> 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):

I'm guessing R1551's complex language about "what it would be if, at
the time..." is more about making sure it's clear how the consequences
play out.

If *only* the record-of-the-past part of the gamestate were changed,
maybe the consequences would not be changed, e.g. D. Margaux would
still have blots, even though now e was never fined.

> - 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.

I think these are strong reasons. The past-not-included interpretation
feels nicer and more obvious to me, and I tried to capture some of
that feeling in Section 6. But I currently feel that the other
arguments outweigh this, no matter how indignant I feel about my prior
intuition being wrong.

Reply via email to