On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> > On 11-03-19 02:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> >> The Speaker CAN, by announcement, cause the President to take >> >> an action that is not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE. If there is no >> >> Speaker, then the player who was most recently Speaker (if >> >> any) CAN, by announcement, cause the President to take an action >> >> that it SHALL take. >> > >> > Why does the IMPOSSIBLE restriction apply only to the first sentence? >> >> The President being required to do impossible actions seems rare enough >> not to worry about it until a specific example comes up. (The "any >> first-class player" clause doesn't include the IMPOSSIBLE bit either.) > > The purpose of the IMPOSSIBLE is that, without it, the CAN means that > the Speaker can supersede any CANNOT of lower precedence.
But it only applies to the first sentence; if we had contracts, the Speaker could easily be required to do something impossible, triggering the second.
