Have you ever arrived somewhere and wondered how you got there? Scientists at the University of Leeds believe they may have found the answer, with research that shows that humans flock like sheep and birds, subconsciously following a minority of individuals.
Results from a study at the University of Leeds show that it takes a minority of just five per cent to influence a crowd’s direction – and that the other 95 per cent follow without realising it.
“There are many situations where this information could be used to good effect,” says Professor Jens Krause of the University’s Faculty of Biological Sciences. “At one extreme, it could be used to inform emergency planning strategies and at the other, it could be useful in organising pedestrian flow in busy areas.”
Or we can just continue to use it to shape elections.
Meet the Flockers.
A 5% catalyst isn’t just a political phenomenon. In an article about technology in emerging economies, the Feb 9th Economist states that in 23 of 28 cases examined by the World Bank, a technology that reached 5% “of the market in rich countries” — whatever that means — went on to achieve over 50%.
Only in emerging markets it doesn’t work: only 6 of 67 examples of technology reaching 5% “of the market” went to 50%. No, the reason was not that people are less like sheep in those countries — only that the infrastructure was not there for wider expansion.
Look, I am no Bush supporter. Further, I don’t agree with the ruling. The trouble is it is simply wrong to believe it did not take place or that it has been overruled.
I will not speak to the powers of the ability of the president to make treaties because that is an entirely different line of cases. I will only say that it is not that simple. The president can not make a treaty without Congress (true) because he needs the Senate to approve it, but he can come to an executive agreement, which is just as binding as a treaty.
This is pretty basic stuff (like first year of law school).
You are not actually reading from the case (but the ruling from a lower court within the text of the case). You really don’t have to read the whole case, but instead just read the summary page on the case notes.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0299_0304_ZS.html
Here are some example quotations:
(3) “The broad statement that the Federal Government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs. In that field, the primary purpose of the Constitution was to carve from the general mass of legislative powers then possessed by the States such portions as it was thought desirable to vest in the Federal Government, leaving those not included in the enumeration still in the States. Id.”
>The Court determines law (Congress can only determine what the Court can review) and the power invested to declare powers beyond what is laid out in the Constitution.
(5) “As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the Colonies, acting as a unit, the powers of external sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the Colonies severally, but to the Colonies in their collective and corporate capacity as the United States of America. Id.”
>President got his power from the crown of Great Britain when dealing in international matters (since the president is the acting authority of the US).
(9) “In international relations, the President is the sole organ of the Federal Government. P. 319.”
>The president is the only political figure that can legally meet and discus US policy without executive approval (because he gives it). This is his function as the senior executive statesman of the country. All visits are conducted through the DOS, which he controls.
(10) “In view of the delicacy of foreign relations and of the power peculiar to the President in this regard, Congressional legislation which is to be made effective in the international field must [p306] often accord to him a degree of discretion and freedom which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. P. 319.”
>This is due to how much knowledge the president has over Congress (maybe not in this case). In general, however, the president has a number of cabinets that benefit him in his decision making
(11) “The marked difference between foreign and domestic affairs in this respect is recognized in the dealings of the houses of Congress with executive departments. P. 321.”
>The arena of foreign affairs and domestic affairs are not the same. Building of from President Nixon’s arguments the president can gain even more authority by claiming that foreign affair issues overlap with domestic.
(12) “Unbroken legislative practice from the inception almost of the national government supports the conclusion that the Joint Resolution, supra, is not an unconstitutional delegation of power. P. 322.”
>Key word is almost from the inception of the national government.
The Court could at some point overturn this case and subsequent rulings that followed, but given the current Justices I really don’t see that happening. No real challenge to the power of the executive branch in the matter of communicating as the “sol organ of foreign policy” has been brought before the Court since the administration of Truman. There have been a number of minor cases at the lower courts and a few cases with some vague wording but nothing nearly as definitive as this case.
THEY WERE TOLD TO ACT LIKE SHEEP!
“Participants were not allowed to communicate with one another but had to stay within arms length of another person.”
…What a surprise when they acted like sheep. This is bull.
When we were kids, it was a favorite prank of ours : when at a theme park we’d get the crowd to stroll into a dead end.
OK, you had to be there, but as 12 year olds, we thought it was hilarious.