Essay on A Classic Case of Separation of Powers
The federal and state budgeting process is to a significant extent similar but still they have differences that make them distinct from each other and, thus, contribute to the development of different approaches to budgeting.
The main difference between the federal and state budgeting is the larger authority of Governors compared to the US President in terms of forming the budget of states or the US respectively. Pataki vs. Assmebly and Silver vs. Paraki cases and respective court’s ruling has proved the authority of governors to play the key part in the formation of the budget, while legislatures have limited opportunities to change the budget since they have to have two-thirds votes to overcome a governor’s veto or change the budget.
In this regard, the authority of the US President is more limited compared to the authority of governors because the US President has to coordinate the budget with legislators in both houses of the Congress. In fact, the US Presidents just makes the proposal, whereas is the Senate and the House of Representatives have to vote for the proposed budget but they also have the right to introduce changes in the proposed budget to introduce changes, which they consider to be essential. In such a way, the US President should have the support of the majority of the Congress to introduce the budget without significant changes.
Thus, cases Pataki vs. Assmebly and Silver vs. Paraki contributed to the enhancement of the position of governors in budgeting at the state level, whereas the federal budget is different from state budget since the President is more dependent on legislatures than governors.
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...