Why ‘supermajority’ no longer works in the Senate.docVIP

Why ‘supermajority’ no longer works in the Senate.doc

  1. 1、本文档共4页,可阅读全部内容。
  2. 2、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。
  3. 3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载
  4. 4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
  5. 5、该文档为VIP文档,如果想要下载,成为VIP会员后,下载免费。
  6. 6、成为VIP后,下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后,不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们
  7. 7、成为VIP后,您将拥有八大权益,权益包括:VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
  8. 8、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传,每下载1次, 网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等,对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档
查看更多
Why ‘supermajority’ no longer works in the Senate

/opinions/why-supermajority-no-longer-works-in-the-senate/2011/11/04/gIQAT8cdnM_story.html Why ‘supermajority’ no longer works in the Senate(为什么绝对多数制现在在参议院不再有效了) By Jeff Merkley,?Published: November?5(十一月五号发表) My colleague Sen. Ron Johnson recently argued on these pages that a supermajority voting requirement in the Senate is part of our Founding Fathers’ constitutional design and that recent efforts to change it are driving the “bankrupting of America” [“A simple majority is not enough,” op-ed, Oct. 23].(我的大学同学约翰最近在这个页面上一直为了在参议院选举的绝大多数需求是国家的奠基者们在宪法中的要求可是最近一些改变使得美利坚破产)(一个简单多数并不能满足需求) I take a different view.(我有不同的的观点) At no time did our Founders envision that the Senate would require a supermajority to pass legislation. Indeed, the Constitution requires a supermajority only for very limited purposes, including the ratification of treaties and the override of a presidential veto.(在任何时候国家的奠基者们都不会说要求绝大多数的满足来在参议院通过一项法案。事实上,需要绝大多数同意的情况只适用于一些非常有限的情况,包括一些条约的签署和对总统的否决。) Nor did the early Senate adopt any supermajority requirements by rule. Senators extended the courtesy of extensive debate as a basic principle of deliberation, but they passed all legislation by simple majorities.(不仅早些时候的参议院接受过任何多数制的规则。参议员延长了由广泛的争论的一个基本原理审议While some were tempted to talk a bill to death by not agreeing to a final vote, this temptation was moderated by working relations — historically, the Senate had many fewer members than it does today — a deep commitment to the principle of majority rule, and the prospect that if individuals were to abuse the process, the Senate could respond by adopting a rule change with a simple majority.(有时有的人尝试否决一项提案通过在最终的投票中投反对票,这种尝试的诱惑被工作的关系和历史的原因条件限制着,在那个时候参议院只有比现在要少得多的人,这样的条件对于多数原则的接受就更加符合,但是现在看来如果任何一个个体滥用这个过程,参议院就这能采纳一项新的简单多数原则来改变原有规则。) Many Founders saw the possibility of a supermajority requirement for passing bills as destructive, inappropriately subjugating the wisdom of the many to the wisdom of the few. Alexander Hamilton observed in the Federalist papers t

文档评论(0)

xy88118 + 关注
实名认证
文档贡献者

该用户很懒,什么也没介绍

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档