Citizenship Test

[drkitten]

Not quite. If a Vice President has served more than two years as President, he can only be elected once, as per the 22nd Amendment. So a VP can serve two years at a max, then be elected twice, for a total of ten years.

I think there's a pathological situation you're overlooking:

Amendment XXII
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a termto which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Note the singular "a term."

I could be elected VP in 2004, have my running mate died in 2007, and serve until 2008. In 2008, I opt not to run as president, but again run as VP. Winning in 2008, my running mate drops dead in 2011, and I serve as president until 2012. Again, I don't want to run for president, but I run as VP in 2012 and win. My running mate drops dead in 2015, and I finish out his term while narrowly escaping indictment for all these suspiciously convenient deaths.

I can continue serving one year out of four forever.

More to the point, the ban is only on electing a president more than twice. If I had run and won (as VP) three times (in 04, 08, as 12), and in each case the President-elect had died in early December, I would have become president as per amendment XX. Again, this could go on forever as long as I can escape being tried and convicted for these suspiciously convenient deaths.

 

[shanek]

Note the singular "a term."

I could be elected VP in 2004, have my running mate died in 2007, and serve until 2008. In 2008, I opt not to run as president, but again run as VP. Winning in 2008, my running mate drops dead in 2011, and I serve as president until 2012. Again, I don't want to run for president, but I run as VP in 2012 and win. My running mate drops dead in 2015, and I finish out his term while narrowly escaping indictment for all these suspiciously convenient deaths.

I can continue serving one year out of four forever.

More to the point, the ban is only on electing a president more than twice. If I had run and won (as VP) three times (in 04, 08, as 12), and in each case the President-elect had died in early December, I would have become president as per amendment XX. Again, this could go on forever as long as I can escape being tried and convicted for these suspiciously convenient deaths.

Interesting. The Amendment could certainly be read that way. That could indeed remove the limits on the number of years, although such a situation is so unlikely that, as you said, it would certainly arouse great suspicion.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Interesting. The Amendment could certainly be read that way. That could indeed remove the limits on the number of years, although such a situation is so unlikely that, as you said, it would certainly arouse great suspicion.

Especially now that I've tipped my hand and revealed my sinister ambitions!

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Mind you, after a while, it would be pretty stupid to pick Jim as a running mate.

Am I right?

Be a bit like having Jessica Fletcher as a friend or relative.

I got 85% - still looking through my history books for the war with England...

 

[Zamzara]

No, it isn't. Artice IV Section 4 specifically says it's republican. We are NOT a democracy.

According to my dictionary, you are both a republic and a democracy. So unless the constitution specifically mentions lack of democracy, the fact that it mentions republic doesn't prevent the nation from being both.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Not quite. If a Vice President has served more than two years as President, he can only be elected once, as per the 22nd Amendment. So a VP can serve two years at a max, then be elected twice, for a total of ten years.

Key word "elected". In TragicMonkey's plan, one would not ever be elected president. If the elected president keeps dying the first day of office, one could be president nearly all the time. And actually, the president wouldn't have to die. He could resign instead. Which after the first few deaths might start to look like a good choice...

Actually, no it didn't, because it only affected the Confederate states, excluded areas that were under northern control, and had a time limit on it anyway.

Cite?

There is a minimum guaranteed voting age, as per the 26th Amendment

Not quite. More like a maximum minimum age. Those over the age of 18 may be denied the right to vote, but they may not be denied the right to vote on the basis of age.

No, it isn't. Artice IV Section 4 specifically says it's republican. We are NOT a democracy.

That is a valid argument only if you can show that democracy and republicanism are mutually exclusive.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

99/100

I missed the question about the name of the form to file to petition to be naturalized...

The Iowa questions weren't so hard...

Ditto.

I don't believe I've ever studied nationalization to that depth. And, I have to wonder if it's changed over the years anyway.

Plus, it's a useless fact. They'd be better off asking what government agency is responsible for your completing the form.

We did a little quiz around the office when a guy was going through naturalization. Virtually no one could answer the questions HE had to answer to become a citizen. Pathetic!

 

[Fade]

98/100 without cheating.

I have *no idea* who the governer and senators of Iowa are. I could only eliminate the ones with Tom Arnold =(

 

[Ladewig]

Why is it incorrect to call the first ten amendments to the Consitution "the first ten amendments to the Constitution"?


Why is it incorrect to say that the American colonists were the first to celebrate U.S. Independence Day?

 

[Fade]

Why is it incorrect to say that the American colonists were the first to celebrate U.S. Independence Day?

IIRC Independance Day wasn't celebrated until 1777. At that point they would no longer be American Colonists, but American Citizens.

Why is it incorrect to call the first ten amendments to the Consitution "the first ten amendments to the Constitution"?

The Constitution means "The Constitution of the United States of America" to *you* but not by default.

 

[scottmsg]

Actually, you can be VP for as long as you want. But as President, ten years is all you're ever going to get.

I thought the last line of Amendment XII ...

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

... meant that Amendment XXII applies to the Vice President as well as the President.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Of course, one can get around that by becoming the Speaker of the House, and having the President and VP die/resign.

edited to add: there's some ambiguity as to whether the XXII amendment applies to being president, or being elected president.

 

[Kerberos]

Seeing as how we invaded them, it seems somewhat accurate.

Not really, you invaded German occupied France not Vichy France which had ceased to exist by that point. Using the same perculiar logic, Kuwait was one of your enemies during the Gulf war, you fought Sourth Korea in the Korean war, when you invaded the Inchon Peninsula and so forth.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by shanek
Yeah, it did a lot of that, pretending that rights came from the Constitution and not from nature.

What does it mean to say, "rights come from nature"?

Is there some sort of scientific experiment I can do that will tell me exactly which rights nature gave me and which rights it didn't?

People wrote the Constitution; nature didn't. People decided which rights to include in the Bill of Rights and which to leave out; nature didn't.

Other countries have laws and forms of government that differ from the USA's. So it would appear that rights don't come from nature, or, at the very least, that people can't tell which ones do and which ones don't, which makes the whole idea pretty useless.

 

[Ladewig]

Ladewig
Why is it incorrect to call the first ten amendments to the Constitution "the first ten amendments to the Constitution"?

Fade
The Constitution means "The Constitution of the United States of America" to *you* but not by default.

Well, in a U.S. citizenship test, it is pretty safe to assume that "the Constitution" refers to the U.S. Constitution. Irregardless, [sic] with any constitution, why would it be incorrect to call the first ten amendments of a constitution, "the first ten amendments of the constitution"?

 

[TragicMonkey]

What does it mean to say, "rights come from nature"?

Is there some sort of scientific experiment I can do that will tell me exactly which rights nature gave me and which rights it didn't?

People wrote the Constitution; nature didn't. People decided which rights to include in the Bill of Rights and which to leave out; nature didn't.

Other countries have laws and forms of government that differ from the USA's. So it would appear that rights don't come from nature, or, at the very least, that people can't tell which ones do and which ones don't, which makes the whole idea pretty useless.

The entire point of founding the country was based on the premise that natural rights exist. That's why they did it--the founders believed there were inherent natural rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was the catch phrase) and that the violation of such was justification for revolution. The other side felt that there were no natural rights, and that all rights were granted by the government (in this case, a monarchy).

You have to remember the founders were a bunch of Enlightenment-type pinkos with some wild ideas. In a sense, America was a political experiment in applied philosophy.

 

[shanek]

According to my dictionary, you are both a republic and a democracy.

Your dictionary is bupkis. What the Constitution says matters.

So unless the constitution specifically mentions lack of democracy, the fact that it mentions republic doesn't prevent the nation from being both.

The Constitution DEFINES the government. If there's nothing in the Constitution about us being a democracy, WE AREN'T A DEMOCRACY. Our founding fathers feared and loathed democracies since they're a tyranny of the majority, and by far most of the things they talked about in the Constitutional Convention was trying to avoid the formation of a democracy.

 

[shanek]

Cite?

Uh, ever READ the Emancipation Proclamation?

That is a valid argument only if you can show that democracy and republicanism are mutually exclusive.

Again, I point to the debates in the Constitutional Convention.

 

[shanek]

Why is it incorrect to call the first ten amendments to the Consitution "the first ten amendments to the Constitution"?

Well, because they were really passed and ratified as articles. Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, refused to ratify the Constitution until it had a Bill of Rights, and several other states only ratified the Constitution under the condition that a bill of rights be added.

Another way to throw someone might be to ask them a question about the preamble to the Bill of Rights...

Why is it incorrect to say that the American colonists were the first to celebrate U.S. Independence Day?

Um, because they weren't colonists anymore?

 

[shanek]

I thought the last line of Amendment XII ...

... meant that Amendment XXII applies to the Vice President as well as the President.

Yes, but in the above scenario, the ineligibility doesn't apply since the VP would never have actually been elected as President. If he had served his maximum term as President, THEN he would be ineligible for VP.