 | Forough Jahanbakhsh - Religion - 2001 - 222 pages
...Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.44 The majority principle is occasionally justified in terms of Rousseau's social contract as... | |
 | United States - 2002 - 328 pages
[ Sorry, this page's content is restricted ] | |
 | Hadley Arkes - Law - 2002 - 326 pages
...restated the understanding in this way: He was willing to accept the judgment of the Supreme Court as "binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit,. . . [and] limited to that particular case."-' s What he was not obliged to accept was the prineiple... | |
 | Dennis C. Mueller - Business & Economics - 2003 - 796 pages
...Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left. Abraham Lincoln . . . unless the king has been elected by unanimous vote, what, failing a prior agreement,... | |
 | Daniel A. Farber - Biography & Autobiography - 2003 - 272 pages
..."[u]nanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissable; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy, or despotism in some form, is all that is left." If, in case of disagreement, a minority "will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which,... | |
| |
Unanimity is impossible ; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible. So that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism, in some form, is all that is left. 
