Checks and balances
The President appoints judges and departmental secretaries. But these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The Congress can pass a law, but the President can veto it. The Supreme Court can rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the Congress, with the States, can amend the Constitution.
http://www.newser.com/story/112168/obama-to-gop-dont-make-me-veto-spending-bill.html
(Newser)
President Obama issued a formal statement yesterday [February 16,
2012] threatening to veto any spending bill the House GOP devises that doesn’t
meet his specifications. “If the president is presented with a bill that
undermines critical priorities or national security … the president will veto
the bill,” the statement read, according to the Hill. It argued that the GOP’s
current proposals would “sharply undermine core government functions” and reduce
defense spending below levels “needed to meet vital military requirements.”
The president also promised to veto any bill with earmarks, but Republicans have
promised to leave those off. Defense spending, on the other hand, looks
contentious; the House Armed Services Committee is trying to lop $15 billion off
Robert Gates’ proposed budget, something Chairman Buck McKeon worries isn’t
possible. “Boehner’s in a box right now,” he tells Politico. House leadership
“worked out what they thought was workable, and ... conservatives kind of told
them it wasn’t enough. He has to get some kind of deal.”
In this article, President Obama is vetoing a spending bill. This veto is a form of cheecks and balances. The presidant can say no if he dosent think that something is right. However, if the house thinks that the presidant is wrong, they can still pass it with a 2/3 majority vote. This system helps keep one branch from getting too powerfull. It makes people work together and makes sure that one can pass something only for there own personal needs.