Text 14308, 54 rader
Skriven 2007-05-09 17:22:03 av Josh Hill (678.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================
On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:27:43 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <kd3243990vgf7uv990ek1hf8eimgi7u7b9@4ax.com>,
> Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >      Or clearly wanted to make it hard to dispel a person for=20
>> >disorderly behavior while not taking a stand on the other two either=20
>> >way. In fact, under your theory they would have specifically stated t=
hat=20
>> >they wanted a majority vote.=20
>>=20
>> No, you're missing the point. There is no way a legislative body can
>> approve rules without a vote. The supposition therefore has to be that
>> a simple majority is sufficient for passage. It's logically
>> inescapable.

>  IF there was a need perceived by the FF for a supermajority, they=20
>specified it. This, logically and inescapably means that if they did not=
=20
>specify something it was because there was no need to and they left it=20
>up to the discretion of the people currently in power.=20

Not at all. It simply means that they saw no reason to specify the
requirement for a simple majority, because /it/ was logically
inescapable.

>> Much more recent than that. I can't find it either. Did find a good
>> discussion of the constitutionality of the filibuster, though:
>>=20
>> http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20030613.html
>
>  The more interesting, and compelling, discussion was in the next colum=
n
>http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20030627.html

Seems to me it merely illustrates the can of worms that's opened up by
the assumption that the Senate can bind itself to a supermajority
requirement. If the supermajority requirement were Constitutional, a
simple majority could pass a law and then require unanimous consent
for its repeal. That's patently ridiculous, particularly if the rules
made by one congress are deemed binding on the next.

--=20
Josh

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths,
and how many, what day it=92s going to happen, and=20
how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean,
it=92s, it=92s not relevant. So, why should I waste my=20
beautiful mind on something like that?" - Barbara Bush
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)