On 7/5/2020 4:44 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > at 12:40 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> > wrote: > >> So it does NOT meet the test in Rule 2626(1) on legislative intent (nor do >> any of the other tests apply). It would be presumptuous, in this case, for >> any judge or referee to overrule the legislature and find otherwise, when >> every element of the overall "bug" was clearly functional and instituted >> with legislative intent, and being used as intended. > > In short, you’re saying that a rule does not “operate in a way that is > clearly contrary to legislative intent or common sense” if it only does so > in conjunction with other rules.
To do otherwise is an extreme judicial intrusion into the legislative process. Each piece worked as intended by the legislature at the time it was voted on. And worked perfectly and according to common sense. I don't see how you can extend legislative intent to unforeseen consequences when each piece worked, and continues to work, as intended. Even if you could, the unforeseen consequences would be only applicable to the final piece of the puzzle, which was the creation of the ability to create one's own blots and had nothing to do with welcome packages. -G.
