David Rush scripsit: > > It's arbitrary. If you look at 2/3 votes in deliberative assemblies, > > they typically show up where minority rights are being suspended. > > I'm not sure I understand this. I thought super-majorities were about > protecting minority rights...Perhaps I'm having a parsing issue?
Possibly. What I'm saying is that a 2/3 majority is required in order to suspend certain rights of minorities, which is the same as saying that a minority of 1/3 + 1 can always preserve these rights: to unlimited debate, to enforcement of the rules of procedure, etc. But a minority of any size is not allowed to have its way on matters of substance as distinct from procedure, and not on a good many matters of procedure, either (a bare majority may, for example, adjourn a meeting, unless there is a rule preventing it). > david rush John Cowan, parliamentarian -- John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan I must confess that I have very little notion of what [s. 4 of the British Trade Marks Act, 1938] is intended to convey, and particularly the sentence of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1. I doubt if the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a sentence of equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940 _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
