Who can suspend the Constitution with executive orders that have been in place for 30 years? Signed by Pres...
353321
Get a grip.  Executive orders have been around since the birth of the nation.  The US isn't about you or anyone else.  If you or I should die to further the cause of the US, then so be it.  And that goes for anyone else to, lest people think the USA won't get by without them.
645095
The oldest federal constitution in existence was framed by a convention of delegates from twelve of the thirteen original states in Philadelphia in May 1787, Rhode Island failing to send a delegate. George Washington presided over the session, which lasted until September 17, 1787. The draft (originally a preamble and seven Articles) was submitted to all thirteen states and was to become effective when ratified by nine states. It went into effect on the first Wednesday in March 1789, having been ratified by New Hampshire, the ninth state to approve, on June 21, 1788.
926888
Read the 4th, 5th, and 6th articles of the Constitution. One of them has the answer.
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.
274597
none so far, but debate over the past year regarding constitutional change (or charter change) has been quite heated. currently, they are still under the constitution of 1987.
853283
Section One of Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that the President must be a natural born citizen of the United States (or a citizen of the United States at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted), at least 35 years of age, and resident of the United States for at least fourteen years.
111830
You dont want a single person in government becoming too powerful, that is why you need to put restrictions on just how long they can hold power.\n\nGeorge Washington set a precident on only serving two terms and then stepping down.  After that all following presidents only served two terms (althgough some tried for more) until FDR.  Franklin Roosevelt was elected for 4 terms in a row (dying a few months into his 4th).\n\nAfter FDR, the 22nd ammendment was passed in 1951 limiting the president to two terms.\n"No person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of president more than once."\n--22nd ammendment to the US constitution.
134684
Iran Contra--Where the White House was accused of arms deals with Iran.\n\n"Presidents can't do that now. When the Iran-Contra scandal erupted in 1986, President Reagan waived both executive privilege and attorney-client privilege." http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/25/bierbauer/\n\n\nThe most important modern articulation of executive privilege standards was the Reagan administration's executive privilege memorandum.6 On November 4, 1982, President Ronald Reagan issued an executive privilege memorandum to heads of executive departments and agencies. The Reagan procedures were generally similar to those in a 1969 Nixon executive privilege memorandum.7 For example, President Reagan's guidelines affirmed the administration policy "to comply with Congressional requests for information to the fullest extent consistent with the constitutional and statutory obligations of the Executive Branch."8 The memorandum reaffirmed the need for "confidentiality of some communications,"9 and added that executive privilege would be used "only in the most compelling circumstances, and only after careful review demonstrate[d] that assertion of the [*pg 406] privilege [was] necessary."10 Finally, the memorandum stated that "executive privilege [would] not be invoked without specific Presidential authorization."11\n\nThe Reagan memorandum nonetheless developed clearer procedures than had existed before. All congressional requests for information would be accommodated unless "compliance raise[d] a substantial question of executive privilege."12 Such a question would arise if the information "might significantly impair the national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), the deliberative processes of the Executive Branch or other aspects of the performance of the Executive Branch's constitutional duties."13 Under these procedures, if a department head believed that a congressional request for information might concern privileged information, he would notify and consult with both the attorney general and the counsel to the president. Those three individuals would then decide to release the information to Congress, or have the matter submitted to the president for a decision if any one of them believed that it was necessary to invoke executive privilege. At that point, the department head would ask Congress to await a presidential decision. If the president chose executive privilege, he would instruct the department head to inform Congress "that the claim of executive privilege [was] being made with the specific approval of the President."14 The Reagan memorandum allowed for the use of executive privilege even if the information originated from staff levels far removed from the Oval Office.
875589
The Constitution will not go into effect as law of the Land until ratified.\n\nThe (then) current Articles of Confederation were not meant to last forever and needed replacement and enhancements.  These Articles did not specify States Rights versus Federal Rights clearly.\n\nThe Federal Government is broken into 3 branches of Government, to ensure a system of "Checks and Balances."  No single group could get control.  Also, unlike the Articles, the Constitution gave details on how it can be changed in the future (by Ammentments and Ratification).
776681
The executive branch does not pass laws. It signs (or vetoes) them; and it enforces them -- or not, as the present occupant of the White House dictates in his signing statements.\n\nIt also promulgates regulations -- published in the Federal Register -- which interpret and apply laws. Too many of these to mention.\n\nThe current occupant of the White House has gone further than any before in arrogating rights to itself: ignoring laws and treaties and parts of the Constitution. That is grounds for impeachment; but impeachment is unlikely and useless if achieved since conviction is impossible.
120698
Gerald Ford.\n\nMade VP for Nixon when Agnew resigned, then made Prez, when Nixon resigned. Thus not voted in by actual people. (But was confirmed as VP by senate.)\n\nI don't think it is clear if someone can go for more than 8 years if they are not elected to the third term. Like if Bush fired Cheny (boo), then picked Bill Clinton (yea), and then Bush resigned. I think Bill could fill out the rest of Bush's term.\n\nIn fact, I very much wish he would.\n\nAnd of course FDR was elected to 4 terms, but died in the begining of the fourth. The amendment limited Presidental terms came after - and because of - FDRs 4 terms.
1000534
To the US Constitution? 27 amendments have been ratified \n\nThe 27th Amendment was proposed back in the 1780s but only ratified in 1992.
1085093
unfortunately, yes.  as the commander in chief of the armed forces, the president can send them in to any place he wants, and technically they are supposed to follow his orders.  in the event that he doesnt leave office, impeachment obviously wouldnt work, and the only way to get rid of him would be to kill him, as Thomas Jefferson alluded to when he said that the people had the right and responsibility to overthrow a government that is corrupt and reestablish the old system.\n\nnow, to your question.  in debate on the house floor a few years ago (right before the invasion of iraq), representative mcdermott quoted an article from the Sydney Morning Herald titled, "Foundations are in Place for Martial Law in the United States."  Bascially, during the Iran-Contra Affair, Ronald Reagan issued an executive order giving FEMA even broader powers than Congress gave it, and among these powers were the ability to prevent violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition against a US military invasion abroad through the use of the military, basically, declaring martial law.  all of reagans papers, including this order, were sealed by the bush administration.  therefore, we do not know the full story.  \n\ni hope that this answers your question.  ive got the whole speech, and id be happy to give it to you if you want it.
886814
The Constitution that we have now is just as perfectly sound today as it was back then.  Leave it alone and start holding our government responsible for their actions as well as their responsibilities like the document stipulates.
944002
They already have a law in place to listen to calls for 72 hours before they get a warrant. It's the FISA law. And the president is to obey the law, just like us.Without oversight, the president can wiretap anybody he wants. That is what got Nixon in trouble and caused the creation of the FISA law.
1173216
There is the Executive Branch, the Judiciary Branch and the Legislative Branch.\n\nExecutive:\nThis is like the President and such. You could draw the White House or something. Prez has the power to veto laws.\n\nJudiciary:\nSupreme Court and stuff. You could draw one of those hammer-thingys that judges always use. Gavels or something? Anyway, they interpret the laws from the Constitution.\n\nLegislative:\nCongress --> Senate + House of Reps. They make the laws.
574567
An executive order is like a law, except that it doesn't have to be approved by Congress, it instead must be overturned by Congress creating a law that is contrary. The president can veto that law, requiring congress to get a 2/3rds majority to override the veto.\n\nWhat this means, is that executive orders can put an incredible amount of power in the hands of one person, because unlike most laws which need a simple (51%) majority to pass, once an executive order is made by the President, a lot of legal red tape must be cut through to overturn it, AND there needs to be a two thirds (67%) majority to un-make the law.\n\nSome executive orders in the history of the U.S. have been good, and some bad, but only two have ever been overturned.