Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Got 'em all correct except that one. I put Alexander Haig.

 

Isn't it the speaker of the house or the senate majority leader? I always forget. I'm thinking Speaker of the House.

 

We as American citizens should know all this. I for one have some catching up to do.

 

Who's 4th in line?

Posted

Isn't it the speaker of the house or the senate majority leader? I always forget. I'm thinking Speaker of the House.

 

We as American citizens should know all this. I for one have some catching up to do.

 

Who's 4th in line?

 

 

VP (Biden)

Speaker of House (Boner)

President Pro Tempore of Senate (?)

Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton)

Posted

Isn't it the speaker of the house or the senate majority leader? I always forget. I'm thinking Speaker of the House.

 

We as American citizens should know all this. I for one have some catching up to do.

 

Who's 4th in line?

 

3rd is Speaker (which is why it was so damned scary to have Pelosi there.)

 

After that, I believe it's the cabinet, starting with Secretary of State.

 

Of course, in reality, if we get to the point where we have to worry about that, the government will collapse anyway. There's no way the self-serving !@#$s in DC allow a cabinet position to be 'appointed' over them without starting a major ****-fest.

Posted (edited)

VP (Biden)

Speaker of House (Boner)

President Pro Tempore of Senate (?)

Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton)

 

 

Thanks dev. If **** ever hits the fan and something horrid happens which results in 3rd or 4th in line to take command, hopefully enough citizens and troops know who is the proper person in line for succession. (proper not necessarily being the most qualified but just saying proper as in the correct line of succession).

Edited by Pilsner
Posted

President Pro Tem is the senior leader of the majority party the Senate, which is currently Inouye of HI. I originally thought it was Akaka, those two are easy to mix up... born within days of each other.

 

And yes, I got 100% correct.

Posted

Ok, would regulating interstate commerce apply to federal powers question?

 

I didn't know Wilson and I was off on my ammendments by 1.

Posted (edited)

Ok, would regulating interstate commerce apply to federal powers question?

 

I didn't know Wilson and I was off on my ammendments by 1.

 

The question wasn't clear at all - they could have been only looking for explicit powers or implied powers.

 

The ICC is definitely explicitly stated - but there are tons of powers via the elastic clause that are also reserved for the feds that relate to ICC. Patents, for example, would be one, even though the Constitution doesn't explicitly state it.

 

Edit: FAIL on me. Apparently patents are stated in the Constitution. Serves me right for trying to be cute. The classic example of the elastic clause is the National Bank. Certainly allowed because it "promotes the general welfare", but never explicitly stated.

Edited by sullim4
×
×
  • Create New...