On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:59, James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on > 3726 a couple of times.
Thanks for an interesting judgement--a good way for me to get back into the game. My instinct was that 3726 is TRUE, along the line of argument that you suggested in the initial discussion, but you seem to have found good reasons why the past is part of the gamestate. > (There may be best-interests-of-the-game arguments going the other way, > e.g. maybe it's easier to untangle some situations if ratification isn't > mucking around with the past. But 7A and 7B still apply.) R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly compelling in the face of your arguments in (7): - Pragmatism. It is impossible to amend the past, so why pretend otherwise via legal fiction? - It is simpler and cleaner to amend the gamestate at a single point in time (the present) than amend all times t, P<=t<=T, where P is the publication of the ratified document and T is the time of ratification.
