The queen says "tut tut" to the prime minister when the prime minister does something bad. That is not a role that you can underestimate. The queen reminds the prime minister that there is someone above them, and someone that they answer to. In comparison, a lot of US presidents seem like they need a few "tut tuts."
They answer to the people eventually, but while in office they wield powers unknown in our (British) system since the time of George III. And I mean that quite literally. The US president is essentially an elected British King circa 1789. They literally copied the constitutional role of the king point by point with a few minor alterations. The power to convene and dissolve parlia...er...congress, executive decrees are royal decrees, the veto on legislation, command of the armed forces, the power to pardon convicts, proroguation. Not exactly cutting edge constitutional innovation I'm afraid. We've moved on, but in some ways the US still stuck in the 18th Century.
>It does not convene and dissolve by presidential request.
And yet Article 2 Section 3 exists. Constitutional convention copy machine go Brrr. However I did exaggerate slightly for satirical effect. Maybe I should have just said "some alterations".
Yeah it's different, and worse IMHO. "The people" is an abstraction, like "God" or "Nature". The Queen is a real person that you have to go meet in her house, and bow to.
It’s completely different, that’s without a doubt. Whether or not a US President “answer[s] to the poeple” is debatable. W Bush taking the country to Iraq again, against a significant majority of the people comes to mind.
Like all American politicians the POTUS does ultimately answer to the people, but only in an indirect fashion. Directly, the POTUS answers to the States because the States are the ones who elect him.
