Why is an executive agreement not part of the checks and balance system?
603317
Dear Dude:\nFirst learn about the following facts and then talk about democracy. \n\nThe transnational companies which are using American government and ARMY to sip oil from Iraq are paying back with the money they have earned by selling the oil they have been continuously stealing from Iraq. They will do the same in Iran and Venezuella.\n\nYou won't believe it but some transnational companies are there to force the Yahoo Corp. to delete my questions here. But I am continuously changing my name to hide it from them. Until they find me, thousands of people will have learned that America is no more controlled by its national companies. Transnational companies are a great threat both for America and the world. A transnational company is one that feels no loyalty to any nation. They don’t pay any taxes to any government and they are strong enough to overthrow governments all over the world. For the time being they are using Americans. They threat America by the fact that if they draw their capital and investments from America 25 % of its population will be jobless. \n\nThe fight and the tension between the members of the Senate is in fact a fight between the American and non-American capital owners. Right after the 9/11 the nationalistic or loyal American capital owners became a little bit stronger and passed a decree from the senate to the effect that the central government and the states are to buy their weapons from NATIONAL war industries... But at present non-American capital owners have become stronger enough to sip petroleum out of Iraq by using American ARMY. This is the horrible fact about American Politics and Bush is not loyal to America.\n\nSorry for the terrible English. Wish you prosperity and happiness. I am a mere warrior to enlighten people about facts.… Yes, they are my facts. But believe me they aren’t groundless.
482584
It has caused a critical imbalance in the separation of powers doctrine, where the Executive thinks he can ignore federal laws passed by Congress, and thinks he can ignore court holdings by the Supreme Court.\n\nAnd the most frightening thing is that there are people out there in large numbers who don't see a problem with this type of pre-tyranny. They don't realize that all great tyrannies started when the Executive decided that the laws and the rules didn't apply to them.\n\nWe've lost the rule of law, because the Executive doesn't think laws should be followed if he doesn't like them. And because the Executive is responsible for enforcing the laws, if he chooses to ignore them, there is apparently no accountability.\n\nBush and his administration are the single greatest threat to the integrity of this country since the Civil War. Not because he's making bad choices -- every president does that. He's a threat because he is single-handedly destroying the balance of power that the framers of the Constitution spent so much time establishing.\n\nThanks to Bush, the terrorists are on the verge of winning, by turning this country into one where laws don't matter.
650699
It is difficult enough to keep all the checks processed and delivered . The out-of country banks cant turn in daily work  for check processing because that is very expensive delivery costs and it would take a meeting of the top economists from every country with a currency coming together and trying to explain each countries economic particulars to each other , trying to compare notes to figure out a simple way to combine Banking Laws into one.\nI myself have been hoping that the countries would come to some kind of worldwide system agreement to place foreign embassy ATM locations at  all foreign embassies with currency exchange ability able to exchange currency there into whatever currency they need and to send payments abroad using wiring money methods. Does anybody know if there are any new ATMs on the horizon .there are certainly enough ipods, blackberrys , etc..
590380
BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PAY INTO UNEMPOLYMENT INS. IN ORDER TO COLLECT IT  ''DAH''. IF YOU DON'T PUT MONEY IN A CHECKING ACCOUNT YOU CAN'T WRITE CHECKS.SAME THING
503309
Because society accepts it for payment of obligations.  Government endorsement helps, but is not sufficient.  In countries with weak currencies, alternate currencies form or other currencies are substituted.  In the US, over the last several years, organizations primarily in the West, have been printing silver depository receipts and they have been circulating them as tender for payment of goods and services.  They have had substantial support considering that there is no government or banking guarantee of the funds.  It is a warning sign of the failure of the "full faith and credit," to be accepted by Americans.
500329
Both the executive and legislative branches can make laws; but its the legislative branch's primary function. The judiciary branch is supposed to apply the law..... but they seem to be creating it these days. :(\n\nEver heard of the Executive Order? The president's legislative ability is limited, but he has it nonetheless.
234115
The United States is not under a parliamentary system, where the cabinet has binding votes for the actions of the Prime Minister. The authority of the Executive Branch in the United States is instead entirely vested in the person of the President, chosen through the electors of the states as chosen by each state's voters. The cabinet to the President is confirmed by the Senate and then they serve at the pleasure of the President, who may ask for their resignations for any reason until the President leaves office, when by tradition all cabinet members submit their resignations to the next President.\n\nThe members of the Cabinet fulfill many different functions but again they are at the pleasure of the President as he carries out his own Constitutional duties (Attorney General, Secretary of Defense, Homeland Security, etc) and carries out those tasks designated to the Executive by Congress (HUD Secretary, Health and Human Services, Interior, etc).\n\nThe Cabinet members may act as advisors if the President so wishes, and can offer their opinions on how the federal government should act, but their advise and opinion are not in any way binding on the President. The President may also seek advise and counsel from outside sources under the tradition of Executive Privilege, but again the advise is not binding.
558770
No. There needs to be a check & balance system.  It shouldn't be the same auditor for both financial statements & internal operations: there needs to be accountability.  It also needs to be performed by a competent, independent, objective, and unbiased auditors. The purpose is to verify that the subject of the audit was completed or operates according to approved and accepted standards, statutes, regulations, or practices. It also evaluates controls to determine if conformance will continue, and recommends necessary changes in policies, procedures or controls.
233566
In short, because anything of significance required unanimous agreement, it was becoming unwieldy to act as a general government.  Two areas where this stood out.  One was acting as the singular contact with foreign sovereignties.  The other was in collecting funds from the States to pay for the general government.
111598
There is no relationship between the two.  They are each part of the legislative branch (executive and judicial are the other two), but the only time they ever meet up is for the president's state of the union address in the house chambers.
339221
it part of the check and balanced the make the laws and control the money it balances out the fact the court rules if the laws are just and the president enforce them it so no one is the main power
928579
As it happens, the question you pose happens to be the case right now.  The Republicans currently control both of those Branches (some would argue that they control all three).  In the current case, it appears that a weak legislature of the same Party as the President tends to act as rubber stamp for the Executive.  In times past,  the Congress has taken its role in the scheme of "Checks and Balances" more seriously.  Part of the answer to this question depends on your view of the performance of the party in power. Personally, I don't think things are going particularly well - you may have another view.
408490
The executive branch is allowed to veto acts of congress, and is supposed to carry out the laws that congress passes. Congress passes laws and amendments that they feel the courts or the executive need to carry out. Also, they confirm appointments made by the president to the executive branch and the judicial branch. The courts are a check on the power of both the executive and congress by ruling on wether things are  allowed based on the constitution. If a court decides something is not constitutional, the law is deemed void.\n\nIn theory they should be the same; however, in practice the Executive branch has been the most powerful over the years. Then congress, and finally the judicial. However, the judicial branch seems to make vital decisions every once in awhile.
768261
i think youre talking about the checks and balances idea we have in the us. and its so one branch can't run away with power the problem is that right now with bush there is no one checking him. i heard a stat that clinton administration got 'checked' over a 1000 times by congress and the bush administration just once. some thing is wrong with that. but benefits is to keep a dictatorship from happening.
250908
It never passed in Congress, so it was never sent to President Bush to be signed.  It has since be reintroduced a different form and it didn't go anywhere.
163186
The simple answer is the people who elected them, but they are co-governed by the other two branches.  The executive branch enforces the law.  They can arrest a judge if they do something illegal.  The legislative branch can change the law if they agree the law was not interpreted as they intended.
815744
To prevent abuse of power. The framers did not intend for this to be a monarchy, which is why they made so much of checks and balances--even though our current Pres thinks he is supreme ruler, he is no more powerful than the Congress or the Supreme Court.