How does the relationship between the American executive and legislature differ from that of Great Britain or other parliamentary states?

The fundamental relationship between the American executive and legislature have had massive difference facets from that of Great Britain and parliamentary system in other states for numerous reasons. In this essay, will be argued specifically how exactly that the American executive and legislative branch are to be distinguish from that of Great Britain and a variety of other nations globally in depth details. Alongside, this essay will also illustrate the similarity that both nations shared in common as well as with other countries around the world. First of all, the unique point whereby Great Britain is differed from the American counterpart is that dissimilar from the American executive and legislature, the constitution in Great Britain is known to be one of the few countries in the world which have unwritten constitution in a single document. Despite that, the structural of the executive and legislative bodies though shared certain similarity such as both applied the bi-cameral system or two chambers in the executive branch. They named two parliaments in the United States and Great Britain differently. On the one hand, the United States named his own chamber, House of Representative and Senate whilst on the other hand, two parliamentary system in Great Britain are called House of Common and House of Lords in which rank and able to have abilities to control over the bill being passed in a respective order. Nevertheless, the function of House of Common and House of Lords though worked simultaneously except for the main difference that members in the upper house are unable to veto the bills from the lower house rather they can withhold for two years long. On the contradictory, the head of the state in Great Britain is the monarch, which of course is unelected by the people themselves but rather be someone who is largely elected traditionally. Similarly, the majority of members in House of Lords also appoint by heritage albeit some of them are experts in particular field that will be useful to make important decision whether to approve or reject bills that have been approved by the lower chamber (House of Common). Juxtaposition to that, the head of the state in the United States will come from a four-year span election whereby the member of two major parties in the United States will either formed a coalition with the minority parties or elected their own representative of the parties, which then become the candidate to be president and united head of each ministry branches namely foreign affairs, agriculture, education, commerce and even homeland and security. Additionally, noted that the head of executive and ceremonial power in the United States is the same person whereas in Britain the ceremonial power lies in monarch, which left the executive power to the hand of Prime Minister. In Great Britain, Prime Minster will operate the nation as a whole, however, the final judgement should pass from both parliament prior to being pass on to the monarch. All of these decision should have approval by the monarch before being an actual policy or brings into practical action. Asides, in the scope of the executive power of the United States, the President upheld the highest position amongst all of those who worked in the executive branch, noted that the President have no hierarchy in legislature and juridically parts at all. The following two duties and the executive are so called ”the separation of power”, meaning they are entirely unrelated to each other. This will therefore, reduced the chances of overruled power that may caused. Another contradiction to judiciary aspect is that in the United States, the Supreme Court is nominated only by the President of the United States. Controversially, most of the nations in the world will have constitution written in a single document similar to the United States while countries namely United Kingdom, Israel and New Zealand, all considered to have uncodified constitution. The major distinction of having uncodified and codified constitution is pending on flexibilities. Eventhough the latter can be more flexible than the former, it can be said that it possibly caused ambiguity and uncertainty of conflict as it is not clearly written at all. Another fundamental facet, the financial to spend in political system. Large contribution of money which were used by the United Kingdom’s political parties in the election held in 2017 for example, was approximately £40 million to campaign. However, there are no restriction on how individuals themselves can donated for their preferred candidates or parties. In contrast, during the presidential election the Senate and House contestant as well as political parties and interest group spent a fortune of $6. 5 billion over influence federal elections. “British parties are effectively year-round, in and out of election-year organisations in a way American parties aren’t, ” said Samuel Power, a lecturer at the University of Sussex. This reflected the proportion of money used to run the election and explained how vastly the United States actually gain throughout the election term. In conclusion, the differentiation of the executive and legislative bodies in the United States, United Kingdom and other nations are extremely exponential and its importance should not to be overlooked. Nonetheless, both countries split their own parliamentary system into two albeit distinguishing purposes that they were appointed for. To certain extension, the executive and legislative bodies from these two nationalities is being used as the ground of forming the executive and creating legislature in an array of countries global wide. As such,