Subject:
|
Re: i admit i was wrong
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 Aug 1999 03:38:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
93 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, "Tom McDonald" <radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> writes:
> > * It takes a 1/2 majority in the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach a
> > President. The reverse: All it takes is a 1/2 majority to prevent
> > impeachment.
> >
> > * It takes a 2/3 majority in the U.S. Senate to remove the President. The
> > reverse: All it takes is a 1/3 minority to prevent removal from office.
>
> Note that there are also two separate voting sessions by two completely
> different groups of people to get the Prez thrown out. That's quite a safety
> net, as we saw with the current Prez. Why was the greater ratio needed in the
> Senate and not the House?
It doesn't really have anything to do with which body, it just has to do
with the ordering. It's a two-step thing. A 1/2 majority is required in
order to do a CFV (call for votes), then a 2/3 majority is required to pass
the measure. As I understand it, the founding fathers wanted it to be hard
to throw a sitting president out of office -- a 2/3 majority -- but they
wanted it to be easier than that to at least start the ball rolling -- a 1/2
majority to impeach.
> > * It takes a 3/4 majority of U.S. States to throw out the U.S.
> > Constitution. The reverse: All it takes is a 1/4 minority to prevent
> > the Constitution from being thrown out.
>
> Apparently it's got to be a real stinker of a law to get tossed. Or you just
> have to know the right Judge.
No, I'm talking about throwing out the Constitution itself. If 3/4 of the
States say that they want to throw out the Constitution and start a new
Constitution, then they can do that. (Fortunately, we've never even come
remotely close to that happening!)
> > * It takes a 12/12 majority (unanimous) in a jury to convict someone. The
> > reverse: It only takes a 1/12 minority to prevent conviction.
>
> Which is interesting as, IMO, this seems to relate more to our current
> situation, though we don't need unanimity, as a person's life is not on the
> line here. But also in this example, it's only 12 peers here, not the size of
> the newsgroup in question. It seems like in a larger body of people that
> chances of unanimity decrease.
I don't think we could ever find 12 impartial jurors! On the net, in
virtual communities, it's too easy to go back through the archives and learn
everything about something (mind pollution). IIRC, jurors are supposed to
consider only the facts that come up during the trial. Plus, jurors are
supposed to avoid interaction with others about the trial during the trial,
and that would be no fun for them, because it might mean they couldn't
participate in the groups during that time! :) So if we ever have any kind
of jury system of judgment here, it's going to have to be highly updated for
the new millenium. :)
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) Yes it does though, IMO, I think a slightly greater majority (just under 5% more) is worth considering (and you probly already have so this section is more or less a waste of bandwidth on my part). 2/3 is much simpler to express, but I hafta (...) (25 years ago, 16-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
