This task links to the Course Assessment Specification (CAS): The executive branch - the distribution of power & the policy-making function.

Watch the video above that outlines 8 broad functions of the UK PM, Boris Johnson.

Note that the video does not offer a critique or analysis of Johnson as a PM. The purpose of the video is simply to identify the role of the PM.

Once you have watched the video, I would like you to consider the following points and, if you can, offer your views as a comment below:

1. One of the most important roles that the PM has had to demonstrate in recent months is effective national leadership. Leading the country through the Covid-19 pandemic was, without doubt, a difficult task. The UN defines good governance as 'participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive, and follows the rule of law. Furthermore, it seeks to ensure that corruption is minimised, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive both to the present and future needs of society'. Using this definition, to what extent do you feel that Johnson has been effective in his national leadership during the pandemic?

2. The UK and USA have what is known as a 'special relationship'. The US Embassy in the UK states, 'The United States has no closer ally than the United Kingdom, and British foreign policy emphasises close coordination with the United States. Bilateral cooperation reflects the common language, ideals, and democratic practices of the two nations. Relations were strengthened by the United Kingdom’s alliance with the United States during both World Wars, in the Korean conflict, in the Persian Gulf War, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and in Afghanistan, as well as through its role as a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The United Kingdom and the United States continually consult on foreign policy issues and global problems and share major foreign and security policy objectives.' Do you think that this relationship is important to maintain? What could be the downsides of such a relationship? What could be described as an advantage of this relationship to the UK and the USA? Is the relationship in decline?

Take a look at these articles for more detail on the relationship:

The Guardian

BBC News

Al Jazeera

Trump press conference

This task links to the Course Assessment Specification (CAS): The executive branch -the distribution of power & the relationship between the executive and other branches of government.

What is the separation of powers?

The doctrine of the separation of powers requires that the principal institutions of state—executive, legislature and judiciary—should be clearly divided in order to safeguard citizens’ liberties and guard against tyranny.

One of the earliest and clearest statements of the separation of powers was given by French social commentator and political thinker Montesquieu in 1748:

‘When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty... there is no liberty if the powers of judging is not separated from the legislative and executive... there would be an end to everything, if the same man or the same body... were to exercise those three powers.’

According to a strict interpretation of the separation of powers, none of the three branches may exercise the power of the other, nor should any person be a member of any two of the branches.

By creating separate institutions it is possible to have a system of checks and balances between them. But the United Kingdom does not have a classic separation of powers that, for example applies in the United States.

Answer the following questions and upload your responses to your student folder:

1) What are the three principal branches of state in the UK? (1 mark)

2) For each of the three branches, name the main organisations or bodies considered part of that branch. (3 marks)

3) What is the main role of each of the branches? (3 marks)

4) Draw a diagram to illustrate the powers of state. (1 mark)

5) Why do you think Montesquieu was so concerned about the same person or body exercising more than one of those three powers? (1 mark)

These questions were taken from the UK Supreme Court educational platform.

This task links to the Course Assessment Specification (CAS): The executive branch -the distribution of power & the relationship between the executive and other branches of government.

We now need to examine the powers of the UK PM in greater depth. We are going to look into the following areas of the powers of the PM:

1. Fiscal powers (the influence and control the executive holds over the economic matters of state)

2. Powers of patronage (the power to appoint individuals to positions of power)

3. The power relationship between the executive and the other branches of power: the legislature and the judiciary.

By examining these three areas of power we can understand the extent of the executive's influence and power.

Fiscal Powers

Fiscal Powers refers to the influence and control the executive holds over the economic matters of state. This power is primarily exercised through the budget, announced for each financial year. The UK budget is presented as a fait accompli (a thing that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it, leaving them with no option but to accept it) by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whilst it can be debated within parliament, it cannot be voted upon, or rejected.

This means that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor can be very influential with the executive's economic policy, as they do not need to consult the official opposition (Currently the Labour Party) or any other political parties. Therefore, there is no restriction on the influence of the PM over economic matters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak addressed important economic aspects of the British political system in his budget announced in March 2020. He pledged the largest cash increase in public services since the Second World War - an additional £33.9 billion per year by 2024. The Corona virus impacted this particular budget and Sunak responded with an announcement of £12 billion for temporary, timely and targeted measures to provide security and stability for people and businesses.

Fiscal policy is almost exclusively controlled by the UK government. Devolved administrations have had very limited control over their own budgets, which are mostly sustained by block grants from the UK government. Nevertheless, recent legislation has provided more autonomy to the devolved governments over the tax rates. Local authorities (councils) are entitled to raise and set the rate of a domestic property tax (Council Tax). The remaining revenues are transfers from the central government and charges for services provisions. Local authorities also retain 50% of national non-domestic rates (business rates) collected in their jurisdiction. The large majority of tax revenues (95%) are collected by the central UK government and are then redistributed.  The size of the block grants that the UK government allocates to the devolved administrations is based on the long-standing 'Barnett Formula', whereby the devolved administrations are given a proportionate share of spending on devolved functions, given their populations compared to that of England.

This highlights the strong fiscal powers and influence of the UK executive.

Powers of patronage

The Prime Minister may appoint his/her own cabinet, and appointments do not have to be approved by parliament. Thus, they have free will over the higher levels of government, and may place key allies in strong roles so that the PM's influence stretches beyond the individual prime minister. For example, Dominic Raab was appointed foreign secretary and first secretary of state in Boris Johnson's first cabinet in July and remains in post. A staunch Brexiteer, Mr Raab served as a justice minister in 2015, but was sacked by Theresa May when she became prime minister the following year. He made a return as Brexit secretary in July 2018 after the resignation of David Davis, but quit only months later in opposition to Mrs May’s Brexit deal. Raab would later deputise for Johnson following the PM's time spent in intensive care after contracting Covid-19 in April 2020.

The PM's power to appoint and dismiss government ministers particularly at cabinet level, means that he/she is able to exert significant power. In theory, a PM may create a cabinet in their image, rewarding supporters and penalising disloyal MPs.

That said, a PM may wish to appoint ministers from different parts of the country and maintain an ideological balance so that his/her cabinet does not have too many ministers favouring one type of view(Remain/Leave/Thatcherite/One-nationist or in a Labour government: Remain/Leave/democratic socialist/Marxist etc)

The PM is permitted to reshuffle his/her cabinet when they see fit. This could be motivated by a number of things: a desire to freshen up the cabinet or perhaps to rid the party of disloyal or rival ministers.

Collective ministerial responsibility ensures a unified executive. This is the principle that ministers must support cabinet decisions or resign from the government. It means that decisions made in the cabinet are binding & secrecy must be upheld. Formal exceptions to the principle of collective ministerial responsibility exist in relation to voting in referendums, in a coalition government and in relation to free votes (also known as an unwhipped vote - is one in which MPs or members of the Lords are not put under pressure to vote a certain way by their party leaders. Free votes have traditionally been allowed on ethical issues that are seen as a matter of conscience.)

It would seem, therefore that the PM wields enormous power in relation to the powers of patronage.  However, the PM does need the support of cabinet ministers in order to achieve his or her objectives. No PM is able to exercise a monopoly on power - they must work with the ministers.

The relationship between the executive and the other branches of power: the legislative branch and the judiciary

The executive and judiciary

The term 'judiciary' refers collectively to all UK judges from lay magistrates and those serving on tribunals right up to the 12 senior justices sitting in the UK Supreme Court. 

In the UK appointments of justices to the Supreme Court are not politicised, ie: they are not political appointments. Judges are appointed by the monarch, on recommendation of the Prime Minister, who is informed by a special commission, of lawyers, political leaders and judges. UK Judges are appointed on merit, with little to no regard for their political affiliation.This means that the Prime Minister's influence over the judiciary is restricted, as they do not make appointments themselves, nor choose candidates, and so their political influence cannot be shown within the Supreme Court. The UK Supreme Court is currently led by Lord Reed, who took his seat in February 2012. Lord Reed is not a political representative of the executive. His powers are separate and distinct from the executive.

Of course, it is impossible to guarantee judicial neutrality.  However, judges are not permitted to take part in any political activity (such as campaigning for a political party), but they can vote. Judges must explain their decisions and their justifications must be rooted in law not personal or political bias.

The executive and the legislative branch

The PM faces scrutiny from Parliament. The Prime Minister and cabinet ministers can be asked to appear before a committee to explain their actions over their actions. The ability to scrutinise the executive via Select Committees is limited in some respects as they cannot compel the executive to do anything.

In 2011, David Cameron was called to appear in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee to explain his actions regarding UK military operations in Libya. Cameron did not attend as he believed that he had already explained his reasons in Parliament.

The Committee's report published in September 2016 stated that:

'In March 2011, the United Kingdom and France, with the support of the United States, led the international community to support an intervention in Libya to protect civilians from attacks by forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. This policy was not informed by accurate intelligence. In particular, the Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element. By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa. Through his decision making in the National Security Council, former Prime Minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.'

While the Committee was damming of the UK executive's actions in Libya, it was only able to report the findings of its investigation and suggest recommendations. The executive was and is not required to follow up on or act upon such reports.

The executive, legislative branch and the judiciary

On 28 August 2019, the Parliament of the United Kingdom was ordered to be prorogued by Queen Elizabeth II upon the advice of the prime minister, Boris Johnson. The prorogation, or suspension, of Parliament was to be effective from between 9 and 12 September 2019 and last until the State Opening of Parliament on 14 October 2019; following political opposition, Parliament was suspended between 10 September and 24 September. Since Parliament was to be prorogued for five weeks and reconvene just 17 days before the United Kingdom's scheduled departure from the European Union on 31 October 2019, the move was seen by many opposition politicians and political commentators as a controversial and unconstitutional attempt by the prime minister to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's Brexit plans in those final weeks leading up to Brexit. Johnson and his Government defended the prorogation of Parliament as a routine political process that ordinarily follows the selection of a new prime minister and would allow the Government to refocus on a legislative agenda. Watch more here.

On 24 September, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the prorogation was both justiciable and unlawful, and therefore null and of no effect. The court cited the Case of Proclamations (1611), in which the High Court of Justice asserted its power to test the existence of limits of prerogative powers, in answering the question of justiciability; in the case of prorogation, use of the Royal Prerogative must have respect for the conventions of parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. The court ruled that any prorogation would be unlawful "if it has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature"; if this is the case, there would be no need to rule on whether the motives of the executive were lawful.

The court further ruled that the prorogation of Parliament did have the effect of frustrating Parliament's constitutional functions; the court found that the suspension of Parliament in the prelude to the "fundamental [constitutional] change" of Brexit had an "extreme" effect on the "fundamentals of democracy". The court also found that the Government had not provided a justification for the prorogation nor for its length or its effect on the requirement for parliamentary scrutiny of any withdrawal agreement under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As a result, the Court quashed the relevant Order in Council, which meant the effect of the royal proclamation of prorogation had the legal effect of "a blank piece of paper" and reverted the 2017–19 Parliament into being in session. Watch more on this here.

This case study highlights the restrictions on the powers of the executive, the ability of the legislative branch (the House of Commons and Lords = UK Parliament) to scrutinise and check the actions of the executive and the judiciaries ability to check that, in this case, the executive was or was not acting ultra vires (From the Latin, meaning 'beyond the authority' or 'beyond one's powers' - basically this means that the judiciary is able to check to see if the executive (and other organisations) is acting beyond the authority granted to them in law.)

Your task is to read the text above and respond to the following question:

“Separation of powers” refers to the idea that the major institutions of state should be functionally independent and that no individual should have powers that span these offices. (The principal institutions are usually taken to be the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.)

Do you think there is a distinct separation of powers in the UK system? Provide at least one argument for and one against the idea that the UK system enjoys a total separation of powers. Add your views in the comments below:

This task links to the Course Assessment Specification (CAS): The executive branch -the distribution of power & the relationship between the executive and other branches of government.

Fusion of powers is a feature of some parliamentary forms of government, especially those following the Westminster system, where the executive and legislative branches of government are intermingled. It is contrasted with the European separation of powers found in presidential and semi-presidential forms of government where the legislative and executive powers are in origin separated by popular vote.

Fusion of powers exists in many, if not a majority of, parliamentary democracies, and does so by design. However, in all modern democratic polities the judicial branch of government is independent of the legislative and executive branches.

The system first arose as a result of political evolution in the United Kingdom over many centuries, as the powers of the monarch became constrained by Parliament. The term fusion of powers itself is believed to have been coined by the British constitutional expert Walter Bagehot.

Read the document from the House of Commons Library attached to the top of this post. Do you think that Bagehot was right? Is the UK more of fusion of powers rather than a separation of powers? Leave your comment below:

This task links to the Course Assessment Specification (CAS): The executive branch -the distribution of power & the relationship between the executive and other branches of government.

Access the Prezi presentation above or by clicking on this link . You will see the powers of the president and how they are and have been used by presidents.

Your task is to find examples of the following powers that Trump has used in his first term as President:

1. Negotiate treaties

2. Nominate Federal Judges

3. Pardon

4. Veto legislation

5. Nominate executive branch officials.

6. Submit the annual budget

7. Propose legislation

8. Sign legislation

9. Act as commander in chief (taking military action)

You may present your findings in any format. You can create a video using canva (accounts are free), Adobe Spark (accounts are free), a bullet pointed list, podcast or audio file, powerpoint presentation or any other format you choose. 

You may upload your research to your student folder.

This task links to the Course Assessment Specification (CAS): The executive branch -the distribution of power & the relationship between the executive and other branches of government.

We now need to examine the powers of the US President in greater depth. We are going to look into the following areas of the powers of the President:

1. Fiscal powers (the influence and control the executive holds over the economic matters of state)

2. Powers of patronage (the power to appoint individuals to positions of power)

3. The power relationship between the executive and the other branches of power: the legislature and the judiciary.

By examining these three areas of power we can understand the extent of the executive's influence and power.

Fiscal Powers

In the US, the budget is proposed by the executive, but then has to be voted upon and approved by Congress. This means that in order for the budget to be approved there has to be a cross-party agreement.

This can place a significant restriction on the fiscal power of the President. If a budget is not approved by the beginning of the new financial year, a government shutdown is triggered. The US faced the longest government shutdown in its history from late December 2018 to January 2019, lasting 35 days. This shutdown cost the US economy around $11 billion, and temporarily shut down a quarter of all government activities. The shutdown emerged as a result of disagreements over funding for President Trump’s border wall between the US and Mexico. The Democrats rejected Donald Trump’s demands to include $5.7bn for a southern border wall in a spending bill.The president accused the Democrats of “obstruction” for failing to go along with his wall idea and asserted that Democrats “know it [the wall] is really needed”. Democrats said a border wall would be an expensive and ineffective solution to a problem that Trump exaggerates.

Trump tweeted, “This isn’t about the Wall … This is only about the Dems not letting Donald Trump & the Republicans have a win.” Trump also revived a 2011 tweet on immigration from Barack Obama, which read: “I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration.” Trump added: “I totally agree!”

Powers of patronage

The US President can appoint individuals to positions in the federal government; however, these appointments have to be ratified (approved) by the Senate. The President may work around this by making appointments when the Senate is not in session, however these only last until the end of the next session.

The Senate attempts to work around this by holding sessions every few days, even during holidays.  In 2017 US politicians blocked Donald Trump from making appointments without their permission as the Senate was due to begin its summer break.

Senators unanimously agreed to hold nine short “pro-forma” sessions during the break, which runs from 11 August to 5 September. This meant that the Senate would be in session every three days throughout August.

The US Constitution says neither the Senate nor the House "can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other."

Democrats suggested they would use the procedure to block the US President after it was suggested Mr Trump would try to replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions during recess. 

(On November 7, 2018 Sessions resigned as Attorney General at the president's request)

The Guardian reported the following in April 2020 about the influence the President has over the judiciary:

During Trump's 2016 campaign trail he promised to fill the courts with conservative judges, understood to mean judges who were skeptical of environmental regulations, who were not enthralled with the legacy of the civil rights era and who took a narrow view of a woman’s right to choose 

To combat doubts about his conservative credentials, Trump took the unusual step of releasing, while still a candidate, a list of his potential picks for the US supreme court. The list was curated by the Federalist Society, the country’s largest organisation of conservative legal activists. 

At the circuit court level, Trump has installed 51 judges, or about 30% of all active judgeships, just one step before the US supreme court. He is preparing to fill dozens of district court vacancies. Most significantly of all, Trump has appointed two justices to the supreme court, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, out of nine total.

Together these judges wield immense power over who gets to vote, who gets to marry, who has access to healthcare, who carries a gun, who is branded a criminal, who may join a union, who is protected from discrimination and who has permission to discriminate on religious grounds.

Pervasive influence on the federal judiciary is an immense prize, with implications spanning generations, given that federal judgeships are lifetime appointments. And it is a prize, analysts say, that Trump has handed the conservative movement, creating a powerful bulwark for his own political fortunes.

“These judges have all been vetted in terms of judicial philosophy,” said Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who focuses on the federal bench. “All believe in a bench that is not activist in terms of promoting civil libertarian values. But they’re activist judges in terms of promoting the values that are important to them – property rights, pro-business, anti-regulation.”

Trump’s success at installing top-level judges – he has placed more, faster, than any previous president – has owed to the preparedness of outside groups in taking advantage of Republican control of both the presidency and the US Senate, which is in charge of confirming judges. Trump also has benefited from dozens of retirements by judges who were appointed by previous Republican presidents.

But his best friend in the effort has been Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, who by blocking nominees under Barack Obama helped create 17 appeals court vacancies for Trump when he took office, more than any of his recent predecessors. McConnell also held a supreme court seat open for Trump, and he has changed Senate rules to speed the confirmation of Trump judges.

Have Trump’s judges made any impact yet?

While experts advise that it could take five years or more for the full picture to develop of how Trump’s judges are changing the courts, and the country, signs are emerging of a potential phase shift. 

Formerly reliable progressive benches have issued rulings that threaten access to reproductive healthcare, while others have greenlighted the Trump administration’s most reckless attacks on voting rights and on vulnerable populations, from the disabled to victims of police abuse to asylum seekers. The supreme court, meanwhile, has consistently sided with Trump administration requests for emergency relief from lower court rulings against executive actions by Trump to create a wealth test for green card applicants, divert Pentagon funding for a border wall, ban transgender individuals from the military and more.

What is at stake in these changes?

Goldman expressed general confidence in the health of the judiciary and said many Trump judicial appointees were qualified for their posts. But he warned of dire consequences if Trump’s judges gave in wholly to the president’s desire to prosecute his political enemies and destroy the free press. “We have a president who has authoritarian instincts,” said Goldman. “We have a president who is rather vindictive. That’s really the big issue now – whether the constitution of the United States, the bill of rights, will survive Trump.”

The power relationship between the executive and the legislature

The President’s relationship with the legislature (The United States Congress is the bicameral (2 chamber) legislature of the federal government of the United States and consists of two chambers: the House of Representatives and the Senate) is often described as one based on persuasion.

The reason that the President relies on his or her powers of persuasion is because almost every power that the president possesses is checked by Congress. The president therefore needs Congress' agreement. This can be difficult especially when the president's party is not in the majority in both houses of Congress.

The makeup of Congress changes every two years when voters elect Representatives in the House and some members of the U.S. Senate. Between 2017 and 2018, Donald Trump's party, the Republicans, controlled both the House and the Senate. This meant that the president was able to enjoy support in both houses.

In the 116th Congress – 2019 and 2020, Democrats took control of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections of 2018, though Republicans slightly increased their Senate majority.

As of October 2019, Republicans held 197 seats in the House of Representatives, Democrats held 234 seats; there was one independent (a former Republican) and three vacancies.

As of October 2019, Republicans held 53 seats in the Senate, Democrats held 45 seats; there were two independents, both of whom caucused (a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause) with the Democrats.

Impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump were initiated on December 18, 2019, when the House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Trump was later acquitted by the Senate on these two counts of impeachment on February 5, 2020.

Read the article attached to the top of this post about Trump's recent dealings with Congress. The article describes Trump as, 

'...treating the Congress as support staff to his presidency and relying on sheer force of personality to shape the government to his will. A simple Trump tweet can cower critics and reward loyalists all the same. His power only grows as lawmakers, particularly Senate Republicans, stay silent.

The result is a an exhaustive, head-spinning era that's turning Capitol Hill into a spectator stand of those watching, reacting and shaking a fist as their institutional prerogative is slipping away.

"There's a deeper institutional question," said Sen. Angus King, the independent from Maine. "The Congress is abdicating its responsibilities to the executive." '

Trump is currently escalating his fight with Congress over a broad bipartisan ( the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other's policies) effort to rename military installations named for figures from the Confederacy (Existing from 1861 to 1865, the Confederacy was originally formed by secession of seven slave-holding states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—in the Lower South region of the United States, whose economy was heavily dependent upon agriculture, particularly cotton, and a plantation system that relied upon the labor of African-American slaves), threatening to veto an annual defense bill if it includes the provision. You can read more about this here. 

The House approved its annual defense policy bill in a 295-125 vote in late July, taking a step toward confrontation with President Trump over stripping Confederate names from military bases. 

The fiscal 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was approved with a veto-proof majority, though it is possible that some of the 108 Republicans who voted for the legislation could change their votes to back up a presidential veto. The 125 "no" votes included 43 Democrats.

The massive $740.5 billion defense bill covers everything from authorizing a 3 percent pay raise for troops to establishing a $3.6 billion fund to counter China in the Indo-Pacific region to setting aside $1 billion to help the Pentagon with pandemic preparedness amid the coronavirus crisis.

But the fight is over language that would require the Pentagon to rename bases and other military properties that are named after Confederate military officers. The version of the NDAA approved Tuesday would require the names to be changed in one year. 

In a Fox News interview, Trump said he “might” veto the bill after tweeting last month that he “will” veto it if the renaming requirement stays in.

An official White House statement of administration policy also threatened to veto the bill. Republicans have urged Trump to back off the threats and have even raised the possibility of a veto override.

The veto occurs when a President objects to a bill or resolution. The President usually sends the bill back to Congress with a message explaining his objections; this is known as a direct veto. If the President withholds his signature during the 10-day review period allowed by the Constitution and Congress adjourns during that period, it is considered a “pocket veto” and the bill doesn’t become a law. The last pocket veto used by President Bill Clinton in December 2000.

Overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, as specified in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution.

Here are some examples of Trump's vetoes:

1. National Emergency Resolution

2. US involvement in Yemen

3. War power against Iran

The US president is able to issue an Executive Order (EO) to circumvent the power of the legislative branch. An executive order is an official directive from the U.S. president to federal agencies that often have much the same power of a law. Throughout history, executive orders have been one way that the power of the president and the executive branch of government has expanded—to degrees that are sometimes controversial. This news report offers analysis of Trump's EOs.

Congress can revoke an executive order by passing new legislation. The judiciary is able to overturn EOs which it finds to be unconstitutional.

The power relationship between the executive and the judiciary

The judiciary is the guardian of the liberty of the people and this function can be performed efficiently and honestly only when it is independent of the control of the executive.

Although appointments to the Supreme Court are political and made by US presidents, the Supreme Court is able to scrutinise the actions of the executive by interpreting actions (through a judicial review) and decisions of lower courts or presidential executive orders, for example in terms of whether they were unconstitutional or constitutional.

Trump is currently wrangling with the Supreme Court over calls for him to disclose his personal financial records. The court also refused to side with his argument that the presidency protects him from investigation. Trump declared on Twitter that this was 'not fair'.

What is quite interesting is that Trump's two Supreme Court appointments (Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) voted against him in this case.

Trump has been very critical of the current Supreme Court. You can see more on this here.

Your task is to read the text above and the attached document and respond to the following question:

“Separation of powers” refers to the idea that the major institutions of state should be functionally independent and that no individual should have powers that span these offices. (The principal institutions are usually taken to be the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.)

Do you think there is a distinct separation of powers in the US system? Provide at least one argument for and one against the idea that the US system enjoys a total separation of powers. Add your views in the comments below:

This task links to the Course Assessment Specification (CAS): The executive branch -the policy-making function.

A policy is a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. A policy is a statement of intent, and is implemented as a procedure or protocol. In the UK the prime minister is responsible for this and similarly, in the US, the president directs policy.

Policies relate to numerous areas: foreign policy (relations with other countries), domestic policy (issues within the home country such as money and taxes, natural resources, social welfare, and personal rights and freedoms), and the environment, among others.

View Trump's current policies here and read the Financial Times' interpretation of his policies here or by downloading the article attached to the top of this post. You can view this as a video here.

View Boris Johnson's current policies here and on Brexit here. You can watch Johnson outlining some of his policies here.

It can be argued that the US President has a number of significant limits on his ability to make policy as Congress can block his proposals whereas a UK Prime Minister who normally commands a parliamentary majority possesses much more power to pass his/her legislation.

Once you have looked through these resources, consider the following questions:

• What type of person or group is Johnson and Trump hoping to attract and target (negatively) with their policies?
• Do they share any similarities or differences in their policies in terms of direction?
• Do you think that the ability to make policy makes the executives in both political systems influential?
• Are the two leaders similar or different in terms of their political ideology? 
  
  Comment below with your thoughts:

This task links to the Course Assessment Specification (CAS): The executive branch -the distribution of power, the function of policy-making & the relationship between the executive and other branches of government.

Attached to this post is a response to the question:

'The UK Prime Minister has greater power than the US President'. Discuss.

Read the essay attached on the topic of executive power in the UK and US political systems. Select the following (perhaps by highlighting or copying and pasting sentences into a document under the headings below or even changing the colour of the text in the document according a key that references the headings bellow):

1. Knowledge points (facts)
2. Knowledge points (explanations or specific examples)
3. Analysis points (comments on the knowledge, comments that highlight importance, significance, comparison, differences, viewpoints etc

When you have done this, I would like you to summarise the main argument of this essay in no more than 250 words. You can add your work to your student folder.

This task links to the Course Assessment Specification (CAS): The executive branch -the distribution of power, the function of policy-making & the relationship between the executive and other branches of government.

We are going to move on to really think about making clear comparative analyses of the UK and US executives. We need to consider the following areas of comparison:

1. The distribution of power, or what powers does the executive have especially in relation to making appointments (powers of patronage), passing legislation (laws) and fiscal powers (power relating to spending money and passing national budgets)

2. The function of policy-making and how easy it is for the executive to act upon these policies.

3. The relationship between the executive and the legislature (in the UK = Parliament and in the US = Congress)

4. The relationship between the executive and the judiciary (the courts of law. It is probably most straightforward to look at the highest court in each political system: the Supreme Court)

You may find the two pdfs attached to the top of this post helpful.

You should begin to organise your notes under the headings above. You can create your notes in any format. See some suggestions made for the previous task. You can copy and paste any of the notes above that I have written in the posts and add them under the relevant headings.

This will help you to prepare for the final task: the 12 mark extended response.

We are going to attempt the 2018 question:

Compare the effectiveness of the Executive in making policy in two political systems you have studied.

(12 marks)

You can find detailed instructions here.