What events led the Continental Congress (and Americans in general) to support a break from England?
The Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party, and general taxation without representation in Parliament of England. Early america began making more money than the GDP of England and so we started supporting England and its ventures.
How was the U.S. congress (during the American Revolution) similar to Britain's Parliament?
During the war, the Continental Congress acted as the government for the colonies. There was no congress as such. Under the Articles of Confederation, the congress was at the mercy of the states as a confederacy was created by the Articles, giving congress very little power. Under the new Constitution, the congress had two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Only members of the House were elected by the voters (like the House of Commons) and the Senate was appointed by the states (similar to the House of Lords).
Why can't members from both sides of U.S. Congress have formal yet outspoken debates like they do in Parliament of the United Kingdom?
Part of it, actually, involves the physical layout of their meeting places; the U.S Congress meet in spacious, semi-circular chambers, whilst the British Parliament sit in cramped benches that face each other, with not enough seats for every MP. That means that it is like a huge pit; it is designed to encourage an adversarial style of debate.The Americans are encouraged to be much more civil and less insanely party political, not least because they have (correctly) worked out that it doesn't look good to the voters.One last thing to note is that the British House of Commons is really only equivalent to the U.S House of Representatives; it has little in common with the Senate. The British equivalent of the Senate is the appointed House of Lords, which is indeed much, much, much more quite, calm, and deliberative than the Commons -- much like in the American system.
How much more power does the Queen of England have than the President of the United States of America?
On paper, the Queen of the United Kingdom (there is no Queen of England) has far more power than the President of the United States:She has an absolute veto on any bill passed by parliament, which Parliament cannot override (POTUS’s veto can be overridden by a supermajority in Congress)She is commander in chief of the armed forces (same as POTUS)She appoints all ministers, senior officials, military leaders, judges, etc - without having to get parliamentary confirmation for any of those appointments (POTUS can make the appointments, but the Senate has to approve them)She can declare war and peace (in the US, only Congress can do this)She can make treaties with other countries, without requiring parliamentary approval (POTUS has to get Senate approval for any treaties)She can appoint as many Peers to the House of Lords as she likes (using them to vote in her favour if she wished). POTUS has no power to appoint members of either house of congressShe is the font of justice, and the source of authority for the entire judicial system - and therefore appoints all judges. POTUS can nominate judges, but has no other judicial roleShe is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (POTUS has no religious role)She can pass executive orders (Orders in Council) covering a wide range of areas (POTUS can do this too, but the queen has far wider range here)Having said all of that… Whilst the Queen has vast power and authority on paper, by Constitutional Convention she doesn’t exercise it on her own accord - rather, the royal powers are only exercised on the advise of the elected government (and some, such as the power of veto, have simply not been used for centuries).
How is Britain's parliament different from Congress in the US?
In many ways. For a start, the executive sits in it. In the USA you have the office of the President, he technically can't even propose legislation, he needs someone from congress to do it for him and congress' approval for it to become law. He cannot assign cabinet members without consulting approval. He cannot decide how Federal money will be spent, nor can he interpret laws. He doesn't need a majority in Congress to stay in office and probably doesn't have one for most of his tenure. Now. In the UK the Prime Minister sits in the House of Parliament. He chooses his own cabinet and does not need parliament's consent. He proposes legislation within the house and has a relatively easy time of getting it passed. That's because, the Prime Minister is generally the leader of the political party with the most number of seats in the House of Parliament. If it helps, Imagine that congress is voted for every five years. Whichever party controlled 51% of the house would get to choose the President too. There is no presidential veto. There is no real need for one. Everything in parliament can be passed with a simple majority ( that's not actually true, there are some exceptions) and since the PM usually has more than 51% of the seats all he has to worry about it his own party not listening to him. In big matters, such as the budget they almost always vote with the PM since if he lost the motion it would probably spark an early general election and then the MP's might lose their seats. In short. The executive is separate from the legislative process in the USA but not in the UK. I hope that's not to confusing. If you have any follow up questions then I'll be happy to answer them.
American history question?
The English Parliament is two houses of government that makes the laws. They are the house of lords and the house of commons. Each house has the responsibility for initiating certain things and both houses must approve them before they can be passed on and made into law. The US has Congress has two houses of government that make the laws. They are the Senate and the House of Representatives.Each house once again has the responsibility for initiating certain things and both houses must approve them before they can be passed on to the President for signature to be enacted into law. The English system of government was the basic framework that our government was founded upon. We made some changes to exclude titles of royalty, but having two houses of congress and the judicial decisions based to a large extent upon precedent is a carry over from England.
How did the First Continental Congress make war with Britian more likely?
Because the First Continental Congress was the first steps to independent gonvernment from Britain. That was the first time colonist leaders made a major decision. So it gave Americans a sense of independence. With their meeting, they planted the seeds which would eventually become the revolution.
Why are UK Parliament sessions so rowdy while the US Congress is very quiet and formal in session?
The US congress was created to be different than the UK parliament given obvious historical complaints the newly independent Americans were from the UK. The UK parliament is steeped in ancient tradition and strange rules and laws. The House of Commons is almost like a church with daily prayers in the morning and pew like seating with prayer card holders to reserve seats. The shape of the two institutions is also a factor. The us congress is semi circular and like a stage to make speeches whereas the UK House of Commons is two sets of benches opposing each other and is confrontational. Debate in the House of Commons was considered to be a militaristic sport back in the day. Where you used words to do battle with you ideological enemies (the opposing side). And the UK HofC is packed. There are 650 MPs but only 427 or so seats. So it can get crowded. This is intentional as it means that the atmosphere is closer and more tense. Your supporters cheer you on and heckle the opposition. This might sound stupid and archai and petty but it serves a purpose. It tends to build confidence and concentration in speakers of the house and it actually makes debate much better and to a higher standard. The US congress is big enough and set out nicely and watching it can be quite boring in comparison. Although both houses have seen momentous moments of history, in my opinion (biased) there have been many more historical and famous speeches made in the House of Commons than in Congress. Just in the last few years I watched as Hillary Benn made a speech stating his support for a bombing campaign against terrorists in Syria. The speech was long and most of it boring but at the last stretch was a thing of history. Benn is a Labour MP and the whole of the conservative benches cheered at his speech. Churchills speeches were the same. Most people remember the "we will fight on the beaches" bit. But he spoke for about ten minutes before that and it was boring and technical but it had substance and wasn't beureucratic. That in my opinion is what is wrong with the us congress. It's all beureucracy. There's little spark or zest for debate in congress. It wasn't always like that though. Proof is what congress looked and sounded like in the 19th century. Look up Thaddeus Stevens. Note: I don't know much about congress so I could be wrong in some areas and it is my opinion only. (Except the shape thing that's proven to be factor in the rowdiness of debates)