On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:07:23AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: > On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. If it makes part of the > constitution look silly or pointless to you, then there are at least > two other possible sources of that silliness.
I think this circling argument is silly, not the constitution. > > If you take these "interpretive" GRs as not requiring 3:1, then you can > > bypass the 3:1 requirement entirely merely by phrasing your changes as > > an "interpretion", and you can phrase anything at all as an "interpretion". > > I actually don't think that's the case. But let's assume that it > is. The fact that you can get around the 3:1 requirement by wording > your GR appropriately merely shows the 3:1 requirement (or its > wording) to have been inadequately thought through -- it certainly > doesn't magically extend it (a particularly bad idea if it seems like > it might not have been adequately thought through in the first place). This "it's only an interpretation! not 3:1!" is merely word-game rules- lawyering to try to create a loophole in the constitution. Those loopholes can always be created, if everyone is allowed their own interpretation of the rules; that's not an indication of lack of forethought. Fortunately, as is typically the case, everyone is not allowed their own interpretation of the rules. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
