[OT] Prime Minister/ Parliament vs. President/Congress?

[Storm Raven]

Nearly there - the Law Lords here in Britain are not Members of Parliament, but members of the House of Lords.

Isn't the House of Lords part of Parliament?

 

[hong]

Isn't the House of Lords part of Parliament?

Shh! It's a secret.

 

[med stud]

If I got the US system right, there is a governmental body that make proposals (the congress) and a governmental body that approves or turns down the proposals (the president). In US, you vote for them separatly.

In Sweden (maybe in the other parlamentaristic states too) we vote for the parlament (which is like US congress) first, and the the parlament votes for the government (which is like US president).

 

[DM_Matt]

I know of two countries with directly elected leaders and a parliamentary system. (Quite Odd)

1. France: In addition to the prime minister, a president, no necessarily of the same party as the Prime Minister, is directly elected, and the two share power somewhat. When they are of different parties, it is called "Cohabitation."

2. Israel: The Prime Minister (and a figurehead president) is elected directly by the populace, and parliament (called the Kinesset) is elected at the same time in a fashion that allows many small parties to get seats. The Prime Minister must then put together a coalition of parties that establishes a majority. Pretty much all Prime Ministers are from one of the two major parties. The ability for fringe parties to get into parliament, and the degree to which those small groups of votes are vital to keeping the prime minister in power (neither major party ever has a majority) by keeping him just over that majority marker. This makes the peace virtually impossible to be achieved, because the more extreme parties often have the ability to topple the government. (Currently, the two major parties have joined in a coalition, making this a rare time where their odd constitution doesnt utterly prevent the possibility of peace)

 

[gustavef]

This is rot. The parliamentary systems in place in many modern democracies may have their faults, but the possibility of direct intervention by the monarch is not one of them.

I did not mean to offend nor did I ever intend to say the invervention was a good or bad thing. Mearly to point out some interesting differences between the two. Maybe I should of also stated that the US Congress can remove the president.

Now on to some other tidbits. There are a few countries (I think Central and South American) that both a Prime Minister which is elected by the Parlament, and a President that is elected by the people.

England is one of the few Bi-Cameral Parlaments, in that it has the House of Lord, and the House of Commons. Similar to the US Senate and House of Representives. Other Parlamentray governments only have one house.

-gustavef, only mentioning interesting tidbits with out any mean to offend.

 

[Storm Raven]

If I got the US system right, there is a governmental body that make proposals (the congress) and a governmental body that approves or turns down the proposals (the president). In US, you vote for them separatly.

Sort of.

The Legislative branch of government is the Congress (which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate) has the power to pass legislation. Only Congress may pass legislation.

The Executive branch of government is the President (the President himself and such inferior officers and agencies as he may designate, although this is usually done with the consent of Congress for things like appropriations of money to fund their activities). The President has the power to veto any act of Congress, but has no formal positive power to enact legislation. If Congress chooses not to enact a particular piece of legislation, the President has no means to require that they do so.

Congress can override a Presidential veto by passing a vetoed piece of legislation again if two-thirds of the Representatives and Senators vote in favor of the override.

The Judicial branch of government is the Supreme Court (and such inferior courts as may be created by law). The judiciary may overturn any Act of Congress or action of the Presidency if it determines as a result of a case presented to it, that such government action has violated the Constitution of the United States or some other law to which the actor in question is subordinate to (for example, if a valid Act of Congress imposes a duty upon the Presidency not to do something and the President ignores this directive, the Supreme Court can prevent the President from ignoring the Act, so long as a case concerning that issue is presented to it by a real party in interest).

 

[Tiberius]

England is one of the few Bi-Cameral Parlaments, in that it has the House of Lord, and the House of Commons.

IIRC, this seems to be on its way out. I seem to recall that, for reasons which I will never fathom, the House of Lords has recently been whittled down to 90 or so hereditary peers (maybe less). Any Brits care to confirm this (and/or explain to me why this is occurring)?

-Tiberius

 

[Vaxalon]

The power of the House of Lords has been in decline for decades... perhaps centuries. If they ever get rid of the Royals, they'll probably get rid of the HoL at the same time.

 

[Corinth]

But what would the world do without England's longest-running sit-com troupe?

 

[Viking Bastard]

Here in Iceland we use the parlament thingy.

The judge system is also seperate from the rest of the government.

And we have a President, elected seperately every four years, which has very little actual political power. The President's role is twofold: To be the 'face' of Iceland, it's ambassador to the world (usually consists of a lot of waving and baby hugging) and to make sure the government doesn't exploit it's power. He can call for a vote of no confidence against the government (or an individual politician) and he has to sign, to 'approve of', all laws issued. If he doesn't like 'em he can call for a general election and let the people decide.