Amanda Labrado

04/23/10
Homework #11

The Political Executive

1. Identify at least three powers of the president specified in the constitution.

A. Can pardon and reprieve offenses against the U.S. except in impeachment
B. Power to make treaties
C. Can “fill up vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate”

2. (a) What checks and balances exist in the U.S. Constitution related to war powers?

The states are kept in check by Congress and Congress keeps the Commander in chief, the
president, in check.

(b) Do they operate in real life as described in the Constitution? Explain.

Not exactly, for, the president gains implied powers such as the “ability to issue executive
orders and national security derivatives” (Hague 332)

3. (a) Describe the impeachment process.

Only the House of Representatives can impeach someone. The senate can try them. The
chief justice presides over them, and 2/3rds of congress have to agree on the impeachment.

(b) Do you think it’s too hard to remove a president from office? Explain.

Yes. It is hard to remove the president because the impeachment has to be proposed first
by the House, and then agreed on by the Senate – at this point the president must be tried.
Then once the president it tried and this offenses are presented to congress, Congress then
has to agree to impeach him. Therefore, it relies more on our government than on the
people to impeach unfortunately for us, or else Bush would have been impeached.

4. Consider the following scenarios:

I. Presidential system with a plurality electoral system.

II. Presidential system with a proportional representation electoral system.
III. Parliamentary system with a plurality electoral system.
IV. Parliamentary system with a proportional electoral system.

(a) List at least one country that represents an example of each scenario.

I. America
II. Brazil
III. Britain
IV. Sweden
(b) In which scenario can you expect the chief executive to have the most power? Why?

The presidential system with the plurality electoral system would have more power because
the president would have a greater chance of having a majority of their party in congress, and
their party’s majority in congress would allow the president more leeway to carry out the things
that he wants. Plus, there would only be two parties to deal with when issues need voting on,
rather than several.

(c) Which scenario(s) are most likely to produce public policy that represents political consensus.
Why?

The Parliamentary system with the proportional electoral system would represent the
political consensus more because they would have more parties in their parliament to represent
the views of the voters. In addition, the PM would only be in office if his or her party had good
ratings going for him, meaning that he would be removed if he did not have good rating because
he represents the party. This means that the people’s wishes matter more.

(d) In which scenario can you expect new elections to result in the greatest changes to public
policy? Why?

A Parliamentary system with a proportional electoral system because then people would be
more likely to vote on the party whose public policies they favor most, or the voters preferences
would be better represented.

(e) In which scenario can you expect new elections to result in the fewest changes to public
policy? Why?

A Presidential system with a proportional electoral system such as Brazil because their
Chamber of Deputies is split into 20 parties and their Senate was split into 12 and the presidnet’s
party was the minority in each chamber. “Parties are more numerous and less Cohesive” (Hague
332).

(f) Which scenario do you think is the best? Why?

The best scenario would be the Parliamentary system with the proportional electoral system.
The reason for this is because the parties in parliament are more cohesive and things get done
more quickly because a single party would “wield a majority” (Hague 336), resulting in more
cohesiveness. Also in a parliamentary system citizens are more likely to see the policies they
vote on put in play by their representatives because to stay a representative, representatives need
to have a high rating or else they are removed, meaning they must adhere to their constituents
demands.

5. (a) In a parliamentary system, how is the government formed?

“In a Parliamentary system the government is formed when the plurality method of
election delivers a working majority in the house of commons single party. The leader
becomes the Prime Minister and he selects twenty ro so parliamentary colleagues from the
same party to form the cabinet. The Cabinet is the focus of accountability to parliament
and the strongest PM cannot govern without its support” (Hague 336).

(b) Does the government always have to be composed of a single party or a coalition of parties
constituting a majority of seats in Parliament? Explain.

No. Britain’s single party often “wields” a majority, but this is “exceptional”, because most
parliamentary systems use PR, which rarely results in a majority of seats for one party
(Hague 336)

6. Describe at least three key differences between the French “semi-presidential system” and the
U.S. “presidential system”.

A. 5 year presidential term w/ no re-election limit – U.S. Pres. Has 4 year term allowed
twice.
B. Appoints the Prime Minister – U.S. Pres. Appoints about 1,200 people in the Exec.
Branch.
C. Cannot Veto Legislation –U.S. President can Veto Legislation (Hague 345)

7. Should the U.S. adopt a semi-presidential system like France? Present arguments in favor and
against.

Yes, the U.S. should adopt a semi-presidential system because it might better domestic
affairs with one person (The PM) concentrating on them, instead of the president trying to
deal with both foreign and domestic affairs; this way, the president will not base foreign
affair decisions on domestic affairs.

No, The U.S. Presidential system allows the president to preside over foreign and domestic
affairs equally, and a semi-presidential system would only make things worse in the
government given that there would be controversy over who the president can appoint as
prime minister; would it depend on his party? Or on votes?