More handpicked essays just for you.
British political system
Comparison between usa constitution and uk constitution
Compare and contrast the functions of the house of lords and house of commons
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: British political system
A new critical piece of legislature has passed the National Assembly, the King’s Veto or the Royal Sanction. The Royal Sanction is a very important article to include in the new constitution as it is one of the stepping stones to a constitutional monarchy. The main reason why having a constitutional monarchy is a good idea is because it will provide a system of checks and balances within the government. Currently the American and English governments are both constructed in a way that checks and balance equalize the power. No part of the government is all powerful. In the American government, there are three branches of government, the legislative, the judicial and the executive. Each branch has a specific part that they play in allowing the government to function and they are all regulated by each other. While in the English government there is the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Voltaire describes these ideas many times throughout his …show more content…
The King’s Veto will only allow the king to suspend the passing and implementation of a bill for two voting cycles. The king is not actually able to change the bill or indefinitely suspend it. The King is simply assuring that the bicameral legislature is not powerful or rushing into anything that could have dangerous long term effects and they are following their duties. As bicameral legislature has just passed, people may say that having a King’s veto is unnecessary as the government will already be split into two and therefore power will be distributed. While it is true that having bicameral legislature will allow for some checks and balances, the two houses will likely be very similar and will not generate the sort of checks and balances necessary to regulate a government of this size. Having the royal sanction will add a layer of protection that is completely different that anything the two houses can
One monarch who faced limited royal power due to his relationship with parliament was Henry IV. This uneasy relationship was mainly down to the fact that Henry was a usurper, and was exacerbated by his long periods of serious illness later in his reign. Parliament was thus able to exercise a large amount of control over royal power, which is evident in the Long Parliament of 1406, in which debates lasted from March until December. The length of these debates shows us that Henry IV’s unstable relationship had allowed parliament to severely limit his royal power, as he was unable to receive his requested taxation. A king with an amiable relationship with parliament, such as Henry V, and later Edward IV, would be much more secure in their power, as taxation was mostly granted, however their power was also supported more by other factors, such as popularity and finances. Like Henry IV, Henry VI also faced severely limited power due to his relationship with parliament.
You little tyrant king george off with your head.Since the Americans had a bad experience with one person having too much power they made a constitution that guarded against tyranny by, dividing power, making the branches able to check or limit each other, and dividing power between big and little states.
The year of 1776 was a time of revolution, independence, and patriotism. American colonists had severed their umbilical cord to the Mother Country and declared themselves “Free and Independent States”.1 The chains of monarchy had been thrown off and a new government was formed. Shying away from a totalitarian government, the Second Continental Congress drafted a document called the Articles of Confederation which established a loose union of the states. It was an attempt at self-government that ended in failure. The Articles of Confederation had many defects which included a weak central government that lacked the power to tax, regulate trade, required equal representation and a unanimous vote to amend the Articles, and had only a legislative branch. As a result the United States lacked respect from foreign countries. These flaws were so severe that a new government had to be drafted and as a result the Constitution was born. This document remedied the weak points of the federal government and created one that was strong and fair, yet still governed by the people.
September 17, 1787, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; during the heat of summer, in a stuffy assembly room of Independence Hall, a group of delegates gathered. After four months of closed-door quorums, a four page, hand written document was signed by thirty-nine attendees of the Constitutional Convention. This document, has come to be considered, by many, the framework to the greatest form of government every known; the Constitution of the United States. One of the first of its kind, the Constitution laid out the frame work for the government we know today. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people; constructed of three branches; each branch charged with their own responsibilities. Article one established the Congress or Legislative branch, which would be charged with legislative powers. Article two created the Executive branch, providing chief executive powers to a president, who would act in the capacity of Commander in Chief of the Country’s military forces. The President of the United States also acts as head of state to foreign nations and may establish treaties and foreign policies. Additionally, the President and the departments within the Executive branch were established as the arm of government that is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress. Thirdly, under Article three of the Constitution, the Judicial branch was established, and consequently afforded the duty of interpreting the laws, determining the constitutionality of the laws, and apply it to individual cases. The separation of powers is paramount to the system of checks and balances among the three branches; however, although separate they must support the functions of the others. Because of this, the Legislative an...
At the present time, there is nothing wrong with the constitution, and if there was anything wrong with it, it could be changed by referendum, once again proving that becoming a republic is pointless. Currently, we are not tied down at all by the monarchy, and although the Queen does have the power to intervene in the running of our country, she doesn't out of tradition, and therefore, probably never will, bound by the tradition. If we become a republic, we would lose valuable ties with England and perhaps part of our heritage that goes with it. England can support us through many unfortunate events that we may face and England, being on the other side of the world may not, putting them in a position to offer us financial, military or other support.
According to John Acton in 1887, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”, meaning that if unlimited power is given to any one person, they can be corrupted by it. The framers of the Constitution recognized this and built in a plan to prevent this from happening and a result of this, the Constitution spreads power equally between the three branches of government: The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. These built-in checks and balances are very important to our government, because they keep one branch from gaining too much power over another. This balance of power prevents any branch of our government from being “corrupted absolutely”. This thesis will argue that this part of the Constitution is as important today as it was when first
Thomas Paine expresses his feelings toward the English constitution and its flaws specifically the crown. According to Paine, "because the corrupt influence of the Crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the House of Commons" shows that with power comes corruption and in this case is the crown ruler of Britain. Paine gives an example of an up and coming colony which will develop a government which cannot be overturned which he said, " depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED." This shows that according to Paine himself, a government is only as strong as the people who support it, and with that equality. While in the single ruler government, the people have no voice or say in the law making or bill producing process, instead the crown will be appointing it. Thomas Paine also provide arguments and answers to rebuttals that argue for the English constitution and government. Thomas Paine said, " Some writers have explained the English constitution thus: the King, say they, is one, the people another; the Peers are a house in be...
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused.
Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the Rule of Law, and it can exercise power arbitrarily.
There was a need for a new or second constitution in the United States. The new constitution needed to give more power to the central government. The central government lacked the power to counteract the problems that the states encountered.The new government needs to be stronger but not too strong. This will be insured by the system of checks and balances.
Line-item veto should be applied to the current system of vetoing because it helps control unnecessary government spending. The U.S, which is trillion dollars in debt, has always had trouble maintaining and controlling government spending. Data from Stephen Moore of Cato Institute explains that $2 billion dollars were saved for taxpayers, even five years after Bill Clinton used line-item veto to delete 11 extra spending bills. Clinton’s first use alone saved $600 million dollars. When used for the first time, the new power of the President saved the United States billions of dollars could have been possibly wasted in bills that Congress passed, that thu could deepen the already tanking country debt. With the help of line item veto, even years
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
The Constitution is one of the most significant file and certificate in the United States, the constitution of United States of America was created by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the state of Philadelphia and in the year of 1787. The Constitution changed the life of people; furthermore, when the constitution was created, it provided different types of freedom for different people. The constitution of United States includes about twenty seven amendments, which the ten first amendments are most important, because they relate to basic freedom and equality of people. According to http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble; The preamble of constitution of United States says that “We the People of 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 for the United States of America” The constitution task is to try to defend and protect the people of United States; furthermore, it concludes different ages of people not a particular type of people. Actually, people of United States are free people intrusive Federal government doesn’t interfere in their life. The persons who wrote the constitution, tried to make a nation that a particular person doesn’t control all the affairs of the country; in addition, the European countries were absolutely monarchy which cause the people not decide and control everything. The United States doesn’t have queens or kings and no one is above the law. The United Stat...
The royal prerogative is a source of constitutional law; it is derived from common law powers that have been handed down from the monarchy to the executive. The significance of the prerogative in constitutional law is that it provides the executive with considerable power to act without following ‘normal’ parliamentary procedures. As Dicey explained, the prerogative is ‘every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an Act of parliament’.