How is the goverent of engand in the middle ages similar and diffrent from the government in the US?

Answer 1

It was similar that in both cases there is/was a Parliament that could decide on new taxes, and thereby, on the amount of money available to the Government and its leader, the King / President. Also, in both cases there is/was a Head of State who also was the 'chief executive' and the commander-in-chief of the Nation's army. Also in both cases, the countries' Cabinet ministers were answerable to the President / King and not to Parliament / Congress. Both medieval England and the US have a Parliament whose members represent a district. Finally, both the medieval King and the US President need(ed) approval of Parliament / Congress for laws they wanted to pass. Both however had ways and means to bypass it when they thought it necessary.

Differences were, that medieval England was not divided into States. So, no Governors and no Senators, and no State governments. Secondly, the President is elected and 'rules' for a term of no more than 8 years. A medieval King was born to the job and ruled from the day his father died to the day he died himself. Thirdly, US Congress is permanently in session save for a few short periods each year, while the English Parliament was in session only when the King convened it. The US 'upper chamber' (the Senate) consists of elected members, the English upper chamber 'the House of Lords') consists of non-elected members who sit for life. Finally, the US judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, can invalidate laws; the medieval English law courts just judged cases and had no power to declare a law 'unconstitutional'. On the subject of law and Courts: the King could have people thrown into jail (the Magna Carta only granted the right to be judged by a court to nobles) . The US President cannot have anyone thrown into jail.