The Prime Minister has the power to call an election by advising the Governor General to dissolve the House of Representatives. He also has the power to appoint and dismiss the Minister. The US President does not have that power of the UK Prime Minister to dissolve the Senate or the Congress. A prime minister can, for instance, theoretically take Britain into war without either a vote in the House of Commons or a meeting of the Cabinet. The US President does not have the power to take America into a major war all by himself. He needs the support of the Congress and the Senate. In 1991, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the elder Bush managed to win only 250 votes in the House of Representatives for a war resolution, and only 52 votes in the Senate. Earlier this month, the younger Bush's Iraq resolution passed the Houses with 296 votes and the Senate with 75 votes.
In the media, the US President serves both role as the figure head of the US and head of the government. His cabinet officers and judicial nominees must all be approved by the Senate, and any one senator can delay an appointment almost indefinitely. The president's budget is a mere suggestion that Congress rewrites at its pleasure. Nor do presidents control their political organizations: four of the past seven presidents - George Bush Senior, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson - failed to win re-election after a primary challenge from within their own parties. Presidents have to worry about holding their cabinets together.
Nothing will destroy the legitimacy of a presidency faster than any credible hint that the president is risking the lives of American servicemen for personal advantage. Whatever small credibility President Clinton had among Republicans, he lost by ordering a missile attack on Sudan three days after his grand jury testimony in August 1998 - and then approving Operation Desert Fox to begin two days before the House of Representatives' impeachment vote in December 1998. The constitution gives the U.S. President much scope but a little power.
The above evidences show that the British Prime Minister has more power than the US President within his respective political system. The US President’s powers line with the written Constitution where the UK does not have one. That would give the British Prime Minister more flexible in exercising his power.
Compared to the British parliamentary system, America's congressional-presidential system has many disadvantages. It is slow; it often produces sloppy laws and muddled compromises. But it has one great advantage: while Parliament is organized to produce the sharpest possible divisions between the Government and the Opposition, Congress and the presidency are organized to produce something approaching a national consensus on the most important issues. Therefore, I think the British system would enable the popular will to be translated into concrete policies. Due to the slow process of making law, the majority may not sometimes win the right to pass a law. In Britain, the consensus is more important. The British traditions of public debating in the House enable the majority translate issues into law. Thus, Britain does not have a written Constitution; it is easier to adapt to fit specific needs.
