what powers does a lame duck president have exactly?
344098
A lame duck title is not an official title. The powers remain exactly the same. However, a lame duck title is applied when the president is close to leaving office, and is unable to further his agenda because he no longer has the political power he once did.
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.
555644
Russia is a democratic federative state based on rule of law and a republican form of government. State power in Russia is exercised by the President, the Federal Assembly, the Government and the courts. \nOne of the basic principles of constitutional government is the division of powers. In accordance with this principle, power must not be concentrated in the hands of one person or one institution, but must be divided among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of power. The division of powers requires that there be a clear delineation of responsibilities and a system of checks and balances so that each branch of power can offset the others. \n\nThe President is at the summit of the system of state power. He ensures that all the state institutions are able to carry out their responsibilities and keeps watch over them to ensure that no institution can encroach on another’s prerogatives, attempt to usurp power in the country or take over another’s powers.\n\nEach institution of state power is only partially responsible for enforcing the Constitution. Only the President has the responsibility of safeguarding the state system, the state’s sovereignty and integrity overall. This is the guarantee that the other state institutions and officials can exercise their powers in a normal constitutional fashion.\n\nThe President’s place in the state power system is tied to his constitutional prerogatives regarding, above all, the executive branch of power. Legally, the President is distanced from all the branches of power, but he nonetheless remains closer to the executive branch. This closeness is reflected in the specific constitutional powers the President exercises as head of state. \n \n\n\nCont. on web page this is the government site of russia it should give all the info you need to answer this question that i do not have here.
877547
It's a lame duck because it doesn't have any popular authority left. Since most of it's members have been voted out of power, it cannot claim the mandate necessary to enact broad, sweeping legislation. It must only muddle along till the newly elected congress comes about.
841361
The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons.\n\nAs chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.
15997
The President of the United States has 6 categories of power.  Under the category of Executive powers he or she has "Executive Orders" powers.  These powers a simliar to the legislative or judicial powers.\n\nBeing that the government is setup with equal power among the branches, the Supreme Court could rule what the President is doing is in violation of Constitutional rights.\n\nAbraham Lincoln violated consitutional rights doing the Civil war by suspending Habeas Corpus, that is the right of a person who has been arrested to know the charges they are being held on.\n\nThe Supreme Court ruled this was unconstitutional, however another presidential power suspended the Supreme Courts decision.\n\nUnder the President Military Powers, he or she is able to order the military into action.  During the Civil War Lincoln told the Supreme Court if they forced action he would order the military to arrest all of the Justices.  The Supreme Court backed down and waited until after the war was over to rule.\n\nWith the powers given to the President by the people of the United States through the US Constitution as well as the Constituion stating the government must protect the citizens of the United States, yes, it is well within the power of the President to take actions considered by the government to protect the citizens.
498589
Our current president claims "executive privelege" over everything.  He has NOT ONCE excercised his veto power, the first president in history to never veto a single tiny bill from Congress.  His answer is to instead is to sign a congressional bill into law and then immediately write a signing statement saying how the law does not apply to him, or simply issue an executive order reversing whatever the bill said when it doesn't suit him.  If that isn't unchecked power, I don't know what is.  His cronies have also been instrumental in passing laws dismantling the bill of rights, it is just now starting that federal judges are getting such cases challenged, but the media isn't reporting the rulings (Scalia totally grilled the Bush administration, the very people that appointed him).
252192
1. Can impeach president and judges.\n2. Can override Veto.\n3. Can reject appointments.\n4. Can refuse to approve treaties.
72109
It is important to remember that laws are created and enacted by Congress, but the President does have certain powers that are above the law.  He or she is allowed to circumvent laws to protect the nation.  This is the President's ultimate task - to protect the citizens from destruction or harm.  This is also why so many people and news media have many things to gripe and report on.  It is often a matter of opinion as to when laws must be circumvented and what classifies as a true threat to the citizens.  This issue will only grow more argumentative as time goes on, but in the end, I believe the President will win.  Right or wrong, people are willing to sacrifice laws and freedom for security.
860727
Actually, I think all politicians have way too much power.  In the case of the president, the problem is that he presides over a vast entrenched bureaucracy that cannot change very quickly, and still less when it is asked to down-size.  So it's not so much the president's power that has grown directly, but his authority to increase bureaucracy, which grows like mushrooms after a rain.
1081059
It depends on the organization's by-laws. It may or may not be legitimate, but the person elected certainly doesn't have to take the position it they don't want it.
605389
Bill Clinton is not eligible because the twenty-second amendment  to the US Constitution limits the President to two terms.  He is barred from the VP spot, because he could not ascend to the Presidency if that were necessary.
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.
733417
Bush challenges hundreds of laws\nPresident cites powers of his office\nBy Charlie Savage, Globe Staff  |  April 30, 2006\nWASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.\nAmong the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.\nLegal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.\nFormer administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.\nBut with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.\n   \n\nFar more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.\nMany legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.\nPhillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.\n''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."\nFor the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.\nPage 2 of 7 -- \nBush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed.\nInstead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ''been used for several administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution."\nBut the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority
279256
The President will be considered lame duck after election day 2006,  because he isn't up for reelection and he won't have influence over any future election.  More specifically, the term will refer to him after election day 2008, cause I guess he could get his popularity up and have an impact over 2008 election.\n\nThere term refers to governors or Presidents in the last months of their Presidency when they won't be able to push their agenda.
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.
572347
The President is also the Commander-in-chief and can, as you put it, "make war". The Congress controls the purse strings and may or may not choose to fund it. Every President in the history of our country has always gone to Congress in order to "make war".