I’m working on a political science practice test / quiz and need a sample draft to help me study.
In 1792, Congress passed the Presidential Succession Act which stated that in case of a tie between candidates for president if the House of Representatives could not choose a president by March 4, then Congress would call a new special presidential election and the president pro tempore of the senate would act as the President in the meantime. But the Federalist writer Horatius (whom Ackerman suspects was John Marshall) argued in a newspaper article that the 1792 Act was unconstitutional, even though the Federalists would have gained the acting presidency under that Act because the president pro tem of the senate was a Federalist during the lame-duck session. Why did Horatius believe that the 1792 Act violated constitutional separation of powers?
It is clear that modern legislators do not accept Horatius’ argument because Congress accepts that the speaker of the House of Representatives stands third in the presidential line of succession. TRUE or FALSE?