On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proto-Proposal: Indirect partnership rights > (AI = 2, please) > > Amend Rule 2145 (Partnerships) by appending this text: > > The ability of a partnership's members to exercise rights in eir > own names shall, prima facie, be considered protective of those > rights as applied to the partnership. > > [Legislates the precedent of "no, partnerships do not have the right to > call CFJs, because their members do and that's good enough". As usual, > "prima facie" allows for common-sense exceptions, e.g. R101(iv).]
I don't like this at all. Even partnerships should have the right of participation in the fora, for example: a rule that forbade partnerships from telling the truth would seem to be legalized by this amendment, which might be employed as a "cheap" (power=1) way to destroy partnerships. The place of Rule 101 *is* to protect partnerships' rights in this case; repealing partnerships should require a supermajority if a Power=2 rule defines them. In fact, I'd say that most R101 rights should apply to partnerships. Can you name a single one besides the first part of Rule 101 (iii) that need not apply to them? But I'm not sure this would even be effective, since Rule 101 takes precedence over Rule 2145. As you say, this legislates what is already a precedent, so at best it will do nothing until some judge tries to override the precedent. At worst, if a judge rules that Rule 101 does give rights to partnerships, it will then take precedence over the clause, so the precedent might be overridden anyway. Really, why don't we just modify Rule 2175? Just change "its initiator" to "its initiation's executor"...
