tyrannical if the Constitution is abandoned or amended severely. Such a government could, for example, seize the assets of the rich without compensation [payment] in order to redistribute the ownership of society 'more equitably' among the people. Nothing that is, except that the armed people rise up to defend the government that assures them of individual liberty and rights and to put down a tyranny [should one arise]. {If that happens, I would hope that the then new government reserves critical jobs for discharged military people and limits the right to vote similarly -- the ancient Roman Republic knew a thing or two about survival; they lasted a lot longer than we have, so far.}
2016-03-29 03:47:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mary 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The main power in the British system resides in the House of Commons, whose members serve until elections or a vote of no confidence. The Prime Minister is the leader of the rulilng (majority) party; if there is no majority, a coalition may be made between parties so that a PM is chosen. The House of Lords is largely ceremonial-they can slow down the passage of bills, but do not initiate legislation. The Lords are hereditary or are given their title by the Queen. The Queen is the head of her nation, while the PM is the political leader. I am not sure if the courts in the UK are given the right to interpret laws.
The US government has three seperate yet equal branches. The Executive branch consists of the President, VP, and members of the Cabinet. The President is head of state and also the political leader. He has the ability to veto legislation. He serves for a four year term.
The Congress is made of two houses, both of which are elected by the people for set terms of office. Representatives represent a district within a state; the district lines are drawn according to population. Representatives are elected to a two year term of office. The Senate is made up of people elected for six year terms. Each state has two senators, who represent the entire state in the Senate. This upper house has more power-they can write legislation themselves, and must vote on bills that have been passed by the House of Representatives. They also vote to confirm or deny appointments made by the President to judgeships, cabinet posts, etc.
The court system is the third branch of government, and can rule on whether a law is constitutional or not. Judges are appointed for life.
2007-02-03 13:36:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by AyeshaH 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The US has 3 branches of Gov't (Leg, Exe, Judicial) that are separated... each has checks and balances placed of it. G. Britain on the other hand operates with a Parlamentary System... The Executive is chosen from the Leg. branch. This ensures that there is no partisanship between the people making the laws and the people who are to enforce them. Both systems have positives and negatives but that's the basic difference.
2007-02-03 13:34:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by hornecv 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
UK has an Empirical order, wait.......
nevermind
2007-02-03 13:27:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋