Americans look in this thread

[BobKKKindle$]

Hello Americans, I need an example of a divided government forcing the executive to alter its policies to get through congress, or, better yet, an executive not being able to get its policies through at all.

PS Preferably since 1969

[hugsandmarxism]

How about Clinton's 1993 health care plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993)? That work?

[BobKKKindle$]

Well, congress was controlled by the Democrats then, so unfortunately not. I'm making an argument in an essay about whether the executive is more powerful under a parliamentary or presidential system, and under the former it's obviously impossible for there to be divided government because the executive is a product of the legislature, so that's why I'm looking for an example.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Any division is minimal and is going to be objectively based on differing tactics in accomplishing the same end, though the debate may be wrapped up in a veneer of contrasting 'values,' etc.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Actually i'm pretty sure that in the presidential system the executive has no real power. The Canadian Prime Minister actually has more power than the American President. The President just looks powerful because he's in charge of the most powerful economy/military in the world. The US congress can veto bills and such. They can also refuse presidental bills. That's part of the problem in the US system when they try to get things done, especially if you have a president that's from a different party than the one in congress.

[hugsandmarxism]

Well, congress was controlled by the Democrats then, so unfortunately not. I'm making an argument in an essay about whether the executive is more powerful under a parliamentary or presidential system, and under the former it's obviously impossible for there to be divided government because the executive is a product of the legislature, so that's why I'm looking for an example.

Well, in that case, you could make reference to the veto threats that Bush gave over time-tables in the military budget... and how after electing a democratic congress in 06, there was something of an outcry over Democrats falling in line with the Bush budget...

[Martin Blank]

Reagan and the Democratic-led Congress in the early 1980s is a good example, and so is Clinton and the Republican-led Congress in the mid-1990s.

[hugsandmarxism]

Reagan and the Democratic-led Congress in the early 1980s is a good example, and so is Clinton and the Republican-led Congress in the mid-1990s.

...wait... I was right about that last part! It was a Republican congress!!!

[Rebel_Serigan]

Yeah Clinton was head of a republican congress, but it is completely true that the president has just about as much power as any other figure-head. The congress has the real power in America, which is in reality worse than the executive branch's power, Congress can be bribed and corrupted easier. The exutive branch only has power once congress has enacted the proposition. For instance Congress declairs war but the exectutive branch takes over the war effort.

[BobKKKindle$]

..wait... I was right about that last part! It was a Republican congress!!!

The healthcare plan was introduced in 1993, during the 103rd congress, which was Republican-controlled. (link (http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/index.html)) By "mid-1990s" I presume Miles meant the 104th congress, which was, of course, Democrat-controlled.

In case anyone's wondering, my argument is that presidential systems result in a weak executive (for a whole range of reasons) but, within the executive branch, the president is a more powerful political actor than the prime minister (i.e. the head of government under a parliamentary system)

[Elway]

Generally, Congress has a list of powers, and cannot make up new ones. But those powers (ART. I, Sec. 8) are great.

It's NEVER supposed to have been about the "President getting his policies approved". That's a very new thing. When Congress was planned by the framers of the Convention of 1787, CONGRESS was intended to have THE power of creating law.

One per year, at the opening of each session of Congress, the President gives recommendations to Congress. These used to be in written form. Now it's a televised dog and pony show.

Congress has the power to stop or prevent ANY war like conduct on the part of the miliary by not paying for the thing. They have always shown themselves to be too timid to do so.

[KC]

In case anyone's wondering, my argument is that presidential systems result in a weak executive (for a whole range of reasons) but, within the executive branch, the president is a more powerful political actor than the prime minister (i.e. the head of government under a parliamentary system)

I don't know how true this is anymore, for the US, at least. Over the past decade the executive has gained a significant amount of power.