On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: > 2855: TRUE > 2856: TRUE > > A substantive aspect of a rule pertains to /how/ a rule governs, not > /what/ a rule governs. With that argument eliminated, a low-powered > proposal is just as capable as a low-powered rule (they're both > instruments and they're both effective) of changing holdings whose > existence is defined by a high-powered rule (if the high-powered rule > doesn't attempt to prevent it, then there's no conflict).
Question: where does it actually say in the rules that an Instrument can change a regulated quantity? The rules say: An instrument has positive power. (R1688) An instrument CANNOT affect something secured at a power greater than its own. (R1688) An instrument CANNOT affect the operation of a higher-powered instrument. (R2140). An instrument CAN make rule changes (R105). Nothing in here actually says that an Instrument can adjust regulated things generally. Now, the counterargument is exceptio probat regulam, that the fact that the Rules state that an instrument CANNOT make secured changes implies that it CAN make unsecured changes. However, this regulam is not in fact written, and it IS implied through R2125 and R101(i) that regulated actions CANNOT be done except as actually described by the rules. So where is it described? -G.
