Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Constitution of California is among the longest in the world. [4] This is predominantly due to additions by California ballot propositions, which allow enacting amendments by a simple majority vote in a referendum. Since its enactment, the California constitution has been amended an average of five times each year. [5]
The Polish logician Alfred Tarski identified three features of an adequate characterization of entailment: (1) The logical consequence relation relies on the logical form of the sentences: (2) The relation is a priori, i.e., it can be determined with or without regard to empirical evidence (sense experience); and (3) The logical consequence ...
California has a powerful tradition of popular sovereignty, which is reflected in the frequent use of initiatives to amend the state constitution, as well as the former state constitutional requirement [18] (repealed in 1966 and enacted as Government Code Section 100) that all government process shall be styled in the name of "the People of the ...
definition: is defined as metalanguage:= means "from now on, is defined to be another name for ." This is a statement in the metalanguage, not the object language. The notation may occasionally be seen in physics, meaning the same as :=.
Failed amendments to the Constitution of California (24 P) Pages in category "Amendments to the Constitution of California" The following 30 pages are in this category, out of 30 total.
The measure asks voters to change the California Constitution to enshrine a "fundamental right to marry" and remove language that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
California is projected to enshrine a person’s right to an abortion and to contraceptives into the state’s constitution. The ballot measure would change the California state constitution to ...
In natural language, an instance of the paradox of entailment arises: It is raining. And It is not raining. Therefore George Washington is made of rakes. This arises from the principle of explosion, a law of classical logic stating that inconsistent premises always make an argument valid; that is, inconsistent premises imply any conclusion at all.