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. This essay will firstly be an argument specifically on how to distinguish between the two nations in terms of how their constitutions work and precisely how they name their house or chambers differently. More than that, will analysed the process of passing legislature along with deeply scrutinised into the funding utilities and explained the separation of power within Great Britain and the United States accordingly. With the intention to stem the knowledge and to get a better sense of how these countries structure their executive and legislature bodies, one will subsequently gain more understanding that can be further adapted in the real world. First of all, 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. This include nations 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 this possibly thereby caused ambiguity and uncertainty of conflict as it is not clearly written at all. Meanwhile, two parliaments in the United States and Great Britain are also named differently. On the one hand, the United States named his own chambers ‘House of Representative’ and ‘Senate’. On the other hand, two parliamentary systems in Great Britain are called ‘House of Common’ and ‘House of Lords’. Furthermore, they rank and obtain abilities to control over the bill being passed in a respective order. Thereby, the House of Lords are appointed by heritage albeit some of them are experts in particular field that will be useful to make important decision whether to approve or prospone bills that have been approved by the lower chamber (House of Common) for up to two years long. Further noted that veto is basically to reject something. Additionally, the head of the state is the monarch, which of course is unelected by the people themselves but rather be someone who is largely selected traditionally. Onwards to the monarch, they are known to be the final judgement whether to pass or reject the bills pass from both parliament. Then, the will that have been approved by the monarch will be implement into an actual policy or brings into practical action. Despite all of the following procedures, the structural of the executive and legislative bodies though shared certain similarity as the United States also applied the bi-cameral system or two chambers in the executive branch but named their own chambers differently. In the United States, they named the first chamber as the ‘House of Representative’ while the Senate is the upper one. More importantly, in the United States, they do not have ceremonial power like Great Britain since only the President will worked and held the position on both executive and ceremonial power simultaneously. 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. Notwithstanding the fact 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. Likewise, 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. 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 particularly 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. Having said that in mind, there are limitations to the political system that are applied in other countries and each of them will have slightly ways to adapt or even adjust according to their own tradition.