A proposed amendment to the Constitution starts out as a standard piece of legislation. It is written just like any bill, except it specifies an Amendment to the Constitution. There are additional requirements as to the number of people in Congress who must approve it above the number of usual approvals for an ordinary bill. Then it goes to the President for either his signature or veto. If he signs it or Congress overrides the veto, then the proposed amendment is sent to the states for approval.
If 3/4 of the states approve the amendment, then it becomes effective. Most proposed constitutional amendments have a time limit, nowadays it's seven years. If 2/3 of the states don't approve it within the time limit it is dead. If there is no limit the amendment can be approved at any time as long as 3/4 of the states at the time of approval do so.
The 27th Amendment set a limit on the pay of Congress, it was one of the two proposed amendments as part of the Bill of Rights, but didn't get 2/3 of the states at the time, and languished for over 150 years. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some people, mad at Congress, urged more states to approve it. Once it got 38 states approval, the Archivist of the United States certifies this, then notified Congress it was approved as a new Amendment. Even though there were only 13 states at the time it was written, it has to have 2/3 of the number of states at the time of ratification, so it has to have 38, which is just over 2/3 of 50.
The House and the Senate present a Joint Resolution to the Archivist of the US for ratification by the States.
The US president has no formal role in changing the Constitution. He does not even formally approve amendments that are proposed by Congress. Of course, he can lobby for an amendment if he wishes .
Yeah
Congress....
Article one
The Founders expected Congress to abide by the constitution.
To establish a government, write the bill of rights and the constitution. Vote on the constitution and form a country.
The US President is not a legislator. He plays no role in Congress. This is one of the big differences between the US Constitution and a parliamentary system in which the Prime Minister is the leader of his party on the legislature.
Under the Constitution, it is the power of Congress, and Congress only to make laws. It is then up to the President to sign them into law, or veto them. The Supreme Court takes up matter that need clarification as to whether or not they are allowed and legal under the Constitution.
No, he has not. In fact, very few presidents have had an active role in changing the constitution. Customarily, only congress can pass a law that could then be ratified by the states and become an amendment to the constitution; but presidents can (and do) champion certain amendments, as Franklin D. Roosevelt did when he worked to end Prohibition in the early 1930s. President Obama has not worked to change the constitution, contrary to myths you may have read online.
The first appointed position that Gouverneur Morris had under the new Constitution was as the chairman of the Committee on Style. This committee was responsible for finalizing and polishing the language of the Constitution before it was sent to Congress for approval. Morris played a significant role in shaping the final wording of the Constitution.
No, it cannot. The power to make treaties with foreign countries is expressly reserved to the president under Article II of the US Constitution. The only role Congress plays is that treaties are subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Note that "Congress", (i.e. the Senate and House of Representatives together) does not have a role in approving treaties. Only the Senate has such a role.
The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actionsof the President and Congress. It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution.