I'm not sure I'm completely following. Does CFJ 1104 support the
conclusion that players must hop on one foot? Is the idea that Rule A
fails to defer to Rule B because Rule 1030 overrules that attempt at
deference?


On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 18:32, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
>
> This one's been in the FLR forever:
> CFJ 1104 (called 20 Aug 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference
>    clause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not
>    prevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how
>    the Rule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise.
>
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
> >
> > It *is* super-interesting in a constitutional delegation-of-powers
> > sense!  I would say that R1030 does actually turn this into a
> > conflict.  But it's not a conflict between Rule A and Rule B.  It's a
> > conflict between Rule A and Rule 1030, which says that Power overrides
> > the deference clause in Rule A (and R1030, at power 3,2, would win of
> > course).  But I'm far from certain of this interpretation.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:03 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power.  Power is
> > > > the first test applied (R1030).
> > >
> > > That is so interesting. It’s counterintuitive to me that it would work 
> > > that way. To take an example, here are two hypothetical rules:
> > >
> > > Rule A (power 2): “Except as provided by other rules, a player MUST hop 
> > > on one foot.”
> > >
> > > Rule B (power 1): “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player MAY 
> > > elect to skip or gallop instead of hopping on one foot.”
> > >
> > > Under your reading, Rule A overpowers Rule B, so that players must hop on 
> > > one foot; right?
> > >
> > > Rule 1030 governs precedence in case of “conflicts,” but there is no 
> > > conflict here. Rule A expressly allows itself to be overruled by other 
> > > rules, and Rule B is such a rule. So giving full effect to Rule A 
> > > requires that we also give effect to Rule A, because Rule A tells us to.
> > >
> > > That would not render the rule powers meaningless, because, e.g., a power 
> > > 1 non-rule instrument still could not overrule Rule A.

Reply via email to