The president has the power of the sword and the congress has the power of the purse. is dis true??
554457
No. Only Congress can legally declare war, so it has the power of the sword. (Except when certain executives take that power into their own hands.)  And it's true that Congress also has the power of the purse, but only when Congress isn't full of scaredy-cats who wouldn't say boo to a goose, much less say no to a president.
935370
the Senate being part of the Legislative bracn has the power in conjunction with the House of Representative to to pass laws and regulation . There are some differences in the powers of the House and senate however. All spending bills while requiring passage by the senate must be initiated in the House of representatives the senate can amend an existing spending bill but can not initiate spending legislation. Removal of federal officials is vested in the congress but must be originated in the House of Representatives by articles of Impeachment. once impeached The senate holds the sole power to hold a trial and remove said official these are the powers vested in congress as a whole and how they are divided.\n\nthen there are the powers that are exclusive to the senate and are not shared by the house. The senate holds the sole power of advice and consent in regards to cabinet, Ambasador   and judicial appointees. The senate also has the sole power to approve or ratify a treaty with a foreign entity or government. The last power granted by the 16th amendment is the power to elect the vice president if the electoral college is deadlocked. \n\nAs for problems many would argue the pratice of filibuster which is practiced only in the senate is is counter to the democratic principle one person or in this case senator one vote. for for the Filibuster allows a minority to block the majority voteby not releasing the floor so a vote can be taken.\nSome also Might contend the original intention of the senate has been corrupted. The The house of representative was ment to be the body representing the populous The senate was put in place to safeguard the rights and sovereignty of state governments as a whole. the modern senate can be argued is much more a populous body than the founders intended.\n  \nI think this covers all the bases I hope this helps
79273
You may read that the President has a budget of ten Zillion dollars BUT, until congress "appropriates" or provides the actual money,(funds the budget) he has nothing. I.E. the President "proposes" but congress "Disposes"
41933
Each branch checks each other and balances out their power. So no branch is more powerful than the other.
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.
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.
521157
What you are being asked is to write a paper that discusses the separation of powers in the US Constitution regarding the military.\n\nThe President has certain powers and authorities over the military and Congress as different powers and authorities.\nThe idea is to ensure that neither can gain total control of the military but prevent a deadlock because the two may not disagree.
130277
If you go to the official government website, it should tell you... They don't personally have military powers... the president for instance proposses going to war. He needs the congress' and the senate's approvial by vote. If they vote no, then the president can send the military over to war for a mximum of 30 days. Then by the amendments, he must order them back. Many presidents have used this to get around voting. I don't know if it fully solved your question, so look on the government's sight... I'm pretty sure it's all right, but as I said, double check! :D HOPE IT HELPS!
200112
There is no need for Congress to overthrow the President.  Our  term limits guarantee that Bush will be gone in two years.  There have been many times in the past when the President and Congress have butted heads.  Our balance of power ensures that Congress will not have undue power over the country.  They either need the President to sign bills into law or a 2/3 majority to overrule a veto.
556697
Under the Constitution, it has a fair amount of power, as such.   It can make war, tax the people, regulate the economy, blah, blah, blah.  Historically, though, the Federal Government has usurped enormous powers that would normally be delegated to the states.
517763
Usually members of congress will have a pretty good idea of whether or not the president will sign the bill into a law beforehand.  And sometimes congress passes a bill knowing it will get vetoed anyway.  Since the government is usually not unified (with a party in control of congress and the opposite party in control of the white house) vetoes will occur from time to time.  But obviously the more vetoes the worse the relationship between the two branches.  It could be construed as weakness on either side.  One could say its a weak president because he cant get any of his legislation passed, or a weak congress that cant convince the president (unless the choose to override the veto in which case the congress would be viewed as having a bit of an advantage).\nRecently, President Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill/law.  This is because he has a better relationship with congress, because they are of the same party.  Especially with his approval ratings low, if the congress was democratically controlled, then you would see a much more volatile relationship, resulting in a lot more vetoes.
896597
This is a hard one, having lived in both places. The USA does appear to have the edge on the written constitution and the checks and balances offered by congress. However, the past six years show how that can be abused when the executive and congress are in cohorts. Europe does have the edge in civility and style.
533150
Oh my god!!! Simple stuff...you should know this already. \n\nThe Legislature or Legislative Branch of Government - they are in charge of making the laws of this Country.\n\nExecutive Branch - That's where Bush and Cheney are right now. The president, vice president & their two cabinets .....they are responsible for carrying out the laws of the land, at the National Level. They also enforce our Laws and develop policy in certain key areas like Commerce & Education..etc\n\nHope you get it now....\n\ngo to www.mcwdn.org
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.
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.
923813
none of the above....the president takes the power away from congress...unless its his own party in control
137815
When the country was formed the three branches were meant to be equals.  The Supreme Court quickly fell behind in importance compared to the other two and was saved by John Jay from being completly irrelevant.  Back then, the President did not have the executive authority that he does now.  Congress retained broader powers and would be stunned to see how much power the President has.  The President cannot start the process for laws in this country but is one of the major policy players in that they get congressional members to put the bill before the chambers.  The Speaker of the House and the President were much closer in relationship of power than they are now with the Speaker having little power beyond the House.