Why is President of the United States of America more powerful compared to, say, Prime Minister of England?

The answer to your question would depend on your definition of “powerful”.
The ultimate extension would be “Why can the President of the United States of America (after this “the President”) employ more armed force than can the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland (from now on “the PM”)?” and the answer to that one is the self-evident “Because the United States of America has a larger military than the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland does.”.
On the other hand, if the PM wants a piece of legislation passed, that piece of legislation is going to get passed and if the PM does not want a piece of legislation passed then that piece of legislation is not going to get passed.
Admittedly the President has a lot more latitude in the field from which they can choose their Cabinet member than the PM does, BUT once the PM decides who a Cabinet member is going to be, that’s the end of the discussion and when the PM decides that a Cabinet member is no longer acceptable to them then there is no need for “asking for resignations” (although that is normally done as a matter of courtesy).
Unfortunately, the restrictions that are place on the PM in choosing who the members of their Cabinet will be also mean that the PM is forced to rely on people of proven ability and with a history of legislative competence. This is a restriction that the President doesn’t have to cope with.
Additionally, since the PM doesn’t have to deal with “inferior levels of government” (read as “States with their own constitutions and independent [but geographically restricted] legislative competence”) that means that the PM doesn’t have to deal with “conflict of laws” questions anywhere near as frequently as the President does.
In short, LEGISLATIVELY the PM is “more powerful” than the President, but when it comes to the sheer naked exercise of force the President is “more powerful” than the PM.
You might also want to toss in the degree to which “Constitutional Interpretation” in the United States of America has become bogged down in unresolved legal pettifogging while in the UK there is still a large degree of “Don’t be an ass.” accepted and acted upon by the courts - but you didn’t ask about that, so I won’t.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Donald Trump be replaced as president of the United States?

Donald Trump is in over his head. This comes as no surprise to the millions of people who could see that he was  unprepared and unfit  for the job of president of the United States and voted against him. He’s basically a celebrity heir to a fortune who was so entitled that he believed his privileged existence proved he was competent to run the most powerful nation on Earth. That’s the attitude of an aristocrat who ascended to the throne without having any idea what it actually takes to rule. History’s full of such men. It doesn’t often work out well. Trump managed to convince enough voters in just the right places that his “business success,” born mostly of hype and relentless public relations over many years, qualified him for the Oval Office. Since the Protestant work ethic and the philosophy of virtuous capitalism still permeate American culture, it’s not uncommon for people to equate financial success with superior intelligence and character. Many individuals among the public un
Read more

Why did CNN give Obama an 8 year pass in investigative journalism, but is now actively persecuting Donald trump?

Obama has demonstrated himself to be a very careful person regarding his own image and actions, to a fault. He is strong organizer and team builder. His skills are much more that of a GM or COO* than, say, a CEO or head of Sales, when you draw parallels with the corporate world. As Terry Irving responded ( Why did CNN give Obama an 8 year pass in investigative journalism, but is now actively persecuting Donald trump? ), CNN, and I understand, all major news agencies, had units designated to dig into his past and present. None found anything “scandalous”. Before Obama made a name for himself on the national stage at the 2004 Democratic Convention, he barely got any media coverage. DJT, on the other hand, was a media magnet since the late 80s due to his long running and well known “foot-in-mouth” disease. He’s outrageous, thin-skinned and picks very public fights over nothing. Follow DJT around, and he will say something “scandalous” sooner than later. The mainstream media actual
Read more

Is there prime minister in china?

China has a  Premier  who fills the same or similar role as a Prime Minister in other countries. The incumbent premier is  Li Keqiang   and he is the head of government of China. He is tasked with leading the State Council, the executive ruling body of the entire People’s Republic, and implements everyday domestic policy. China also has a  President , currently  Xi Jinping , and he is head of state. This means that his role is largely ceremonial and represents China on the world stage. He is essentially the face of China, though more and more powers have been transferred to the President in recent years. That is why President Xi is almost always present at international conferences or meetings rather than the premier.
Read more