Text 14228, 59 rader
Skriven 2007-05-08 20:22:15 av Josh Hill (598.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================
On Tue, 08 May 2007 03:35:56 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <thnv339h7bcr06i6v4tf3vistffgjlim0t@4ax.com>,
> Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>    Okay this is a little clearer than my earlier reply. However, you=20
>are also talking two different things here. One is passing the rule, the=
=20
>other is the rule itself. A fillibuster is done according to a rule that=
=20
>it set-up and passed by the Senate. It could be (marginally) argued that=
=20
>maybe the rule establishing the fillibuster itself would have to be=20
>majority vote (which it is). However, in no place does the constitution=20
>talk about what form that rule should take.=20

Actually, one of the peculiarities of the filibuster is that it was
originally created by a majority vote, but a majority vote isn't
sufficient to abolish it. Which, really, is ridiculous.

>> A rule that contradicted an explicit provision of the Constitution
>> would clearly be unconstitutional: for example, the Senate could not
>> through a rule alter the two-thirds supermajority needed to expel a
>> member.

>      Because that is set out in exact words, spelled out very=20
>distinctly. When they wanted to give explicit instruction, they gave=20
>them.=20

The argument, however, is that they didn't give explicit instructions
because they thought the principle so obvious that they didn't have
to. It simply never occurred to them that the Senate would operate by
other than majority rule, except where explicitly stated in the
Constitution.

>> The question thus becomes one of whether a rule made according to an
>> explicitly granted power can be superseded by an implicit limitation.
>> I would argue that it can be, that the evidence of intent is so
>> unambiguous here that it makes the principle of simple majority rule a
>> de facto part of the document.
>
>     I would argue that you are wrong and that the very fact that they=20
>specified things when they wanted them specified argues against that.=20

Actually, it suggests the opposite: that had they envisioned a
supermajority requirement, they would have specified it, as they did
in so many other places.

--=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)