Presidential power has continued to grow for the past 100 or so years, and should be reduced in many places. One of the best ideas for US politics to come out of the South was the line-item veto - the ability of the president to veto specific parts, rather than the whole, bill.
The present systems of checks and balances should be reformed for several very important reasons.First of all many people don't really understand the roles of the three branches of government.Second of all even though the three branches are supposed to have equivalent powers at times each branch seems to be more powerful than the others.
The present system of checks and balances in the US is quite good and very well thought out - the issue is actually following them to the letter of the law. The lines between the branches of government, at least legislative and executive, have blurred far too much in recent years.
The current system of checks and balances in the United States, which is made up of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches, works nicely as it is. One of the reasons I feel it works is that not a lot of laws pass. There are so many things needed to change the law, including the fact that Congress has to create it, the President has to sign it, and the Supreme Court can strike it down. The fact that it's so hard to get a law passed is one sign that it actually works. If laws were any easier to pass, bizarre ones that go against the Constitution could be created. It's important to have these checks and balances in place.
There is absolutely no reason to "reform" the system of checks and balances in place in the United States. Such topics seem to come up whenever conservatives lose big time with the judicial branch, as they have recently with gay marriage. Keep the system as it is, because you never know when you'll need its balance to work for you one day.