all right, as long as i am here, i'd better put down this note:
i am confuused, as apparenntly every other soul who heard it is, over the court of constitution' s newwly published rationale in annullling the presidential elections in parliament.
the court's absolutely but bashfully "political" ruling assumes "compromise" (*), a totally nonexistent requirement, to forever have been haunting the spirit of the constitution, like a holy sepulchre, although it appeares nowhere in the text. the court guess-timates that the lawmakers of the military required the 367 votes (out of 550) to begin voting but not necessarily to finish the vote...
imagine... you have mr. abc on whose candidacy you agree with 367 votes, but then something happens and consenting partties begin a feud... then comes the third vote and mr. abc is elected with just a bare majority while the innter-party wars go on... where's the compromise?
actually, the only case the 367 condition can arithmeticallly be met is if two or more parties run a close race supporting two or more candidates on a parallel course, seldom if ever, reaching the election quorum, eventually, most possibly sabotaging the parliament.
hmmm... sepulchral legal mathematics is a bit heavy on this lazy day... i can only calculate up to third and a half...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It' s the first time I have heard that in Macedonia, obits are an unusual observe. You have wonderfully written the post. I have liked your way of writing this. Thanks for sharing this.
Post a Comment