Congress And Parliament Flashcards
(3 cards)
Legislative Authority
-Congress and Parliament differ significantly in their legislative independence and capacity to shape law, primarily due to the structure of their political systems. In the US, Congress is a co-equal branch of government with the power to initiate, amend and block legislation. Its two chambers- House of Representatives and Senate- are both involved in law-making, with no formal executive control over the legislative timetable. In the UK, by contrast, the executive is drawn from the legislature, and usually commands a majority in the House of Commons. This means most legislation is executive-led, with parliament largely debating and passing bills.
-using the structural approach, we can see that the separation of powers in the US empowers Congress as a truly independent legislative actor, especially where there is a divided government. Congressional committees often have extensive investigative and drafting authority, leading to detailed scrutiny and even gridlock if consensus cannot be reached. In the UK, the fusion of powers and string whip system mean that parliament is often dominated by the executive, especially in majority governments. While backbench rebellions and private member’s bills do occur, their success rate is limited. For example, Boris Johnson’s 80 seat majority in 2019 enabled him to pass the Brexit withdrawal legislation swiftly. Therefore, structurally, Congress is more independent but slower, while Parliament is more efficient but less autonomous.
Oversight and executive constraints
-another important area of power is each legislature’s ability to check and constrain the executive. The US Congress has extensive formal powers to do so. The Senate ratifies treaties and confirms executive and judicial appointments, while both chambers can initiate impeachment proceedings. Congress can also conduct high-profile investigations, hold hearings, subpoena documents and delay or block presidential initiatives, by contrast, the UK Parliament has fewer formal mechanisms of control. The government’s majority allows it to generally control the legislative agenda although scrutiny still occurs through select committees, PMQs, urgent questions and the vote of no confidence
-here the rational choice approach helps explain why individual legislators behave differently. In Congress, members are not dependent on the president for their careers. With separate elections and no patronage system, senators and representatives are freer to pursue their own ideological goals or respond to constituents, especially during midterm cycles. For example, Republican senators like John McCain and Mitt Romney have opposed Republican presidents on key issues. In the UK, MPs from the governing party face stronger incentives to support the prime minister, due to career prospects, loyalty expectations and potential rewards like cabinet posts. This explains why executive scrutiny is often limited under strong governments. In short, Congress is often a more aggressive check, while Parliament’s oversight depends heavily on political circumstances.
Influence and legitimacy of second chambers
- a further area where legislative power differs is in the strength and role of second chambers. The US Senate is co-equal to the House of Representatives, with shared legislative power and exclusive control over treaty ratification, appointments and impeachment trials. Senators are directly elected with six-year terms, which allows for long-term policymaking and independence from short-term political pressure. In the UK, the House of Lords is unelected, largely appointed, and lacks democratic legitimacy to override the Commons. Although, it can delay and amend legislation, it cannot permanently block bills, and is constrained by conventions such as the Salisbury Convention and Parliament Acts.
-the Cultural approach helps explain the operation of the lords despite its formal weakness. The Lords often defer to the elected Commons, particularly on issues where the government claims a public mandate. For example, during Brexit debates, Lords did not challenge the government but were ultimately limited by public expectation and convention. In the US, the Senate’s elected and federal nature contributes to a culture of institutional confidence and assertiveness. Senators regularly oppose the executive, including during Supreme Court nominations (the controversial confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett). The political culture of checks and balances empowers senators to see themselves as guardians of constitutional integrity, whereas UK peers are culturally expected to play a revising, not ruling, role.
