内容包括：各自政体的内容。
相同点，不同点以及评价。
从立法、司法、行政三个角度去阐述，再加上英国的律师二元制体系去比较英美政体的异同点：
相同：都有议会，且议会拥有立法权
不同：英国是君主立宪制，美国是民主共和制
英国的国家元首是国王，没有实权；美国是总统拥有最高行政权及军权
原因：1 英国资产阶级革命的主要矛盾是资产阶级同封建统治阶级的矛盾，而美国是资产阶级同殖民统治者的矛盾。
2 资本主义的发展需要稳定的外部环境，英国利用了君主而美国由于前身是殖民地所，建国初期战乱不断所以需要一个相对集中的统治形式，因此，英国采用君主立宪而美国用总统共和制。
3 客观上，英国资产阶级革命较早，资产阶级的力量有限，实行君主立宪其实是资产阶级对封建势力的妥协；而美国资产阶级革命时资本主义又经过一段时间的发展，力量壮大，假如美国有国王也归被推翻的。
英国是君主立宪，美国是共和制，因为美国在独立以前没有自己君主，以英国君主为自己的君主，独立后就没有君主了。
美国是总统制，总统是内阁首脑，英国是议会制，首相是内阁首脑，内阁对议会负责。因为在美国独立前，各殖民地由英国派驻的总督，也有代表总督和当地人民的议员组成的议会，殖民地政府主要由总督管理，当时大部分欧洲国家国王仍是内阁首脑，所以独立后美国自然延续这种组织形式，由总统替代了总督。英国则因为很多次的贵族和资产阶级夺权，国王的权利被限制，议会的实力得到加强。
评价：美国的权利和斗争来自民主，很大程度来自竞争，非阶级，每个阶级的作用和矛盾直接影响美国国家正常运作。他们的司法部门独立，全面。因此，不太容易受空间影响。这就是它能发展迅速的主要原因。至于英国，国会本身受到贵族的干涉，很难不涉及阶级利益，加之英国的宪法也包括君主立宪法，从根本上形成了金字塔般政治主体，民众发展，自由空间有限，加之二战的原因，发展自然没有美国迅速。
【英文翻译】
From the legislative, judicial, administrative point of view on the three, along with British lawyer dual-system to compare the similarities and differences between British and American political system:
【the same:】 have a parliament, and parliament has【 a different power】: Britain is a constitutional monarchy, the United States is The Democratic Republic
Britain's head of state is King, there is no real power; President of the United States is the highest executive power and military power: a bourgeois revolution in Britain is the main contradiction with the bourgeoisie of the feudal ruling class contradictions, and the United States was the colonial ruler of the bourgeoisie with the contradictions .
2 capitalism's development needs a stable external environment, the United Kingdom and the United States to use the monarchy as a result grew out of the colony, the founding of the initial chaos caused by wars and so they need a relatively centralized form of rule, Britain and the United States to adopt a constitutional monarchy with a republic president. 3 objective, the bourgeois revolution in Britain earlier, limited the power of the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie is a constitutional monarchy on the feudal forces of compromise; the United States when the bourgeois revolution and capitalist development after a period of time, the force strength if the United States King also under ousted.
Britain is a constitutional monarchy, the United States is a republic, because the United States in the past does not have its own independent monarchy, the British monarch as their sovereign, independent after the monarch did not.
The United States is the presidential system, the Cabinet is the President of the Summit, the United Kingdom is a parliamentary system, is the prime minister heads the cabinet, the cabinet of the council. In the United States since before independence, by the British colonial presence of the Governor, but also on behalf of the Governor and the local people's councils, the colonial government by the Governor, at the time most European countries is still the king heads the cabinet, so naturally the United States after independence Continuation of this form of organization by the President of the replacement of the Governor. Britain is due to a number of times the power of the bourgeoisie and the nobility, the king's right to limit the strength of Parliament be strengthened.
【Evaluation: 】The United States and the right to struggle from democracy, to a large extent, competition from non-class, each class conflict and the role of a direct impact on the normal operation of the United States. Their independence of the judiciary, all-round. As a result, less vulnerable to the effects of space. This is the main reason for the rapid development of it. As for Britain, by Congress itself Intervention aristocracy, it is difficult to not involve the interests of the class, plus the British monarchy but also the constitutional law, a fundamental form of the pyramid as the main political, and the development of the public, free of the limited space available, combined with the reasons for World War II, development of natural Did not prompt the United States.
相同：都有议会，且议会拥有立法权
不同：英国是君主立宪制，美国是民主共和制
英国的国家元首是国王，没有实权；美国是总统拥有最高行政权及军权
原因：1 英国资产阶级革命的主要矛盾是资产阶级同封建统治阶级的矛盾，而美国是资产阶级同殖民统治者的矛盾。
2 资本主义的发展需要稳定的外部环境，英国利用了君主而美国由于前身是殖民地所，建国初期战乱不断所以需要一个相对集中的统治形式，因此，英国采用君主立宪而美国用总统共和制。
3 客观上，英国资产阶级革命较早，资产阶级的力量有限，实行君主立宪其实是资产阶级对封建势力的妥协；而美国资产阶级革命时资本主义又经过一段时间的发展，力量壮大，假如美国有国王也归被推翻的。
英国是君主立宪，美国是共和制，因为美国在独立以前没有自己君主，以英国君主为自己的君主，独立后就没有君主了。
美国是总统制，总统是内阁首脑，英国是议会制，首相是内阁首脑，内阁对议会负责。因为在美国独立前，各殖民地由英国派驻的总督，也有代表总督和当地人民的议员组成的议会，殖民地政府主要由总督管理，当时大部分欧洲国家国王仍是内阁首脑，所以独立后美国自然延续这种组织形式，由总统替代了总督。英国则因为很多次的贵族和资产阶级夺权，国王的权利被限制，议会的实力得到加强。
评价：美国的权利和斗争来自民主，很大程度来自竞争，非阶级，每个阶级的作用和矛盾直接影响美国国家正常运作。他们的司法部门独立，全面。因此，不太容易受空间影响。这就是它能发展迅速的主要原因。至于英国，国会本身受到贵族的干涉，很难不涉及阶级利益，加之英国的宪法也包括君主立宪法，从根本上形成了金字塔般政治主体，民众发展，自由空间有限，加之二战的原因，发展自然没有美国迅速。
【英文翻译】
From the legislative, judicial, administrative point of view on the three, along with British lawyer dual-system to compare the similarities and differences between British and American political system:
【the same:】 have a parliament, and parliament has【 a different power】: Britain is a constitutional monarchy, the United States is The Democratic Republic
Britain's head of state is King, there is no real power; President of the United States is the highest executive power and military power: a bourgeois revolution in Britain is the main contradiction with the bourgeoisie of the feudal ruling class contradictions, and the United States was the colonial ruler of the bourgeoisie with the contradictions .
2 capitalism's development needs a stable external environment, the United Kingdom and the United States to use the monarchy as a result grew out of the colony, the founding of the initial chaos caused by wars and so they need a relatively centralized form of rule, Britain and the United States to adopt a constitutional monarchy with a republic president. 3 objective, the bourgeois revolution in Britain earlier, limited the power of the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie is a constitutional monarchy on the feudal forces of compromise; the United States when the bourgeois revolution and capitalist development after a period of time, the force strength if the United States King also under ousted.
Britain is a constitutional monarchy, the United States is a republic, because the United States in the past does not have its own independent monarchy, the British monarch as their sovereign, independent after the monarch did not.
The United States is the presidential system, the Cabinet is the President of the Summit, the United Kingdom is a parliamentary system, is the prime minister heads the cabinet, the cabinet of the council. In the United States since before independence, by the British colonial presence of the Governor, but also on behalf of the Governor and the local people's councils, the colonial government by the Governor, at the time most European countries is still the king heads the cabinet, so naturally the United States after independence Continuation of this form of organization by the President of the replacement of the Governor. Britain is due to a number of times the power of the bourgeoisie and the nobility, the king's right to limit the strength of Parliament be strengthened.
【Evaluation: 】The United States and the right to struggle from democracy, to a large extent, competition from non-class, each class conflict and the role of a direct impact on the normal operation of the United States. Their independence of the judiciary, all-round. As a result, less vulnerable to the effects of space. This is the main reason for the rapid development of it. As for Britain, by Congress itself Intervention aristocracy, it is difficult to not involve the interests of the class, plus the British monarchy but also the constitutional law, a fundamental form of the pyramid as the main political, and the development of the public, free of the limited space available, combined with the reasons for World War II, development of natural Did not prompt the United States.
温馨提示：答案为网友推荐，仅供参考
第1个回答 2008-12-19
The regime of The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy:
The politics of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland takes place in the framework of a constitutional monarchy, in which the Monarch is head of state and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the head of government.
Executive power is exercised by the UK government and the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales and the Executive of Northern Ireland.
Legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as well as in the Scottish parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies.
The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature, though several senior judges are still members of the House of Lords, which is currently the highest court of the UK for civil cases and the highest court of England and Wales for criminal cases.
The regime of US is Separation of powers:
Separation of powers is a political doctrine under which the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are kept distinct, to prevent abuse of power. This US form of separation of powers is widely known as "checks and balances".
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency.
Executive power is vested in the President. The principal responsibility of the President is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." By using these words, the Constitution does not require the President to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the President may perform such duties.
Judicial power — the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office for life and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Separation of powers is not absolute; it is instead qualified by the doctrine of checks and balances. James Madison wrote that the three branches "should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other." The system of checks and balances is designed to allow each branch to restrain abuse by each other branch.
Strict separation of powers did not operate in Britain, a country whose political structure served in most instances as a model for the government created by the US Constitution. In the UK, the King-in-Parliament (the King acting with the consent of the House of Lords and House of Commons) was the supreme lawmaking authority. The executive branch acted in the name of the King - it was known as "His Majesty's Government" - as did the judiciary. The King's Ministers were in most cases members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Government needed to sustain a majority in the House of Commons. One minister, the Lord Chancellor, was at the same time the sole judge in the Court of Chancery and the presiding officer in the House of Lords. Thus, one may conclude that the three branches of British government often violated the strict principle of separation of powers, even though there were many occasions when the different branches of the government disagreed with each other.
The politics of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland takes place in the framework of a constitutional monarchy, in which the Monarch is head of state and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the head of government.
Executive power is exercised by the UK government and the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales and the Executive of Northern Ireland.
Legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as well as in the Scottish parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies.
The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature, though several senior judges are still members of the House of Lords, which is currently the highest court of the UK for civil cases and the highest court of England and Wales for criminal cases.
The regime of US is Separation of powers:
Separation of powers is a political doctrine under which the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are kept distinct, to prevent abuse of power. This US form of separation of powers is widely known as "checks and balances".
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency.
Executive power is vested in the President. The principal responsibility of the President is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." By using these words, the Constitution does not require the President to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the President may perform such duties.
Judicial power — the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office for life and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Separation of powers is not absolute; it is instead qualified by the doctrine of checks and balances. James Madison wrote that the three branches "should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other." The system of checks and balances is designed to allow each branch to restrain abuse by each other branch.
Strict separation of powers did not operate in Britain, a country whose political structure served in most instances as a model for the government created by the US Constitution. In the UK, the King-in-Parliament (the King acting with the consent of the House of Lords and House of Commons) was the supreme lawmaking authority. The executive branch acted in the name of the King - it was known as "His Majesty's Government" - as did the judiciary. The King's Ministers were in most cases members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Government needed to sustain a majority in the House of Commons. One minister, the Lord Chancellor, was at the same time the sole judge in the Court of Chancery and the presiding officer in the House of Lords. Thus, one may conclude that the three branches of British government often violated the strict principle of separation of powers, even though there were many occasions when the different branches of the government disagreed with each other.
