0
What else can I help you with?
What Scenario would most likely result in the president using an executive order to enact a new policy?
The president proposes several new bills that are all rejected by Congress - apex
As the president and the executive department implement and enforce a law they might need what?
Congress is in charge of making laws. The president only approves the bill or not, but he doesn't make law. This insures that the president doesn't become a king or dictator. Lately we have had a man in the executive branch who doesn't understand this concept and has tried to make laws without congress. The end result is these actions have gone to the federal courts.
who requires that every bill order and resolution be presented to the president?
No not every bill is presented unless it is passed by congress. Congress is in charge of making laws. The president only approves the bill or not, but he doesn't make law. This insures that the president doesn't become a king or dictator. Lately we have had a man in the executive branch who doesn't understand this concept and has tried to make laws without congress. The end result is these actions have gone to the federal courts.
What are executive agreements and how they have changed the constitutional relationship between the president and congress?
Executive agreements are international agreements made by the president without the need for Senate approval, distinct from treaties which require a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Over time, the use of executive agreements has expanded, allowing presidents to bypass Congress on foreign policy matters, thereby altering the constitutional balance of power. This shift has increased the executive branch's authority, enabling presidents to act more decisively in international affairs, often leading to tensions over the traditional role of Congress in foreign policy. As a result, the legislative branch's influence on international agreements has diminished in practice.
Which political theory has been interpreted to mean that a president can shield critical information from Congress as a result of the separation of powers?
The political theory often cited in this context is the "unitary executive theory." This theory posits that the president possesses broad authority over the executive branch, including the discretion to withhold certain information from Congress, particularly when it relates to national security or foreign affairs. Proponents argue that this separation of powers grants the president the ability to act independently in the interest of the nation, while critics contend it undermines congressional oversight. This interpretation has been a point of contention in discussions regarding executive privilege and accountability.
How does the judiciary checkmate the executive?
The president makes numerous judicial appointments, including nominations to the Supreme Court. As a result, a president can leave a lasting imprint on the judiciary -- and the nation -- for years to come.
How did president Johnson's previous experience in congress help to achieve passage of the civil rights act?
President Johnson's former experience in congress made him a strong politician. As a result, he fought for civil rights and did not want to take "no" for an answer.
In 1995-96 the federal government was twice shut down as the result of conflict between?
President Clinton and Congress
What if the president could fire justices of the supreme court of he didn't like a ruling they made?
This would essentially put the supreme court under the president and let him decide the constitutionality of laws if Congress agreed with him. However if the opposition controlled Congress, the president might fire the whole court and Congress might refuse to confirm his new appointments and chaos would result.
What happens when a bill dies as a result of no presidential signature?
If the President signs a bill that has been passed by Congress, it does not die, but becomes law. I have never heard of a President signing a bill before it was passed by Congress, but if he did and it died, I suppose it would mean that he was in danger of being known as a weak President.
Why is Obama's Iran deal not subject to the two-thirds Senate vote for ratification?
While it is the case that all "treaties" require the ratification of the Senate, e.g. the two-thirds approval vote, this became incredibly difficult and cumbersome. As a result, President Franklin D. Roosevelt decided that he would term his international negotiations something other than treaties, like executive agreements. Because "executive agreements" are never mentioned in the US Constitution, there is no provision requiring any congressional approval. Note that from a functional and international law perspective there is absolutely no difference between a "treaty" and an "executive agreement".However, Congress retaliated in the 1960s, by passing a law requiring presidents to notify the legislative branch of all "executive actions" signed. Of course, this simply meant that Congress would be aware of the "executive agreement" and not in a position to oppose it. In some cases, the President will grant Congress the right to vote up or down on the "executive agreement" he reached during the notification process. This up or down vote is a plain majority vote in the Congress, but can be vetoed by the President. This effectively makes the approval requirement for an "executive agreement" the almost-exact reverse of the approval requirement for a "treaty". Instead of two-thirds of the Senate being required to approve a "treaty", now, two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House of Representatives are required to override the Presidential veto preventing their disapproval of the "executive action" from coming to pass.Almost every President since FDR has taken advantage of this incredibly useful tool and what Obama is doing on the Iran deal is no different.
What is executive-legislative deadlock?
Executive-legislative deadlock occurs when the executive branch (such as a president or prime minister) and the legislative branch (such as a parliament or congress) are unable to reach an agreement on important policy decisions or legislation. This situation often arises when different political parties control the two branches, leading to conflicts over priorities and governance. As a result, essential laws may be stalled, and government operations can become inefficient, impacting the overall functioning of the political system.
