It the US president had power to add things to the US constitution, then they could indefinitely extend their power, making them a dictator. The constitution limited the president's power to prevent such a situation from occurring, knowing too well the dangers of unchecked power in one man's hands.
An example of a power not specifically given to the President by the United States Constitution would be the power to purchase land to add to the United States of America. The purchase of the Louisana Territory and the Purchase of Alaska come to mind. I'm not certain, but I believe that Congress was involved for both purchases.
who knows :p
The constitution was a document that was written to replace the articles of confederation but at the same time they had to add three branches to check on each others power so there could be no tyranny.
By amendment.
Yes and Yes. The US Constitution applies to all the states. Each state has its own constitution that applies to that state. The state cannot contradict anything in the US Constitution, but they can add things that they feel are missing, or have more stringent requirements for certain things. And the state's constitution sets up and defines the government that will rule the state.
Because people might have different ideas to add to it.Because of a few things. Number one is that many of the framers viewed the powers of the constitution as more or less numerated. That is, if it didn't say that the government could have a certain power it was denied to them. So to give a power to the government they would need to pass an amendment. Secondly, they wanted it to belong to the living, not the dead and allow changes to be added as needed.
The Federalists, who wanted strong government, were reluctant to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. They said that the rights of American people were already made known in the body of the constitution. The Anti-Federalists, who wanted strong local and state governments, wanted the rights of Americans explicitly listed so they could not be changed, challenged, or argued.
No. I can see no reason for the vice-president to be given any more legislative power or add any unnecessary complications to the legislative process.
The qualifications were put into place by the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution and have not changed. I think they did not want to eliminate anybody who might be a good President. The voters add their own qualifications when they vote and there is a grueling campaign that tends to expose any weaknesses in a candidate. I wonder what qualifications you would like to add.
9 currently. In the past there have been less. The president has the power to add more seats in the supreme court.
Because the party in power changes the rules to enhance and retain their power. The new party that comes into power will throw out the rules that stopped them from doing things and then will add its own.
Missouri voters have the right to make a new law or add an amendment to the constitution by (who are what)