isn't the executive branch the most vaguely interpreted of the constitution? if so, how?
931535
The executive branch of government and business has always been where the buck stops and has been responsible for ensuring that laws are carried out. Committees have never been good at solving problems that require immediate action. The folks that wrote the constitution recognized this and created the executive branch--it is where the rubber meets the road. The executive branch is chartered to carry out what the House/Congress creates. Plus defend and protect the constitution of the United States.
14728
The authority of the Constitution was established after it was ratified by the (I believe it had to be 7 of the 13)Thirteen States. What isn't expressly given to the Federal Government is implied to go to the states.  The 3 branches had their own powers that check and balance each other out
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.
329283
When you say "the president wants the constitution reviewed" you do not explain what you mean by that.  Is there a specific news story behind this?\n\nWithout those details, I'll say this:\nIf it's just "reviewing" the Constitution to be sure of what it says about a specific issue that should not be a problem.  It's perfectly fine -- in fact I would WANT the President, Congress & the courts-- to be checking the Constitution when they are seeking to do any of the following:\n\n1) to make sure that something they want to do is not against the Constitution, or to show others how what they have done or are going to do IS supported by the Constitution\n\n2) if they think what some other branch of government has done or is thinking of doing goes against the Constitution, so they can fight for that action to be changed\n\n3) if there is a problem that it seems cannot be solved just by passing laws or by executive orders, something that needs a change in the Constitution.  Reviewing the Constitution an then deciding what sort of Constitutional AMENDMENT they want to propose for Congress and the state legislatures to act on\n\nPlease note that the way our government is set up there have always been, and will always be, struggles between the different branches of government over which powers each of them has according to the Constitution. EVERY President has fought for powers they believe they need and that the Constitution gives to them, to carry out their job.  And because Congress ALSO likes to maximize its power, there will always be people in Congress who say that the President does NOT have the powers he is claiming.   The back-and-forth between the branches to figure this all out is a GOOD thing, because it keeps one branch grom taking all the power for itself.  \n\nIn any case, except by the amendment process-- that is, the process the Constitution itself provides for!-- there is no legitimate way for ANY branch of government to change the Constitution.  But I have not heard of any case where the President is suggesting doing this.\n\nAs for the "selfiah interest" part -- again, you have not told us exactly what issue this is all about.  But if it's simply part of the back-and-forth between the branches that I mentioned above, that has gone on for more than 200 years now, I don't see how that is "selfish interest".\n\n(I'm also amazed at those who answered by attacking the President without even knowing WHAT issue you have in mind, without hearing a single fact of the case!!)
121591
Basically, the government can do whatever it wants except what is explicitly forbidden by the constitution. And even then, they can ratify the constitution. Government also gets away with doing things if nobody says anything about it and the Supreme Court doesn't notice or is willing to rule in their favor.\n\nBut if you're looking for an answer about which branch has what powers, congress makes laws, the supreme court ensures laws and acts of government are constitutional, and the president has the power to act in an emergency and veto potential laws he or potentially she disagrees with.\n\nIn introductory political science courses they say the president enforces laws, but I think that doesn't hold up in reality. When was the last time you saw the president enforce anything?
93461
It refers to the splitting of government power so that the government doesn't become too powerful.\n\nThe US government is split into three branches- judicial, legislative, and executive. The Judicial branch reviews laws and hears high court cases. The legislative branch passes new laws. The executive branch carries out laws.\n\nChecks and balences is a related concept that means that the seperated powers have similar amounts of power, so that no one group gains undue influence over the others. \n\nIn the US, the legislative branch can pass laws, but the executive branch (Mr. President) can veto them. In turn, the legislative branch can override the veto, and the judicial branch can declare the law unconstitutional.\n\nThe President can be impeached by the Congress, as can judicial court members.\n\nEtc. etc.
140253
Because he can.  According to what I've heard lately, the Executive Branch is above the law.  He's just testing out how far he can take this.
552770
You mean checks and balances?  The government is divided into three branches: legislative (the congress; they make the laws), executive (president, governors, mayors, etc, they enact the laws), and judicial (the courts; interpret and enforce the laws).  They keep each other in line through the systems of checks and balances because each branch can make any actions of the other two null and void.\n\nFor instance, let's say Congress passes a law, but the President doesn't like it, so he vetos it.  The Congress can still have the law enacted by passing the law again with a higher vote count (I think it has to be 2/3 majority).  But the courts can find the law to be unconstitutional, and throw it out.  Congress can then amend the Constitution to make the law constitutional, and on and on and round and round....\n\nThat's a brief description of how our government keeps any one person or body from getting too much power.
822083
I'm trying to do this by memory, so here goes. ........\n\n"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must conceive that the judiciary, from the nature of its power, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution, because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no influence over either the strength or wealth of a society, and can take no active resolution whatsoever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment, and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive department even for the efficacy of its judgments."\n\nI hope I got that right.\n\nIn terms of REstating Hamilton, instead of just quoting him, I'll explain that Hamilton meant that the judiciary has the weakest power of the three branches of government. The judiciary is weakest because it cannot make the other two branches do anything. The judges merely hand down "judgments," which do not have the force of law unless the executive branch chooses to obey the judiciary, and the executive branch doesn't have to do so. Even when Congress has made a law that the judiciary subsequently says is unconstitutional, the executive can choose to continue enforcing that law, effectively thumbing its nose at the judiciary.
900273
There are three branches of the government in the U.S.\n1. Executive Branch- this is the president, and his hand- picked cabinet; they usually agree with him on most issues.\n2. Legislative Branch- this is Congress. Congress is The House of Representatives, and The Senate. If the president wants to pass a law, it has to get the majority or 2/3 of the votes in Congress. When the opposite party is in power in Congress, this limits the President's power significantly. Also, if Congress wants to pass a law, the President can veto it if he chooses.\n3. Judicial Branch- this is the courts sytem; The U.S. Supreme Court is the head of this Branch. The Chief Justices decide on many things, but most importantly, they can decide what IS and what ISN'T Constitutional. The President nominates someone for a position in The Supreme Court, but Congress has to approve of his nomination. Of course he usually chooses someone who is sympathetic to his agenda.\nRight now, the Democrats have nearly won control of Congress,\nthis will limit George W. Bush's power, because they will oppose him on most issues. He is a Republican.
849817
Ummmm....the US Constitution?
598985
There is no order, that is why there is separation of powers, proposed originally by Baron de Montesque (or however you spell that).  There are three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial, that all have certain responsibilities and that all have to check on the other branches.  If you are not asking about the United States government, then I don't know.
590890
Pretty close to a monarchy actually !!!The executive branch has pretty much been allowed todo whatever they please ...\nlegally or not w/o question !!  If you do question you are labeled unpatriotic or liberal !!! Well I have alot of questions ... I am tired of being looked down upon by those that were "lucky" enough to get in office. I AM A MODERATE \nREPUBLICAN and as far as I can see the present day republican party is closer to a neo-nazi party in my veiw than to the beliefs of myself and many of my peers.
756746
The Constitution defines the powers of each branch of government.  The three branches are the judicial, the legislative, and the executive.  If a topic isn't covered, then it doesn't exist.
136309
You’re asking a great deal, whole sections of libraries hold many books just on this one subject and you could spend a lifetime studying the nuances associated with this Amendment.  For example, It states. . . . . \n\n“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”\n\nThis has roots in the Articles of Confederation which state in Article II. . . . \n\n“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”\n\nThese were not simply words to the Founders, during the convention (4 December 1787), James Wilson (Delegate of Pennsylvania) said. . . . \n\n“ . . . Sir, I think there is another subject with regard to which this Constitution deserves approbation.  I mean the accuracy with which the line is drawn between the powers of the general government and those of the particular state governments.  We have heard some general observations, on this subject, from the gentlemen who conduct the opposition.  They have asserted that these powers are unlimited and defined.  They have already been answered by my honorable colleague, (Mr. M’Kean) therefore I shall not enter into an explanation.  But is is not pretended that the line is drawn with mathematical precision: the inaccuracy of the language must, to a certain degree, prevent the accomplishment of such desire.  Whoever views the matter in a true light, will see that the powers are as minutely enumerated and defined as was possible, and will also discover that the general clause, against which so much exception is taken, is nothing more than was necessary to render effectual the particular powers that are granted. . . ”\nContinuing he stated, “ . . . But let us suppose – and the supposition is very easy in the minds of the gentlemen on the other side – that there is some difficulty in ascertaining where the true line lies.  Are we therefore thrown into despair?  Are disputes between the general government and the state governments to be necessarily the consequence of inaccuracy? . . . ”\n\nMy point is that the Founders were both concerned and not of the same mind as to the consequences of the Constitution in the relationship between the general government and the several State governments.  This resulted in a wide difference as to the need of a Bill of Rights including the 10th Article.\n\nIt is also interesting to note that at the time of the convention, all States (colonies) had existing constitutions and these constitutions provided incentive to the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Here with one example, from The Declaration of Rights for the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania. . . . . \n\n“Chapter I.  That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable Rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defining life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”\n\nEven after ratification differences arose and these few following selections from United States Supreme Court decisions demonstrate that reality.\n\nFrom the opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court case, Gordon v. United States [1864].  “The reservation to the States respectively can only mean the reservation of the rights of sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and which had not parted from by that instrument.”\n\nAnd then in the case of Kansas v. Colorado [1907].  “This Amendment disclosed the widespread fear that the National Government might, under the pressure of a supposed general warfare, attempt to exercise powers which had not been granted.  With equal determination the framers intended that no such assumption should eve
969831
The Constitution only has a few basic principals that are no-brainers.  It does not specifically preclude the "evil" governmental activity you indicate.  But thank God that it does prohbit British and Hessian soldiers from demanding to stay at my house.
292705
The executive branch had very little to do with the election in 2000 other then be cannon fodder to the right wing neo cons. The judicial was the one that appointed Bush.