Goethe wrote: > I had forgotten, previously, about R754(c), which suggests that we might > give weight to legal definitions. Leaving aside "document" (there are > amendable and non-amendable legal documents) and all the example's we've > used (text documents, messages, contracts et al.) let's take a look at > "proposal" in the most analogous setting possible, a legislative setting. > > In the United States Congress, a Bill (a proposal to change the Law) is > presented as a body of text (a document). Before the Bill is voted on as > a whole, Amendments to the Bill may be offered and voted up/down. Now, > each Amendment is a Proposal (a proposal to change the Bill, and a > document), as well. But each amendment, after being presented, cannot be > changed; any change must be offered as a new amendment. [My understanding > of these processes is as an informed layperson so may miss some details, > hopefully without compromising the discussion.] > > So the Bill is a changeable Proposal to change the Law. > And an Amendment is an unchangeable Proposal to change the Bill.
This comes down on the anti- side. Neither a Bill nor an Amendment can be changed once the process of voting on it begins. > This morning, I find myself more swayed by pro- than anti-. That > changes each time I think about it. The only thing I'm *sure* of is > that I think a judge needs to come right out and say they are weighing > these closely-balanced sides on the interest of the game, and perhaps, as > much as anything, commit emself to a subjective opinion rather than > looking for a final piece of hard logic. It may be that we admit > that this decision relies solely on the luck of assignment and mood > of the judge. We'll also have to admit that in such a case, an Appeals > Court that constantly REMANDS would only switch back and forth between > subjective judgements; thus an AFFIRM at some point (perhaps not this > one) would be necessary even if the appeals court doesn't wholly agree. There should also be at least one CFJ along the lines of "even if the proposal's text did change, did the decision and associated votes put into effect the old text, the new text, or neither?".
