Does the President answer to Congress or does Congress have no power?
106997
No G.W. just has to answer to his Dick....Cheney that is. By the way Jack,go back to my question on abortion and read the one right below your answer...it is UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!....Where is your lion joke anyway????
83903
The president is the peoples representative.  If Congress tries to become too powerful, he has the ability to veto legislation and force them to pass it with a 2/3rds vote instead of a simple majority.
1017542
Lol...obviously, the answer would be the US Congress...any other riddles?\n\n~SugaSw33t
517763
Usually members of congress will have a pretty good idea of whether or not the president will sign the bill into a law beforehand.  And sometimes congress passes a bill knowing it will get vetoed anyway.  Since the government is usually not unified (with a party in control of congress and the opposite party in control of the white house) vetoes will occur from time to time.  But obviously the more vetoes the worse the relationship between the two branches.  It could be construed as weakness on either side.  One could say its a weak president because he cant get any of his legislation passed, or a weak congress that cant convince the president (unless the choose to override the veto in which case the congress would be viewed as having a bit of an advantage).\nRecently, President Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill/law.  This is because he has a better relationship with congress, because they are of the same party.  Especially with his approval ratings low, if the congress was democratically controlled, then you would see a much more volatile relationship, resulting in a lot more vetoes.
391716
A president's power and influence may be limited, but politically the president is certainly the most important power in Washington.\n\nThough constrained by various other laws passed by Congress, the President's executive branch conducts most foreign policy, and his power to order and direct troops as commander-in-chief is quite significant. (The exact limits of what a President can do with the military without Congressional authorization are unknow, even today)\n\nThere are checks and balances to assure the government is ran according to the constitution.  There are always ways to influence, but the body has more influence on the president, then vise versa.\n\nThe constitution provides certain checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. The influence of Congress on the presidency has varied from one period to another; it depends largely on the leadership and the political influence of the President. The authors of the Constitution expected the greater power to lie with Congress and that is one reason they are described in Article One. Under the first half-dozen Presidents, power seems to have been evenly divided between the President and Congress, in part because early Presidents largely restricted their vetoes to claims of unconstitutionality.\n\nTo improve their working relationships with Congress, presidents in recent years have set up a Congressional Liaison Office in the White House. Presidential aides keep abreast of all important legislative activities and try to persuade senators and representatives of both parties to support administration policies.\n\n\nHope this helps...
583451
The president can issue executive orders and executive writs on everything and anything.  However, the writ is non binding, it is simply an opinion.  For example, the president signs a bill from congress, grudgingly.  In order to let his qualifications on signing be known he issues a writ.  It means nothing.\n\nThe executive order is the presidents ability to rule by fiat.  However, since we have three branches of government the Congress can refuse to support via the budget and the Supreme Court can rule the executive order unconstitutional.
95709
If it within the confines of existing law I don't have a problem with it. I'm one who believes that president doesn't not have a lot of power. The constitution limited the presidents powers inorder to keep the government in the hands of the people thru it's elected representives. Additionally, the Commander In Chief status(Article II) placed on the president was meant to keep military generals or other officers from taking over the country like we seen happen so many times in other countries ie Cuba, and many African nations.
553496
None! The Constitution has no provisions on the matter. As to previous poster your refering to the rule for Senators & President. Not the Justices....
1088692
The President does not "pass" laws.  That's the job of the congress.  And neither one gets involved with things this far removed from national policy.
505243
The President neither has the power to change nor make laws. That is the job of Congress to make and change laws, the Supreme Court can eliminate laws (deem them unconstitutional).\n\nBut to answer your question, I would be a better speaker than the current President.  He is a poor orator.
1111798
Yes, as it doesn't give the president much power at all. All the president has the ability to do is force a simple majority vote on an item. \n\nThis doesn't actually give him the ability to alter legislation.
823777
The President responded properly with the barrage of questions.  It is stability under pressure especially that Democrats comprised the majority in the Congress.
798307
When you break down the actual power that is instilled in each branch, the answer is fairly obvious.\n\nIt seems as if the the folks who have answered think that it is clearly the Judicial Branch, but they couldn't be more wrong.  If anything, the Judicial Branch has the least amount of authority in the federal government. The Supreme Court, in fact, has only implied power. The High Court acquired the ability to deem a law unconstitutional via one of their own rulings in 1803 (Marbury vs, Madison); nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it authorize the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court can only rule on cases brought before them by parties with a standing concern (i.e., individuals who are being directly and immediately affected by the law). If the case never reaches their courtroom, all the Supreme Court can do is sit idley by and watch from the sidelines. As far as the preconception that a Court ruling not being able to be overturned, that's not entirely accurate. The Congress, from time to time, can regulate and make exceptions to Supreme Court decisions, in particular where it pertains to the Court's appellate jurisdiction.\n\nYou would have to list the the Executive Branch as a pretender as well, considering that The Congress can supercede nearly every decision that the President can make. His veto powered is neutered by the fact that Congress can simply override and institute any law that the President strikes down, Presidential appointments are subject to approval by both Houses, and his job security is determined largley at their discretion.\n\nThe Legislative Branch, without a doubt, holds all the cards in this discussion.They write our laws, levy our taxes, declare our wars, confirm our Supreme Court Justices and Cabinet Officials, decide how the federal money is spent, amongst a plothera of other actionable powers. In addition to their great many capabilities, as it concerns this discussion, Congress has the authority to impeach and dismiss the occupants of the other 2 branches. This, above all else, makes the Legislative Branch, undoubtedly, the most powerful of the three.
69996
This is an interesting question. The answer is that the US President has the power to declare war with the approval of congress.
1046036
The courts interpret law. They have no authority to hear matters that do not involve a current actual controversy between adverse parties. That's called "standing".\n\nCongress can pass any laws it wants, prospectively and proactively, within Constitutional limits. The courts can only interpret law and interpret the Constitution, and can only do so within the bounds of a particular case. Congress can also impeach a judge for failing to follow the rules.\n\nThe Executive appoints judges and justices. Thus, the president determines who gets on the bench. \n\nThose are the checks and balances. The executive appoints justices. Congress passes laws, which the courts can interpret. And Congress can impeach justices.
1164693
Congress.  President can deploy troops in certain, specific instances without the consent of Congress.
539232
So Fine is a moron.  Ignore her idiotic answer.\n\nHere is the right answer:\n\n1.  Congress writes the laws but cannot pass them nor determine their Constitutionality.\n\n2.  The President signs the laws but cannot write them nor determine their constitutionality.\n\n3.  The Supreme Court determines the laws constitutionality but cannot write them nor sign them\n\n\nEnd of story.