The constitution stipulates that the Senate must approve all treaties negotiated by the President. Granting of pardons, vetoing bills, and receiving foreign emissaries are solely the powers of the President.

The constitution lays out the powers and responsibilities of the office of the Vice-President. One of those is to cast the tie-breaking vote in case of a tie within the Senate.

In case the president commits crimes or fails in their duty as President, the constitution lays out the procedure to have the president removed from office. Trial in the House and then formal impeachment can be conducted by the Senate.

Part of the checks and balances, Congress has to power to override a presidential veto with amajority vote in both Houses. This ensures that the President is checked in their authority.

If the Vice President must take over for the President in the case of death, the two-term limit does not apply to those years that they serve as President. Therefore, if the former Vice President ran and won the next two election cycles, they could legally serve more than 8 years.

This should have been a relatively simple question. The correct answer is a treaty. Note how the definition in the question includes a key fact: the “agreement” must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. Any time you see language to that effect, you should immediately think “treaty.”

This should have been a fairly simple question, except for one hiccup. One of the answers, “executive order,” might have caught some of you unawares—there is a vast difference in between an executive order and an executive agreement. Executive orders are beyond the scope of this question (although they’re covered in another). Executive agreement is the correct answer, as it clearly could not have been a treaty (the question specifically notes that NO ratification was required), and “congressional delegation” has no bearing on this whatsoever.

This is a relatively difficult question. The correct answer is “executive order.” An executive order is an order from the president directing a federal agency to take some form of action (or, alternatively, refrain from taking action). It has the force of law—because it is, in a sense, implementing law.

This should have been a very simple question. The president has a very modest role in terms of legislation, however, he may veto laws, convene congress for a special session, and must deliver a state of the union address from “time to time.” That said, modern presidents often come into the office with their own legislative agenda, which they push on Congress in various ways (generally involving the media).

Although the president has the unfettered ability to veto bills he does not want to see signed into law, the president may not simply excise certain portions of bills even if Congress gives to him that ability. Essentially, the case was as follows: Congress delegated to the President the ability to strike certain portions of an appropriations bill (hence the line-item veto). The Supreme Court held that this was a violation of separation of powers, because after striking certain items from an appropriations bill, and then signing the rest, the President was signing into law a bill that Congress (technically) did not pass!