Political efficacy plays a role in voter turnout only in older voters

because the vietnam war was fought in an especially brutal and untraditional way

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is

1) checks and balances- this idea is implemented in the constitution to ensure that no one branch of the federal government gains too much power. for example, the legislative branch(congress) can approve a bill that will then be sent to the executive branch (president). if the president does not like the bill or thinks that it violates the rights of citizens, he/she can veto the bill. vetoing the bill stops the bill from becoming a law. this check on power ensures that congress makes laws that do not violate the rights of citizens.

2) anti-federalists do not want to ratify the constitution unless it includes a bill of rights. the anti-federalists are worried that the constitution gives too much power to the federal government. having a strong central government caused problems when the us was still part of great britain. this is why the anti-federalists are fearful of this type of system.

3) federalists want a new constitution passed because it will fix america's weak political structure. before the us constitution is implemented, the constitution being used is known as the articles of confederation. this constitution has an extremely weak central government, allowing for disunity among the states.

can't do the whole thing, hope this