All categories

3 years ago

Explain why each of the following people cannot be president of the united states

History

2 answers:

qwelly [4]3 years ago

5 0

Answer

3. He has not resided in the U.S. for the past 14 years

4. They would disagree too much. Because the president, in the end, has the final say, he/she might just ignore what the vice president has to say. It would just be a mess and that is why they don't do that anymore.

Explanation:

You have to be at least 35 years old, be a resident in the United States for at least 14 years, and be a natural-born citizen.

Hope this helps:)

hichkok12 [17]3 years ago

3 0

Answer:

Jonathan Blakely has not been living in the us for 14 years, assuming he is still living in france. Jonathan would also have no idea how to run vice president since he has never been vice president for United States.

Explanation:

Jonathan may have been born in the U.S. but he has not been living there for 14 years. France is his new hometown. (assuming he still lives there)

You might be interested in

Who were the leading candidates for replacing lenin as the head of the soviet government?

fredd [130]

Answer:

Stalin and Trotsky. Stalin won in the end

Explanation:

6 0

3 years ago

The executive office of the president is led by

wolverine [178]

White House Chief of Staff

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What could be a result of a government not adhering to the rule of law? (Select all that apply.)

soldi70 [24.7K]

The correct answers are A) Laws change often and there is no standard process for deciding what will become law, C) Laws do not apply basic principles of fairness and morality, and E) Laws allow government officials to behave in any way, without adhering to the same laws as other citizens.

The results of a government NOT ADHERING to the rule of law could be the following: Laws change often and there is no standard process for deciding what will become law, Laws do not apply basic principles of fairness and morality, and Laws allow government officials to behave in any way, without adhering to the same laws as other citizens.

The rule of law means that nobody, including the government, is above the law. The rule of law is doing this right by every single member in a society. No exceptions.

So The results of a government NOT ADHERING to the rule of law could be disastrous for the civic life in a society and the security of its citizens. Laws could change and for any reason, to the convenience of the officials. There would be a tendency for corruptive practices. Laws do not apply basic principles of fairness and morality, it could become the "law of the jungle," or the survivor of the fittest. And finally, Laws allow government officials to behave in any way, without adhering to the same laws as other citizens. This means that the powerful men in power can do whatever the like, and impose their will on people.

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What effect did the size of the Roman Empire have on Rome? ASAP PLSSS HELP

Nataly [62]

Answer:

Rome was able to gain its empire in large part by extending some form of citizenship to many of the people it conquered. Military expansion drove economic development, bringing enslaved people and loot back to Rome, which in turn transformed the city of Rome and Roman culture.

Explanation:

7 0

2 years ago

What were the powers of Congress under the Articles of Confederation?

andreyandreev [35.5K]

Answer: Even Congress had only those powers “expressly delegated” to it by the states. Delegates gave the Continental Congress the power to request money from the states and make appropriations, regulating the armed forces, appointing civil servants, and declarining war

Explanation:

3 0

2 years ago