is the president empower to change the constitution?
359837
No, not to change it, but frequently allowed to ignore it.
327431
Yes the President doesn't have the power to change the laws anyway. the Catholics have apposed abortion for ever and nothing has ever been done about it. The smoke screen is this new Act the Bush Administration is trying to sneak in under the table, like the criminals they are. The Constitution Restoration Act written by Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell. This takes away the rights of the African American and the minority population to put white extreamists (Evangelist Churches) in constant power in the U.S.. You need to read it. It's another Patriot Act that steals Americans rights away.
766750
The powers of the Executive and Judicial have increased over time while the legislative has given up some of it's power.\n\nThe president is head of the national bureacracy and all federal agencies.  Through these agencies he can exercise a lot of power.  For example he determines who runs the FBI and what their priorities should be.  Also another example is the USDA and FDA that determines levels of pesticides that can be used and the general safety of food and medicine.  The president uses the power of Executive Order to do many things including going to war even though that should be a congressional decision.  Through the years presidents have written more and more executive orders breaking the records of previous presidents.  Look up executive order on wikipedia.\n\nThe judicial branch gained a great deal of power when they established that under the constitution they have the right to judicial review.  The judicial branch can create new law by interpreting how a different set of laws come together to create a new law.  For example, the right to privacy is not on the constitution or any federal law.  Privacy was determined by judicial review  to exist based loosely on the 4th and 5th amendments and some previous case law.\n\nChecks and balances works only if all the branches do their job in good faith.  If they are all part of the same political party and just do everything their party leaders tell them to it doesn't work anymore.  This is was the case the past six years that the president's party dominated both houses of congress and the judiciary (very anti-democratic).\n\nChecks and balances is supposed to work because powers are distributed to the different branches.  Judiciary can review a law and deem it unconstitutional and throw it out of the books.  The legislative has the power to change the constitution and holds the money and distributes it to everyone.  The executive runs the country, the bureacracy, and heads the military and can propose law, but can't make it and can't override congress.\n\nCongress is by far the most important and powerful branch because it can make law, change the constitution, and override any other branch of the government as long as it has a 2/3 majority in both houses.\n\nHope this helps.
399524
The US president can't under the US Constitution. It lacks the power for a so-called line item veto. A 1996 law allowing for such a veto was struck down.\n\nHowever, most state constitutions provide for such a veto with the exception of  Indiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont. If you live in the above seven states, it is 4. If you don't it is 2.
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).
285917
I fully expect him to try to change the Constitution so he can remain in the White house.  He tried, and failed, to have the 2004 elections postponed for a short period of time and was told no by the Supreme Court.\nI saw a cartoon a while back that showed Bush in the Oval office sitting behind a desk yelling, "Crown me, crown me."  There was someone sitting on the other side of the desk and another was walking into the room.  The second person said to the man walking in the room, "No, we aren't playing checkers.  He is serious." \nI think it is very scary the way he changes the Constitution to suit him and tramples over the rights given to us when this country was founded.\nI can only hope and pray our economy and country as a whole can sustain until he leaves office in January 2009.
1052200
Please read the first few articles of the US Constitution, or look at a junior high school level civics book.  The system of checks and balances is in place and the press has taken on the duty of watchdog.  Take a look at any of the news networks or on the web.  The constitution is too important to amend it too often!
70628
If you want to change the government then do so within the means of the constitution.  Make sure  you vote.
1176385
OK, separation of powers is different from the checks and balances.\n\nThe separation of powers makes it clear that only the courts can interpret the constitution and whether it allows for or a law or executive order or not.  It makes it clear that only the president can issue executive orders (ie going to war etc.) and finally that only the legislature shall pass laws. ( I know the last two seem to cross over with the presidential veto and the fact that some laws are proposed by the white house... but it the separation is there.)\n\nThe checks and balances is that no one branch has supreme power and that each can and will be "checked" by the others.  The courts can overturn a law or executive order.  The president can veto a law and appoints the bench. And the legislature can overturn a veto and can amend the constitution to change the issue before the bench.\n\nI don't think either superseded either, they are both intertwined.  I do not think though that anyone should be monitoring the branches (except for the public).  If judges were to watch the pres, then the pres would have the right to watch judges and congress and congress would have the right to watch the judges etc.)\nWhat we need to do is hold our representative officials responsible for their actions and make sure that the best candidates are put forth on ballots.
302199
It's really not.  Sure, the President seems to be much more engaged in the international side of things, but Congress has always had a much more domestic role.  Because Congress has the power to set policy within the country, the biggest way that the President can exercise his power is through diplomacy and the military.  It's merely a matter of perception.
103988
it doesnt, its a contract restriciting the power of those we 'trust' with it.\nhttp://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
537020
Unconstitutional is all. Of course disregarding the constitution has never been a problem for Bush. He has broken both domestic and international law and I hope that someday he has to answer for it.
180442
Here's the actual wording of the Constitution on how it can be amended:\n\n"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."\n\nIf you need clarification, Wikipedia has a pretty decent summary (it's long, but it's worth it):\n\n"The authors of the Constitution were clearly aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. Balancing this, they also wanted to ensure that an overly rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was to devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be altered.\n\nThe first option must begin in Congress which, by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum) in each house, may initiate an amendment. Alternatively, the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states may ask Congress to call a national convention to discuss and draft amendments. To date, all amendments have been proposed by Congress; although state legislatures have on occasion requested the calling of a convention, no such request has yet received the concurrence required for such a convention.\n\nIn either case, amendments must have the approval of the legislatures or of smaller ratifying conventions within three-fourths of the states before becoming part of the Constitution. All amendments save one have been submitted to the state legislatures for ratification; only the 21st Amendment was ratified by individual conventions in the states.\n\nUnlike most constitutions, amendments to the U.S. constitution are appended to the existing body of the text, rather than being revisions of or insertions into the main articles. There is no provision for expunging from the text obsolete or rescinded provisions."
120460
He will and should change nothing. And that is what I love about him.  He is right and everyones else wrong and unlike Clinton, he does not give a rip what the public thinks.  I just wish we could change the Constitution to give him another term
888615
Im suprised he hasn´t changed the constitution yet, he´s changed it on most things to rob the public of thier freedoms.\n\nDon´t worry some other puppet will be put in his place, it doesn´t matter who wins the election its all fixed anyway.
310861
It takes a lot to change the constitution. You might as well not waste your time on something as silly as changing it so an unpoopular governor can lose the Presidential election for your party. Because, it might make it harder to get a law change you do want.
989868
constitutional reform is the process of changing the constitution