Want this question answered?
Judicial Branch
Saving money and limiting the size of government
the federal government should be limited in power
the president cant make any decision he wants, congress is the one that can. if the president trys to he can get impeached
The President of the United States during the Bakke decision was Jimmy Carter.
Thomas Jefferson was the US President who first spoke of a "government of the people" in his inaugural address in 1801. He emphasized the importance of citizen participation in government decision-making and the need for a government that serves the interests of the people. Jefferson believed in a democratic system that respects the voice and will of the people.
The President (Executive Branch) doesn't have the authority to reverse a Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) decision because such action would violate the separation of powers established by the Constitution. If the President had that kind of "veto authority" over a Supreme Court decision he (or she) would effectively control two branches of the government and would be vested with too much power.
The Dred Scott decision and a philosophy of judicial restraint
Checks and balances are a system of counterbalancing in the US government , to make sure that none of the three branches of government takes on too much power. For example the Senate has the right to impeach a decision the president makes and the president has the right to veto or reject a proposed law.
i know there is an organization that makes the decision of who the next president is gonna be with out our voice. funny huh? :)
yes
A federal law exists banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage. It is not within the authority of the President to overturn that law. This can only be done by the legislative or judicial branches of the federal government. Therefore, President Obama has no choice but to leave the issue to the federal government for a decision.