Most of congresses oversight comes from congressional committees as unlike in Britain congress cannot hold question time as the executive is not present in congress so it is only in committees that members of congress can directly question the executive. There is much evidence to suggest that congressional oversight is only effective when the controlling party in congress and the presidents party remain distinct due to that idea that when they are not, oversight and the scrutiny that comes parallel to it, would do the executive unnecessary harm, in the words of David Broder 'no Republican committee chairman wanted to turn over rocks in a Republican administration'. This argument is highlighted by the fact that almost all of the senates rejection of presidential appointments existed in a time when the presidents party did not control congress, for example, the democrat senate's rejection of George H W Bush's appointment of John Tower to secretary of defence and the republican senate's rejection of Clinton's nuclear test ban treaty. The most noticeable example however comes from George Bush JNR's time in office where for the majority of his first 6 years in power he held a republican congress. During this time of lapdog congress, congressional oversight was practically non existent with a measly 37
2091) Though, there could be some delegation within that matter to argue that the President does not have the full powers of war because they are not “implicitly delegated” by the Congress to the President. In response to this: this is where the AUMF gives the President the right to use the powers of war implied to him by Congress, through which he is allowed to do within the law of war. Behind this allegation of the Presidentʼs war powers based on Congress, the Judiciary and Political branches support this theory that in need of protecting the country from foreign lands, the President has the right to act with military force without consulting Congress at force, as long as it is within the laws of war. Bradley and Goldsmith go on to say “...in the absence of express congressional restriction, the only limitations on presidential power during wartime were the laws of war.” (Bradley & Goldsmith, pg. 2092) In the court case of Brown v. United States, Brown argued that the laws of war were broken when the President tried to take over some land that was under the ownership of the enemy forces after the War of 1812.
Sovereignty is in essence ultimate and unchallengeable power, the location of sovereignty in the UK in recent years has changed from one single power and devolved into many unions, treaties and nations within the UK and EU. Parliament is the only body that can make law in the UK. No other authority can overrule or change the laws which the parliament has made. This, then gives the statute law more power and priority over the other sources of the constitutions. This then allows the parliament to change or repeal any law it wants and is also not bounded by the laws made by the previous parliaments.
It can be argued that the UK constitution is too flexible. The lack of clearly defined roles (separation of powers) means that theoretically an electoral dictatorship could occur. For example in 1997 Tony Blaire’s government passed a series of laws without any difficulty. Devolution, human rights act and freedom of information were all acts set by the priminister and his cabinet (the executive) which went relatively unchecked by the opposition (legislative). This demonstrates how a lack of separation of powers/checks and balances would only come about from and uncodified/flexible constitution.
If he can simply ignore laws he doesn’t want to enforce for whatever reason, what keeps him from simply doing what he wants and ignoring the congress of the United States? If he doesn’t like the fact that congress does not support him on some aspect of what is happening, he can simply issue an edict in the form of an executive order and he has bypassed the legal process for running this country. In effect, he is a monarch, a
This ensures no one man or group can have complete control. The president's vetoes can be overrun by congress, their bills can be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. They can be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate. The President only Represents 1/3 of the power in the Government. The Government places too much power in the hands of the president.
When the executive branch is made of a majority of one party and the legislative branch is made up of a majority of a different party. Stalemates on policies may happen, but for the most part, the system protects against that. In 2011, the national debt ceiling debate resulted in a stalemate. House Republicans and Senate Democrats halted legislation when they could not reach a compromise (Bingham, 2011)). Even though the representatives are elected to promote the will of the people, sometimes is seems as if they are working towards their own agenda.
If for say he wants one specific law that is still in committee to be passed he could say that he will veto every bill until that comes across his desk. Recently President Obama vetoed the Keystone Pipeline act (Geman, 2011); because it was attached to a Payroll Tax cut that was attempted by the Current Party in power. This is one example of how the POTUS can use veto power to influence law. While the POTUS is also the Domestic Leader, he can use current situations to influence law and public policy. During their tenure the President is expected to have a finger on the pulse of the domestic needs of America.
* In theory then, the American President has much more power than the British Prime Minister - he is the commander-in-chief and has the power to issue executive orders which have the full force of law. However, the constitutional system of 'checks and balances' seriously circumscribes the power of the US President who often finds it really difficult to push legislation through Congress. By contrast, a British Prime Minister usually heads a government with a majority of seats in the House of Commons and the ability to pass almost any legislation that he wishes. * In the United States, the transition period between the election of a new president and that person's inaugration is two and half months. In Britain, the changeover of Prime Ministers is virtually immediate - within hours of the election result, one person leaves 10 Downing Street and within the following hour the successor enters
The presidency comes with vast arrays of roles and responsibilities: approving/vetoing every bill passed, making sure laws made by congress are carried out, and simply presiding over meetings of the association. But the presidents many responsibilities are constrained due to the Separation of powers, the Constitution, and Federalism. Without these constraints, the President would have all the power he wanted, essentially having a monarchy not a democracy. For instance, separation of powers creates three separate branches of government, each with their own special powers. The Constitution creates reliability, making the president co-operate with the other branches of government.