hii mate
=========
Why do new democracies, even ones arising due to U.S. actions, opt to create a parliamentary system instead of one more like the U.S. Constitution?
====================
quality answer required
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Answers
Answered by
1
Timing is important here. The first Congress met when actual revolution was not a given, and Americans were still under British governmentand not yet decided on independence. Since a Parliament already existed during the lead-up to the American revolution, and Britain allowed for no ‘American Parliament,’ a Congress was instead assembled. As that Congress began to acquire more powers -moving from written protests, to a boycott of trade to arming to eventual independence, it used the same name and took the same form.
But there’s several reasons. Historically, Parliament has its roots in parlay, it is a device intended for a group of people to talk to a monarch, the Congress is a device of republican government and people power. Even if both are a little similar today. A Parliament, whatever its current function, has its roots in being a King’s council, with very restricted membership, along with an elected body of Commons designed to ‘talk’ to the King. It gradually grabbed functioning power from the monarch, but that was the root. A Congress has it’s origins in ‘coming together’ it is an assemblage of peers and possesses in and of itself sovereign power.
The unpopularity of Parliament would be a strong reason why Americans did not set up one. The UK parliament was the focus of anger from Americans during the revolutionary period, so it was not likely American colonists would adopt the name. While a quasi-democratic/representative body, it was not very representative and at least in America it was felt that its rules were arbitrary.
Finally, the Parliament has the executive and legislative in one body, and Americans decided to split those powers among equally powerful branches. Americans were concerned about the executive being subject to horse-trading of the legislative branch (this is not entirely avoided.)
But there’s several reasons. Historically, Parliament has its roots in parlay, it is a device intended for a group of people to talk to a monarch, the Congress is a device of republican government and people power. Even if both are a little similar today. A Parliament, whatever its current function, has its roots in being a King’s council, with very restricted membership, along with an elected body of Commons designed to ‘talk’ to the King. It gradually grabbed functioning power from the monarch, but that was the root. A Congress has it’s origins in ‘coming together’ it is an assemblage of peers and possesses in and of itself sovereign power.
The unpopularity of Parliament would be a strong reason why Americans did not set up one. The UK parliament was the focus of anger from Americans during the revolutionary period, so it was not likely American colonists would adopt the name. While a quasi-democratic/representative body, it was not very representative and at least in America it was felt that its rules were arbitrary.
Finally, the Parliament has the executive and legislative in one body, and Americans decided to split those powers among equally powerful branches. Americans were concerned about the executive being subject to horse-trading of the legislative branch (this is not entirely avoided.)
Similar questions