Law According To A King

The debate as to how far the office of the Prime Minister has evolved to become more like that of a President is a hot one in political and constitutional theory, but it does have some practical ramifications for the way we think about our leaders. This post shall take a look at the arguments for and against the 'presidentialisation' of the prime minister, and examine the consequences for either side.  Firstly, it is widely accepted that the executive office of the PM has grown in recent decades. In 1970, the cabinet office had just 600 staff, but under Tony Blair, that number grew to over 2,500. As a comparison, the executive office of the President has around 4,000 - though most scholars agree this growth can be attributed to the expansion of the administrative state since the end of WWII. Better, Dowding argues, to look at the role of the executive office. Dowding says the role of staffers in the PM's office is largely based around coordination across government, and the...

 Impeachment is the process by which the House of Representatives votes by a majority to level charges against a federal official, in this case, the President. These charges are then brought to the Senate, where the 100 senators hold a trial, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and vote on whether to convict. A 2/3 majority of 67 votes is required to convict, and a conviction will remove the official from office. There are a number of Constitutional sources detailing the impeachment process: Article 1, section 2, clause 5  "The House of Representatives shall ... have the sole Power of Impeachment" Article 1, section 3, clauses 6 and 7  "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments... [N]o person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office."  Article 2, section 2  The President [shall have Power to grant R...