The purpose of this paper is to identify the structural differences in the application of the separation of powers between the United States and the United Kingdom in Law.
Separation of Powers tends to be a feature of a republic with a President and is a feature of the current U.S. model. The other model is a fusion model that exists in the U.K.and is more common in parliamentary systems. A main difference between the two systems is the way in which the different branches of governments are created and the choices presented to the electorate. The main characteristics of this is that the legislative branch creates the executive branch, where complete separation of power exists stipulates that the executive, (most of the time- a president) is elected by the electorate. It is explained that in a fusion based model, the electorate elects the legislative branch with subsequently creates the executive branch. “As Professor Cheryl Saunders writes, "...the intermixture of institutions [in the UK] is such that it is almost impossible to describe it as a separation of powers." In a separation of powers, the national legislature does not select the person or persons the executive; instead, the executive is chosen by other means (direct popular election, electoral college selection, etc.) In a parliamentary system, when the term of the legislature ends, so too may the tenure of the executive selected by that legislature. Although in a presidential system the executives term may or may not coincide with the legislatures, their selection is technically independent of the legislature.” 1
Another major difference in the two systems are the way in which and the number of checks and balances in place. In the U.S., at the time of founding Madison argued that restraints should be place on both the minority and majority to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. This makes the U.S. system