thumbnail

The U.S. Government - How Does it Work?

Try to answer these multiple choice questions about the U.S. government and constitution.
Quiz by Quizmaster
Rate:
Last updated: October 29, 2019
You have not attempted this quiz yet.
First submittedJanuary 17, 2019
Times taken37,389
Average score60.0%
Rating4.33
4:00
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
1. Who elects the President?
The people directly
The governors of the various states
The Electoral College
The Senate
2. If the President and the Vice President were to die, who would become President?
Secretary of State
Speaker of the House
Runner-up in the Previous Election
Secretary of Defense
3. Who decides the interest rate at which the U.S. government lends money to banks?
The banks themselves
The President
Congress
The Federal Reserve
4. What group includes the President, Vice President, and the heads of the most important government departments?
The Cabinet
The Closet
The Chamber
The Canteen
5. Washington D.C. has one "delegate" in the House of Representatives. Is he or she allowed to vote on legislation?
Yes
No
6. If a President is impeached, are they removed from power?
Yes
No
Once a President is impeached by the House of Representatives they must be convicted by 2/3rds of the Senate to be removed
7. Can the President fire a federal judge?
Yes
No
8. Who owns the debt of the U.S. government?
Mostly other countries
Mostly people and groups within the U.S.
Foreign governments own about 30% of U.S. Federal Debt
9. How long is a U.S. Senator's term?
2 years
4 years
6 years
8 years
10. According to the Constitution, how many justices serve on the Supreme Court?
7
9
12
It doesn't say
The size of the Supreme Court has varied over time between 6 and 10. FDR tried to "pack" the court, by increasing the size to 15, but Congress didn't approve his plans.
11. What gives the U.S. government the right to impose a personal income tax?
The original Constitution
The 16th Amendment
Nothing, but they do it anyway
The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913
12. As originally ratified in 1788, who did the Constitution give voting rights to?
Male citizens
Male white citizens
Male property owners over 21
It doesn't say
The original Constitution left it up to the states
13. According to the Constitution, what powers does the federal government have?
It can do anything except what is explicitly restricted
It can do nothing except what is explicitly allowed
14. Who can cast a vote in the Senate only to break a tie?
The President
The Vice President
The President Pro Tempore
The Speaker of the House
15. Can the President legally send troops to fight without an authorization from Congress?
No
Yes, for sixty days
Yes
The War Powers Act was passed in 1973, overriding the veto of President Nixon
83 Comments
+7
Level 77
Jan 17, 2019
I was really back and forth on #10. Ended up picking the wrong one.
+7
Level ∞
Jan 17, 2019
It's a pretty important issue right now. The founders really messed up when it came to the Supreme Court. I'm surprised it's worked as well as it has honestly.

A better system? The President can appoint a justice every two years, without the approval of the Senate. Justices would serve for 18 years.

+4
Level 64
Feb 12, 2019
Why shouldn't the Senate have to confirm nominees?
+24
Level 82
Mar 12, 2019
^ well one reason would be that by refusing to even bring it up for a vote the Senate can effectively steal seats on the Supreme Court the way they did to Obama. But I don't think they should get through automatically, either. Just think of the clowns Trump would have appointed if that were the case.
+18
Level 66
Mar 12, 2019
Requiring Senate approval for judicial appointees isn't the problem. The problem is that Senate procedural rules give far too much power to the Senate Majority Leader in terms of controlling what does and does not come up for a vote, and Mitch McConnell is very, very good at abusing that power.
+3
Level 66
Mar 12, 2019
I do think the idea of nominating 1 judge to the Supreme Court per X amount of time (2 years or whatever) has some merit, though you'd still have cases of people dying or retiring before the end of their terms, and so some Presidents would get to make more appointments than others.
+12
Level 73
Jan 28, 2022
Neither the President nor the Senate should have any part in choosing Supreme Court justices, that goes against the separation of powers which is so vital to democracy. Lawyers in other Western democracies find it weird that the US talks about liberal and conservative justices, they should be impartial, that's the point of them. Judges shouldn't be elected either.
+1
Level 65
Nov 19, 2023
Okay so the supreme court shouldn't be picked by the President, the Senate, or the people. Got it.

Who gets to pick?

+5
Level 70
Nov 19, 2023
UK Supreme Court judges are recommended for appointment by a politically independent Selection Commission made up of senior judges from around the UK. They have to consult with several other groups, including senior judges who do NOT want to be considered for the role. The consultation process remains a judicial one throughout, with no political influence or shenanigans.

The only political connection is when the Prime Minister takes the recommended name to the King for him to formally make the appointment.

The way it works in the US is so contrary to having an independent judiciary, it beggars belief TBH. That's why decisions like the reversal of Roe vs Wade are so controversial as they have become political rather than ethical decisions.

+3
Level 79
Jan 28, 2022
I agree with the 18 year terms. I think there should be 13 justices in the Supreme Court, one for each of the federal circuits. The Senate should still have to confirm the judges, but the seat has to be filled within two months of it being vacated, so if a party decides to obstruct in the Senate, the president could get around the Senate and one party wouldn't be able to hold everything up.
+3
Level 74
Jan 22, 2019
Not only does the Constitution not say, but the number has jumped around a lot: 5, 6, 7, 10. It has stayed at 9 since 1869.
+8
Level 77
Jan 17, 2019
Some technical points on Puerto Rico: the position is called "resident commissioner" not "delegate." Depending on the rules of the current session of Congress, the delegate is often allowed to vote on procedural matters and in committee. They are NOT allowed a vote on the House floor for legislation and other important matters. So saying that they "can't vote" is incomplete. (The same is true for other U.S. territories and Washington DC, where I live, where we are subject to taxation without full representation).
+13
Level ∞
Jan 17, 2019
Changed Puerto Rico to Washington D.C. and added the words "on legislation".
+6
Level 77
Jan 19, 2019
excellent. thanks!
+6
Level 74
Jan 22, 2019
You should try tossing some tea in the Potomac. Something similar worked out well for us here in Boston.
+4
Level 72
Feb 25, 2019
When Republicans hold the majority, delegates and the resident commissioner have no vote on the floor on anything, procedural or not. When Democrats hold the majority, they can vote on most amendments that technically are debated and voted on in a body called "the Committee of the Whole," which constitutes the entire house and meets on the House floor.

So they definitely vote on legislation, so that isn't quite fixed. They can't vote on final passage of legislation, though.

+9
Level 76
Jan 18, 2019
The quiz's title is something I've been asking myself, in a state of disbelief, for the length of this shutdown (1 month and counting at the time of writing).
+4
Level 73
Jan 22, 2019
Techincally, the Fed only sets a target for short term lending rates (the Fed funds rate). The market actually sets base curve for interest rates in practice. Spreads determine actual lending rates (term spreads or credit spreads, for example).
+2
Level 45
Feb 22, 2019
Question one is misleading. While the Electoral College gives a presidential candidate the win, the majority/plurality of people in each state have to still vote for that candidate for him/her to win all the electoral votes. Also, the vast majority of the time, the elected officials do not dissent from their originally "assigned" electoral vote. Therefore, shouldn't the answer be both the people and the electoral college?
+2
Level 45
Feb 22, 2019
And, for those arguing that the electoral college winner can differ from the popular vote winner, there has never been a time when a candidate had a majority (defined as 50%+1) of the popular vote and lost the electoral vote; each time it has happened, there were third party candidates that had a higher percentage of the vote than the difference between the winner and runner-up in the election. The only exception to this was Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams in 1824, when Jackson won the popular vote and had the most electoral votes, but came one electoral vote short (House of Reps voted for Adams over Jackson).
+7
Level 72
Feb 25, 2019
There is no requirement in the Constitution that the electors are elected by popular vote. The electors are elected as directed by the state legislatures. South Carolina did not allow popular elections for the electoral college until 1868 (i.e., after its government was forcibly removed by the Civil War.
+8
Level 82
Mar 12, 2019
so what? Since when is winning the popular vote, but not getting a majority of all votes, not grounds for saying that you won the popular vote but lost the election? Why would you even think that that was relevant? Donald Trump lost the election by nearly 3 million votes. So what if Gary Johnson was running? He didn't get a single electoral vote. Republicans have only won the popular vote once since 1990, and this is the only reason why they've been trying to convince everyone that it's important to keep it in place.
+4
Level 76
Mar 12, 2019
kalbahamut. The founding father were smart when they made the electoral college. They didn't want a few large states to constantly decide elections. (By the way that is why every state has 2 members in the senate...to counteract states that have a large contingent in the house) You may be happy with illinois, new york and california deciding every presidential election, but I would not. Also Trump won 37 states which shows the power of the people over the whole country and not just a few small concentrated area.
+3
Level 37
Mar 12, 2019
Very well written tbolt. Thank you!
+15
Level 66
Mar 12, 2019
Making sure that states with lower population still matter to the election process was a good thing, but there's also a good argument to be made that the pendulum has swung too far in that direction. When you calculate the ratio of voters to electoral votes in each state, voters in some of those more rural states have FAR more voting power than people in more populated states, and that's not fair either. "Tyranny of the majority" can indeed be a problem, but "tyranny of the minority" is not the correct solution.
+8
Level 70
Mar 12, 2019
@tbolt what would be the problem with deciding presidential elections by popular vote, given that everyone in the country is voting on the same thing? Why should states, whether they are California, New York or Illinois, or Wyoming, Alaska or North Dakota, get a say or get involved at all? Surely it should just be the electors.
+3
Level 72
Mar 12, 2019
If the electoral college were to be abolished, it wouldn't be an issue of a few states dictating the outcome, it would be an issue of a few metropolises controlling the outcome. Take New York for example. Besides the New York City area, the rest of the state leans Republican, including the larger cities of Buffalo and Syracuse. Same with Illinois. Chicago dictates the entire slant of Illinois' politics. Even Nevada has the same issue with Las Vegas. Although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, the distribution of voters favored Donald Trump. As someone who lives in a smaller town, I would hate to have megacities nowhere near me controlling a nation-wide election.
+17
Level 82
Mar 12, 2019
tbolt yeah that's the BS conservative media have programmed you to recite when anyone brings this up. Good job. We have moved past the notion that we are a union of different independent states with competing interests. We are one nation of 300+ million citizens, not a collection of states. There's no good reason why someone voting in Wyoming should have more than 3 1/2 x more voting power than someone voting in New York or California.
+3
Level 76
Mar 12, 2019
kalbahamut. The founding fathers knew what they were doing. The had experienced all the negatives and that is exactly why they designed things the way they are today. It worked fine for over 200 years, but you are dissatisfied with the results today, so you want to change things. So according to you we should abolish all 50 states and make everything a big country. Good luck with that. By the way, it is not the bs conservative media. IT"S THE CONSTITUTION OF THE US. Get over your hate snowflake
+3
Level 74
Mar 12, 2019
tbolt, excellent understanding of fair representation. Liberals always cry about the electoral college stealing the election from the popular voted candidate except they keep looking at it from one point of view. When 37 out of 50 states elected Trump, he won the most states -- he won 74% of the states. That looks popular to me.
+3
Level 74
Mar 12, 2019
kalbahamut, we are a nation of 300+ million citizens AND a collection of states. I don't know where you live (although I think I could give a safe guess) but I moved OUT of the state of California (born and raised there) to escape the socialism to a free state. If we were, as you claim, not a collection of states then we would not have the freedom to leave dumps like California for states that allow us less taxes and regulations. Liberals just don't like anyone except them having a voice so they scream the system is unfair. The Founding Fathers were ahead of their time and brilliant thinkers to set up the system as they did.
+1
Level 76
Mar 13, 2019
kalbahamut, you are getting a conversation from many "smart" people. Our opinions are based the Constitution of the USA. You opinions are based on hate and you refuse to listen because of your hate.
+2
Level 76
Mar 13, 2019
TWM03 The US is not a true democracy, but a representative democracy where elected officials represent the people. That is why there are 538 electoral votes. The total of adding 435 from the house , 100 from the senate and 3 from the District of Columbia.
+4
Level 70
Mar 13, 2019
I understand the numerous advantages of representative democracy. People can vote for representatives to make more complex decisions that most people don't care about for them. The presidential election is not a complex decision that most people don't care about. If the whole country is literally voting on the same one issue, and the majority vote in one way, and what they voted for doesn't get passed, it really raises the question of what the point of the separate election was.
+4
Level 82
Jan 28, 2022
tbolt: if I called you what you are I would immediately get censored. I doubt this reply will even stay up. But whatever. My level of expectations for moderation on this site is through the floor right now.
+2
Level 71
Jan 28, 2022
But, meteorologicalwolverine, although what you say may be true, is that necessarily that important a dimension of the election system (electoral college vs popular vote) to articulate?

I'm not saying I disagree with The Electoral College being the decision-maker, but there HAVE been times when the candidate who wins the *PLURALITY* of the popular vote by no small margin still failed to win the Electoral College. That is not an unimportant distinction.

+2
Level 71
Jan 28, 2022
kalbahamut, (1 of 3 posts) I have to chime in with many of the others in this sub-thread. I have historically been as Democrat-voting as it gets and have historically favored the Democratic party's platform hook-line-and-sinker. I'm a gay man who has been in a relationship with a Muslim from India and immigrated to Canada to keep the relationship legal (this was before Same-Sex marriage gained nationwide legal acceptance). So in addition to my issues on sexuality and aligning with those who might not be white, American, or Christian, I also have Socialist sympathies and have seen first-hand how that works well in Canada and how we could stand to learn from it in this country. I support a woman's right to choose, etc.

BUT although Republicans might have come out ahead in the popular vote only 1 time since 1990, they have still won only 3 of 8 of the Presidential elections since then. Also...

+1
Level 71
Jan 28, 2022
Kalbahamut (post 2 of 3), Also, the biggest division in this country along voting lines isn't so much regional or age-based, it's URBAN vs RURAL. If the popular vote ALWAYS decided things, Urban voters would pretty much always win, especially in a strict two-party system. If one were to support that, then one would also not support the concept of "Limited Democracy", which *certainly* is something that people on the Left should hold dear, especially considering the composition of the Democratic party, as opposed to the Republican party.

People who live in Rural areas might actually understand things that those who live in Urban areas actually don't, generally speaking. They are more likely to be connected to the Earth and perhaps even more conservation-minded and more knowledgeable about wildlife and agriculture.

More...

+1
Level 71
Jan 28, 2022
Kalbahamut, (post 3 of 3)

Hopefully this is my last response.

Believe me, the system needs fixing. And Covid is happening because there is so much wrong with the system. So many people don't get it.

BUT this country could ALWAYS be worse and could ALWAYS have been worse.

Again, I'm not thrilled with the way a lot of things are, but as I've gotten older, I've come to a sort of understanding that this country's REAL history still hasn't really been told. There is something to be said for this country, the USA, being an *EXPERIMENT*. The way I see it, it is an experiment that still has yet to really be borne unto its fruition. When that happens...a lot of people's opinions may change.

Will it happen in my lifetime? (I am 47). I honestly don't know. But I kind of get the feeling that we will start to get more clarity on just what the experiment is about within my lifetime - in the next 10 or 20 years.

We really just might see a much more united country within that time.

+3
Level 71
Jan 28, 2022
kapulani3, since I just tried to balance things out with kabulhamut, I will try to do so with you.

Yeah, I've heard California is nuts these days. Its population only grows because of immigration from other countries. Otherwise, its population is a net loss to other states and would probably be net loss without immigration because of a lower birth rate because of the loss of many middle-class emigres.

However, your whole contrasting Socialism vs Free is rather simplistic. I'm a dual citizen (born and raised in the USA, yet immigrated to Canada for where I lived for 5 years), and honestly, there's a lot that many Americans have to learn.

They pay only about half as much per capita for health care and still live slightly longer with comparable rates of disease survival. Their crime is FAR lower, especially violent crime, because their class gap isn't as wide. Their numbers have gotten more like ours (falling) as a result of increased economic integration with us post-NAFTA.

+3
Level 71
Jan 28, 2022
kapulani3,

If you really want to educate yourself on this matter, try looking at the statistics. They're pretty obvious, unless you are allergic to United Nations Data. Also try talking to actual Canadians - not just ones that are in your same social circles or professional interests, and not just so many of the "Snowbirds" in Southern and Central Florida ("Snowbird" is actually a pejorative term to a number of year-round Canadians). And not all "Snowbirds" are the same, either.

I am all for Americans' right to choose whatever system they (we) want. But I also think that Americans' choices should be informed ones, and I can tell you from personal experience that this is definitely often not the case.

+6
Level 75
Jan 28, 2022
The electoral college, to an outsider, seems insane in this day and age.

It's not surprising that those who rely on it as their only way of winning power in the absence of being able to convince a majority of US citizens to vote for them see it as wise and fair and necessary though...

+10
Level 67
Jan 28, 2022
But why do you get special points for being rural though? Who cares? Our system should be majority rules and minority rights. Rural people are already overrepresented in the Senate. When Trump was in office, the Senate and the Executive--and, as a consequence, the Judiciary, based on Trump's picks--were *all* controlled by people elected by a minority of voters. This is totally idiotic. It has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative. That is a supremely dumb system, and the majority of us who voted in opposition had to live with and will continue to have to live with the consequences. Citing "the founders" is no kind of argument. A system is good or it isn't. The Electoral College, in the 21st century, makes absolutely no sense.
+3
Level 75
Jan 29, 2022
So are you saying that all the urban people should be able to control everything that happens in the rural parts of the country because they have the majority of population? Yes, I can see where you might not think any of your tax dollars should be given to the needs of Podunk, America, to all us hick rubes. However, if your desires came to pass I don't believe any money would ever find its way to rural areas. You would always take the money for your own infrastructure, business needs, etc. Why not, you ask? Because it is only in the areas of low population that your food can be grown, raw goods such as wood and metals ca be provided, and most of the energy is produced. If you continually choke those regions of the money for their needs, eventually it will come back and harm you. How many of you would vote for representatives who run on a pledge to maintain a strong farming, mining, or timber business in another state? Those of us in rural communities already have to fight...
+3
Level 75
Jan 29, 2022
for every dollar we get. We have poorer health care and broadband is a joke. My urban daughters talk about download speeds of 200 or 400 while mine is 3. So why should you care? Because we hick farmers have to produce and market in the same world as you. For example, we need daily access to market information, production forecasts, weather, all sorts of information to make our yearly planting decisions. If enough of us get it wrong, some of you in the cities might not have enough food, and that's a mistake that cannot be corrected until the next year. Another example, if the rural areas had little representation, and there was a shortage of water in the cities, their reps might be willing to pass laws to divert water used to irrigate crops, in favor of direct use to residents. (These might be oversimplifications, but I hope you understand how complicated it might be if it was always majority population ruling.) Having three branches...
+2
Level 75
Jan 29, 2022
...of government always gives one extra chance that the needs of the few won't be completely trampled on by those who have no idea what those needs are, or simply don't care as long as they get everything they want for themselves. Our founding fathers believed that government served best when laws were changed slowly and deliberately. The House of Representatives balances the vote among population - California has 53 representatives, while states like Wyoming have one, and they serve for two years and thus move legislation more quickly. There are two senators from each state who serve 6 years and move leg. more slowly. We have one president elected every four years who can issue exec. orders daily. The electoral college means that every prez candidate must speak to the entire nation, rather than just the population centers. If we do away with it, what's next? The Senate? Why not eliminate all national borders and move to rule by world population? Hmm, who would then be in charge?
+4
Level 72
Feb 25, 2019
I was going to say that I hope the jetpunk users who didn't get 100% were mainly non-U.S. users, but the comments make me think it's not.
+3
Level 67
Mar 12, 2019
I'm American. The only one I missed was that the president can send troops without congressional approval for sixty days (I know he can send troops, but I did not know about the time limit). Seems like we send troops to fight in foreign lands for years at a time without ever declaring war (which I know must be declared by Congress), so I just assumed there was no time limit. Oh well. I learned something.
+5
Level 66
Mar 12, 2019
Congress can give an Authorization for Use of Military Force without making an official declaration of war. For all practical purposes it seems to be a purely semantic distinction, but that's how it is that the US military is perpetually fighting all over the globe despite Congress not officially declaring war in well over half a century. This all comes from the War Powers Resolution of 1973, if you want to look into it a little further.
+2
Level 71
Jan 28, 2022
Honestly, and I'm not a complete idiot, but some of these were tricky. I got 11/15 right. I was sort of disappointed in myself, but 2 or 3 of those 4 that I didn't get right were answers for which I did NOT guess "It doesn't say". How are most Americans really to know *everything* the Constitution says and doesn't say? Not all of us went to Law School or majored in Government. And besides, if the Constitution and its various amendments settled and made clear so many issues, how come we've had SOOOOOOOOOOOO many Acts passed since then? How come we are often referred to as the "most litigious" country in the world?
+1
Level 39
Jan 28, 2022
Why? Not an intelligent assumption on your part. Could you be a biologist, mechanic, or art dealer? There's an insurmountable amount of pockets of knowledge on our planet, why would you expect 333 million people to be experts in one of them?
+3
Level 83
Mar 12, 2019
I really wish that more people understood #13. The larger the federal government, the smaller the freedoms of the people and the individual states. The overreach is mind-boggling.
+18
Level 67
Mar 12, 2019
This is only true if you are in the majority in your state. Minority groups (and I mean actual, less than 50% groups, not just people who aren't white) in states need the federal government to ensure their constitutional rights are protected. There are 26 states where you can be fired or denied housing for being gay. So what if you're a gay man in Alabama and you can't afford to move to a new state (or you just don't want to abandon your family and hometown)? Does the supremacy of local law really make you freer? No, it makes you less free. Federal law (sometimes) intercedes to protect people who would otherwise be unfairly subjugated by local laws. The notion of "government overreach" is popular mostly with people who have always had all the freedoms, but without intervention from the federal Supreme Court, black people would still have separate schools. You mean to tell me they are less free as a consequence of Brown v. Board? No way.
+7
Level 82
Mar 12, 2019
less free to discriminate, restrict, and disenfranchise. That's typically what "states rights" advocates have always wanted the freedom to do.
+1
Level 71
Jan 28, 2022
Hear, hear. So few people understand the concept of "Limited Democracy", much less actually use that term in conversation.
+3
Level 79
Mar 12, 2019
I'm from Malaysia and living in China, have never been to the United States and know almost nothing about its politics but managed to get 10/15!
+2
Level 58
Jan 21, 2021
I'm American, got 8/15

-___-

+3
Level 78
Mar 12, 2019
A better quiz would be "The U.S. Government - Why Doesn't It Work?"
+3
Level 82
Mar 12, 2019
I made that one already.
+3
Level 78
Mar 12, 2019
Nice.
+2
Level 69
Jan 28, 2022
Number 15 is not settled. While it is true there is a statute that sets a time limit, there is a strong likelihood it is unconstitutional.

Given that it is matter of controversy, the question should either be modified or removed.

+2
Level 72
Jan 28, 2022
Question 6 - Maybe murkily worded, but the correct answer is "It depends" not yes or no. The answer could be yes in some future case, but historically has been no. More information is needed or the question needs to be clarified.

Question 11 - The first Federal income tax on individual people was implemented in 1861. Obviously a Constitutional Amendment wasn't required for such a tax to exist. The Supreme Court later ruled that the taxes on money earned from interest, dividends, and rent were unconstitutional, but never explicitly stated that income tax was unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment widened the channel by clarifying the text of the original Constitution. So, as the question is worded, the answer could be correctly interpreted as any of the three options there.

+2
Level 49
Jan 28, 2022
What a bit confused on #13. Most of the Constitution outlines the structure of the government and its powers, but the bill of rights restricts what the government can do. So both answers could be considered correct.
+1
Level 85
Jan 28, 2022
But, there's a sizeable list of powers of the Congress in Article I, Section 8. Basically, stuff the government CAN do...
+2
Level 20
Apr 8, 2022
However, one of those powers is clause 18, known as the "elastic clause", which states that "Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This basically states that as long as a law can be justified as "necessary and proper" for enacting their defined powers, then that law is constitutional.

Then again, there is also Amendment 10 (from the Bill of Rights), which states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This amendment says that the powers not specifically given to the Federal government are then instead reserved to the State governments (unless those are prohibited to the States, in which case those powers are reserved to the people).

+2
Level ∞
Aug 14, 2023
Certainly the 10th Amendment (which is very clear) would supercede any vague, potentially contradictory text in the original document.
+2
Level 20
Apr 8, 2022
Ran out of characters in the above comment, so here's my concluding statement:

It's somewhat ambiguous what "power" the U.S. government actually has due to the elastic clause, however, since that clause only gives power to enforce/enact the other defined "powers" and the 10th amendment grants all powers not defined to other entities, I would say that the Constitution defines the U.S. government's powers and restricts everything else. But, one could argue either way (as we have seen in Supreme Court cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and United States v. Lopez (1995)).

Side note: the Bill of Rights is simply the collection of the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that were ratified shortly after the Constitution. Legally, the amendments in the Bill of Rights and all other amendments are parts of the Constitution itself. That is to say, there is no legal distinction between Amendments and the Constitution after their ratification.

+4
Level 72
Jan 28, 2022
93%, not bad for a Brit! Where do I apply for my law licence?
+4
Level 76
Jan 28, 2022
question #5 should say ‘they’ not ‘he or she’. @ me about political correctness gone mad if you must but it’s definitely less clunky and more accurate
+2
Level 69
Jan 28, 2022
I'll take 87% as not a US resident, although I am a lawyer!
+1
Level 62
Jan 28, 2022
I'm just curious where in the constitution Question 13 comes from. I was under the impression that the Constitution allows Congress to make and laws "necessary and proper" to execute the enumerated powers, which essentially gives Congress a lot of power outside of the enumerated powers. For example, in McCulloch v Maryland, the Supreme Court defended the power of the federal government to establish a bank even though this power is not explicitly written in the constitution.
+2
Level 85
Jan 28, 2022
The "elastic clause" does give Congress a lot of power - but, theoretically, it's limited to (quoting that same clause) "carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution..."

But, as the saying goes, "give them an inch, and they'll take a yard."

+1
Level 57
Jan 28, 2022
I got 80% I still don't plan on becoming a lawyer
+1
Level 70
Jan 29, 2022
Only 33% wow!

Nice quiz though

Somehow I did get #12 correct; I can't remember what I know it from

+1
Level 27
Feb 3, 2022
I'm from the UK and no nothing about the US Government. I got 10 by guessing.
+1
Level 62
Oct 13, 2022
You probably ought to change the question for the one about removal resulting from impeachment. The idea that a president can be "successfully impeached" but not removed from power is an innovation which was pushed on us for political reasons during the Trump ear. According to the Constitution, impeachment requires the House to bring charges based on high crimes and misdemeanors and the Senate to convict. There's no such thing as a successful impeachment with the one but not the other.
+5
Level 92
Dec 30, 2022
Impeachment just refers to the decision to hold the investigation/trial.

Removal from office would be a second and subsequent act. In no way does impeachment actually do anything to remove anyone from office. I believe we have had 3 Presidents impeached. None were removed from office as a result. Nixon would have been, but he resigned before the impeachment hearings took place.

+2
Level ∞
Aug 14, 2023
No. Andrew Johnson, Clinton, and Trump were all impeached and not removed from office.
+2
Level 45
Nov 19, 2023
as a Chinese, I make it all right.
+4
Level 65
Nov 19, 2023
So if I can get 11.25/15 then I'm a lawyer? I only got 7, but I'd sure like to see someone answer 11.25 questions correctly.

Edit: I now have 15/15. I guess I'm the President then...

+3
Level 50
Nov 19, 2023
12/15. I am not a lawyer but I know someone who is.
+1
Level 20
May 4, 2024
Did you forget the necessary and proper clause? I am chinese and I know a lawyer.
+1
Level 54
May 17, 2024
As an European, I am proud to say I got four of them.