On 9/26/19 11:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
There's a long-standing (and regularly cited) precedent for this in
CFJ 1500: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1500
Short, simple, says that if the definition is repealed from the current
ruleset, it reverts to a "common" definition.
R1586/2 was in effect at the time of that judgement, and was not
substantially different w.r.t. this situation.
-G.
I don't contest that if the rest of the rules referred to the
previously-defined entity, since the former definition is no longer in a
Rule, so it can't affect the interpretation of the Rules.
Here's my thought process:
1. Does repealing a Rule count as amending it for the purposes of R1586?
If no, then the entities don't cease to exist or otherwise change
(barring other wording, like for assets).
2. If yes, then does repealing a rule cause it to cease to define the
second entity? If no, then the entities don't cease to exist.
First, I would argue that the answer to 1 is no, since R105 defines
"amend" for Rules and has higher power than R1586. Second, I would argue
that the answer to 2 is no, since the former-Rule's text still exists
(it doesn't have effect on anything, but it still exists), and text can
define something just by saying what it is.
--
Jason Cobb
