• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

'The President faces considerable constraints in domestic policy in comparison to the UK Prime Minister' Discuss.

Extracts from this document...


'The President faces considerable constraints in domestic policy in comparison to the UK prime Minister' Discuss. To say that Clinton faced considerable constraints would be to recognise the setbacks he faced during his Presidency, in terms of sleaze and also in terms of his political agenda. Most infamously, Bill & Hilary's failed attempt to reform the healthcare system in 1993/4. Blair's 'Devolution Act 1997' -which was in essence a major constitutional change- was passed with startling simplicity especially when considered with the difficulty Clinton and countless other Presidents have faced in passing the simplest laws. The ways in which both Premiers are constrained must be considered in detail in order to make an effective comparison of the two systems. The constraints faced by the Prime Minister in passing legislation are minimal. With a large enough majority in parliament, a Prime Minister is able to pass the most constitutionally radical laws, (with a one-year delay from the House of Lords being the only formal threat to its passing.) In the USA, any legislative success is dependent almost entirely on congressional approval. The presidents has the solitary legislative power of veto, which is entirely negative, and even this can be overridden with 2/3rds majority in both houses. Law making in the UK is often dependent on the size of the government majority, which is -due to the First-Past-The-Post electoral system- often large. ...read more.


The president often also uses his cabinet to reward loyalty and repay political debts to people. The PM must also have a political and social balance the cabinet (e.g. Prescott and Short were the representatives for old labour ideal in Blair's cabinet,) and must pick an able Cabinet as they will have a job that is constantly in the public eye. A PM who does not include a variety of views in their cabinet can become isolated, as was seen towards the end of Thatcher's government in the late 1980s. If the PM has a small Majority then the amount of people a cabinet can be selected from is minimal. Both the President and the Prime Minister require Cabinet appointees to be ambitious and enthusiastic about the job, in the UK a dissident MP such as Dennis Skinner would not do Blair any good by having his in his Cabinet and in the US, congressmen simply do not see the job as cabinet minister to be important or desirable. The PM is more constrained than the President in terms of Cabinet appointees as there are much fewer people to choose from, however the UK and USA cabinets are very different in terms of domestic power and credence and so perhaps it is justified that the more important Cabinet is the harder to fill with incompetent ministers. ...read more.


This was seen as autocratic and so led to legislation being passed to prevent this from happening again. The PM has distinctly more power than the President in that he has a potentially unlimited time in office. This however, has some advantages as it means that a PM never has a 'lame-duck' period. The UK PM is less constrained than the US President in most matters of domestic policy, and it could be argued that the ones he is more constrained in because the issue is not as important in the US (e.g. the President's cabinet has much less authority and is much less accountable than the PM's cabinet and so the PM is justifiably more constrained in who he appoints into it.) Harry Truman said about the limits of presidential power. "I sit here all day trying to persuade people to do the things they ought to have the sense to do without me persuading them to. That's all the powers of the President amount to." The Prime Minister has whips and party discipline in order to keep people working without this degree of persuasion. The President does face considerably more constraints with regards to domestic policy than the Prime Minister, but the USA is also a considerably larger and more ethnically, socially and geographically diverse country to try to represent domestically without sufficient scrutiny and control than the UK. 1 NATHAN GRIFFIN, 13 LER- POLITICS 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United States section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United States essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Consider the view that the arguments for having an electoral college to elect the ...

    5 star(s)

    It is unlikely, however, that this reform would take place as it would require a constitutional amendment - something the small and / or more conservative states would undoubtedly be against.

  2. Compare and contrast the extent to which the Cabinet has an important part to ...

    Nevertheless however Congress is the only place in which legislation can be introduced and passed and therefore all legislative powers truly do lie with Congress thus in terms of legislation the Cabinet do not have a major role to play as the Executive doesn't.

  1. Using examples, explain the limitations on the Supreme Courts powers.How do Presidents veto legislation, ...

    The president may 'leave the bill on his desk' because they have position on the bill or because he would like to veto the bill but knows it would result in being overridden, this bill will become law without his signature within 10 congressional working days.

  2. How far does the president only have the power to pursuade

    and Sonya Sotimayor to the Supreme Court based solely on their opposing political views and no legitimate reason why the president's nominations should not be confirmed. Essentially, the President should not have to "persuade" Congress to confirm the nominations as this should be done automatically unless there is a legitimate reason to object.

  1. The US President is more powerful as a world statesman than the UK Prime ...

    Often a President can manipulate Congress to his own means to give off the appearance of a united front as in the case of Bush's appeal for support for Iraq in September 2002. This ability by President to overturn public and congressional opinion in order to compliment his means is referred to as "prerogative powers."

  2. US pressures groups are undemocratic, discuss

    As result, people claim that pressure groups are not merely there to cause injustice but to exert justice into the political world. Groups can also enhance the two fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association. In a country like the Unites States, with a participatory tradition and

  1. The power of the President is limited to the power to persuade. Discuss.

    by vetoing or signing them, draft a budget (which Congress is usually disinclined to tamper with significantly)

  2. Critically analyse the appointment and confirmation process for nominees in the US Supreme Court

    It allows them to place political allies and sympathisers in another branch of the federal government?[5]. This trait is evident it federal courts too as 93% of Lyndon Johnsons appointments to federal judgeships were Democrats, where was 93% of Richard Nixon?s were Republican[6].

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work