why din't have prime minister for America
Answers
Answered by
1
|-|!!!!!! GΠ¥$ ..............
Because the authors of the United States Constitution decided against the Parliamentary model, and instead established a new Constitutional Republican model of government that was grounded in two basic principles: separation of powers and checks and balances. Under the Parliamentary model, the executive and administrative powers of government are closely intertwined with the legislative powers. The creators of the US Constitution, most of whom were architects of and participants in the American Revolution, were of the opinion that this intertwining leads to abuse of power. In the British variant of the Parliamentary System, the will of the majority of legislators had no effective opposition to restrain it because the legislators controlled the Prime Minister. The founders believed that the power of government must be held in check, and so they chose to create an independent Executive branch of government, headed by a President who has veto power over legislation, and who is elected by Electors chosen by the various states rather than by legislators*. The President, in turn, is held in check by the powers of the Legislative branch to override a veto and also by the power of impeachment. This structure, along with nuances like the different terms of office (2 year terms for Representatives, 6 year staggered terms for Senators, and 4 year terms for President), not to mention the also independent Judicial branch, have been quite effective at restraining the abuse of government power - though some might argue that in our modern age it is not proving to be effective enough at stopping certain abuses, and others might argue that it is proving to be too much of an impediment to effective use of good and proper government powers!
|-|∆¶£
!T
|-|£L¶
¥∆Π
Because the authors of the United States Constitution decided against the Parliamentary model, and instead established a new Constitutional Republican model of government that was grounded in two basic principles: separation of powers and checks and balances. Under the Parliamentary model, the executive and administrative powers of government are closely intertwined with the legislative powers. The creators of the US Constitution, most of whom were architects of and participants in the American Revolution, were of the opinion that this intertwining leads to abuse of power. In the British variant of the Parliamentary System, the will of the majority of legislators had no effective opposition to restrain it because the legislators controlled the Prime Minister. The founders believed that the power of government must be held in check, and so they chose to create an independent Executive branch of government, headed by a President who has veto power over legislation, and who is elected by Electors chosen by the various states rather than by legislators*. The President, in turn, is held in check by the powers of the Legislative branch to override a veto and also by the power of impeachment. This structure, along with nuances like the different terms of office (2 year terms for Representatives, 6 year staggered terms for Senators, and 4 year terms for President), not to mention the also independent Judicial branch, have been quite effective at restraining the abuse of government power - though some might argue that in our modern age it is not proving to be effective enough at stopping certain abuses, and others might argue that it is proving to be too much of an impediment to effective use of good and proper government powers!
|-|∆¶£
!T
|-|£L¶
¥∆Π
Similar questions