USA parliament

You've got to be a bit more specific about the structure and authority of said Parliament and say a bit about how and when it came into being for this to be more then just a political chat (and possibly moved to the chat forum). You might ask something like, "WI the United States had established a federal government in 1787 that more closely resembled the structure of the British government, though obviously with a President rather then a Monarch? What constitutional similarities and differences would there likely be? How might this system of government have evolved over the years? How close would the resemblance be today between Washington and Westminster style Parliaments?"
 
The thing that is brought up in threads on this idea is, IIRC, that the British systen as it is today with a strong Prime Minister had not yet formed, and the US President was given the powers and responsibilities the Americans thought proper for a King at that point in time. More likely the US develops into a parliamentary system organically; after the Andrew Johnson administration, I believe the Presidency was in practice rather weak and Congress held the real power, which changed due to the forcefulness of both Presidents Roosevelt. No McKinley assassination and maybe the US ends up a semi-presidential state, as happens IIRC in Jello Biafra's Reds! (Although that is followed of course by a communist revolution, which I assume is not your goal :p).
 
Most of the differences between the US and Westminster systems are cultural rather than structural: the US Constitutional structure of Congress was modelled very closely on the British Parliament of the time, with the House of Representatives replacing the House of Commons, the Senate replacing the House of Lords, and the President replacing the King.

The major structural differences are:

  1. Mode of selection
    • HoR districts are periodically reapportioned by population, while HoC districts was based on a 12th century district system where there was a fixed number of representatives per county or recognized town.
    • Senators and Presidents were indirectly elected rather than inheriting their positions like Lords and Kings.
  2. Terms
    • Lords and Kings serve for life, while Senators and Presidents serve for a term of years.
    • British Parliaments serve until dissolved by the King, whereas the US Congress has fixed sessions
  3. Executive power
    • The King's veto power (withholding the Royal Assent) is absolute, while the President's can be overruled by a 2/3 supermajority of the legislature.
    • The power to declare war vests with the King in Britain, but requires the consent of Congress in the US.
Over time in Britain, the role of the King and the Lords were increasingly constrained by tradition, the moral power of Commons as the representatives of the people, and by Commons' aggressive use of the Power of the Purse to blackmail the King and the Lords by holding the budget hostage. In the US, though, the President and the Senate continued to wield their full constitutional authority (and arguably quite a bit more than that, in the President's case).


I can see two major directions you could go with this:

  1. Try to eventually produce a Westminster system in the US by strengthening the President on paper but weakening his perceived mandate to govern, probably by somehow getting something like Hamilton's proposed constitutional structure adopted, under which Presidents would be elected for life. Over time, Congress's de facto power would likely expand, eventually relegating the President to a King-like ceremonial role.
  2. Make the structure more closely resemble that of the British Parliament of 1786. Apportion representatives by state rather than by population, and mirror the British system of variable-termed legislative sessions rather than a fixed schedule of elections. I have no idea what the long term consequences of this might be.
 
A clear and concise analysis Maniakes, though you said nothing about the Judicial Branch.
It's role also wasn't really clear, even after Judicial Review was established. It didn't function that much differently from the Law Lords until well into Marshall's tenure as Chief Justice.
 
Top