Sentences with phrase «simple majority rules»

In the case of a dispute, a simple majority rules system will decide how to handle the situation.

On the one hand, church should never be a simple majority rule.

Here, I use the phrase eligible candidate to mean that the candidate is actually in the image of the voting system (if three candidates exist but you accept that one of them can not be elected in any situation, then you can consider the simple majority rule on the other two candidates, which is neither dictatorial nor manipulable).

Not exact matches

The two bickered earlier this week about the so - called «nuclear option» Reid is considering that would dramatically change Senate rules in confirming Cabinet appointees, shifting the approval process to a simple majority vote in the Seante.

The House then votes on adoption of the special rule, which needs only a simple majority to pass.

On the radio I use this simple rule to help me answer the majority of Bible questions I'm asked, even when I'm not familiar with the particular passage.

Senate Republicans want some major cuts in spending, which would violate that rule, so it would need 60 votes to pass rather than the simple majority that reconciliation requires.

Note that when Harry Reid used the nuclear option, the rule change only used a simple majority of votes.

According to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote.

When they controlled the Senate, they changed the rules to allow nominations to pass with a simple majority.

Now, any Senate rule can be changed by a simple majority vote (actually, it always could but no one broke the rules that way).

U.S. Senate Republicans deployed the so - called «nuclear option» and changed longstanding rules to clear the way for the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court, bypassing a precedent - breaking Democratic filibuster by allowing the nomination to go forward on a simple majority vote.

In the U.S. Senate, the Senate rules apparently do not apply to the first day of a new Senate session until the rules are voted in by a simple majority.

(there must be a mandarin's memo dealing with this) A new rule stipulating that there can be no dissolution without a (simple) majority vote in the Commons would in effect write this into law.

The Appellate Division of State Supreme Court has ruled that the Orange County Legislature was wrong when it voted by a simple majority to create a local development corporation to sell the county's Valley View nursing home.

You can also design a non-manipulable voting system like this: you draw two candidates at random, and voters choose between these two according to a specific voting rule (for example simple majority).

All it actually involves is changing the rules of the Senate so that a nominee like Gorsuch can be confirmed with a simple majority of 51 votes.

The whole thing looks rather odd to me, as I would have expected that changes to the fundamental rules of the House to require far more than a simple majority.

- We call upon the House Democratic Leadership to bring this bill quickly back to the House floor — this time allowing it to pass under the standard rule of a simple majority.

At the last moment however, the House Democratic Leadership changed the rules to require a 2/3's majority rather than a simple majority.

However «if the Leader were to lose such a vote (again, on a simple majority basis) they must resign, and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered (Rule 7)».

«You have to break the rules to change them in this instance because if you follow the rules, you can not do it with a simple majority.

Harry Reid redid the senate rules so that Trump will only need a simple majority for most of his judicial picks.

According to this answer, only a simple majority is needed to change the Senate's rules not a supermajority.

But Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio signed a letter urging Reid, D - Nevada, to hold a vote on the proposal under a rule known as a reconciliation, which would allow the measure to pass with only 51 votes - a simple majority.

Under the option's new rules, a simple majority would be required to move forward on executive branch and judicial nominations (excluding those to the Supreme Court).

In the past, congressional disapproval resolutions failed because Obama vetoed them; but with a Republican - controlled House, Senate, and White House all that is needed is a simple majority to reverse the rule.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that «treaties» (ratified by 2/3 of the Senate as specified in Article II) have the same legal effect in US law as regular legislation passed by Congress (by a simple majority of both houses), which means that Congress can modify or repeal (insofar as US law is concerned) any «treaty» that is ratified by the Senate, by passing a later law that contradicts it, just like it can with regular legislation.

Today, Sen. Ed Markey (D - MA) introduced a long - promised resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which lets Congress strike down new rules with a simple majority vote.

The outlook for passage of an agreement is uncertain since any proposal will require 60 votes to pass the Senate, since the reconciliation rules that allowed for a simple majority expired on Saturday, October 30th.

Reconciliation rules within the budget will allow for Senate approval with a simple majority — 50 senators in a chamber that holds 52 Republican seats — evading a Democratic filibuster.