Separaration of Powers Doctrine Built Into the Constitution

But after the British Civil War, when Great Britain had the opportunity to experiment with being a republic, with unitary government, and even with military dictatorship, the parliamentary system was essentially changed.

The Restoration of Charles II did non reintroduce a equilibrate factor. Charles was perfectly clear that he reigned at the pleasure of fan tan. His miserable brother James did not understand this, and his obstinacy guide directly to the Glorious Revolution: the day when Parliament only when had James arrested and exiled to France. One may suppose that what was most bright about that revolution is that it was peaceful: not a mutable was fired, no one was even injured. (That James later invaded Union Ireland with a French mercenary army is a distinct neck, most political theorists seem to think.)

Parliament next just hired William of Orange and his bride-to-be, Princess Mary, as co-monarchs, and arranged the glorious spectacle of their comer in London, royal wedding, and double coronation. It would next hire George I of the House of Hanover. It was this Parliament, whose authority was absolute, that governed the American colonies. Any law it passed was concluding; there was then no institution that could decl be a law passed by Parliament to be "unconstitutional." The only wear out on its authority was the will of the voters who elected the members of Parliament. This is a major(ip) reason why the American colonists made such an issue of their lack

In the British Parliamentary system, there is also no distinction between legislative and executive powers. The Prime Minister is elected by the members of the volume party in Parliament, and thus becomes the head of government. The Prime Minister's cabinet functions essentially as the standing Executive Committee of the Parliament.

Americans mostly fail to grasp how centralized power had become (and to virtually extent still is) in the British system. There were and are no state governments in the British system, not for the shires, and not for what had once been independent countries; there is only the national Parliament and tiny local governments at the town level.

In the eighteenth century Parliament also wanted there to be no independent legislatures in the colonies, and felt free to bring down compound legislative measures at its own pleasure. Of course, the colonial legislatures went out front and acted independently in almost all local matters, only Parliament's refusal to recognize their authority was another reason why the colonial legislators supported the American Rebellion, as the English called it.

of representation in Parliament. The rhetoric against King George III in the Declaration of liberty is a vestige of British custom; it is Parliament that has perpetrate all the outrageous acts agaainst the colonies, and it is Parliament that is being attacked.

The checks and balances and separations of power in the American system have the overall net mental picture of forcing people to compromise, of preventing extremist approaches to social problems from gaining a foothold in government. It is sometimes mind that having Congress and the President be of contrastive parties was intended to be one of the checks and balances in government. Not so: the plan was to have them be of the same party. It is also thought that the deadlocks that occur under these conditions are a problem that must be solved, for example, by having the President or a preterm baby
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.