On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, omd wrote: > But the old version of R101 > might have blocked, say, P5090, which changed the right to invoke > judgement to its current form from: > > iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a > judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or > judicial order binding em. > > The change removed the (pointless) right of a person to invoke > judgement on an issue that is not a matter of controversy.
No, the act of invoking judgement defines a matter of controversy. It's impossible by definition to invoke judgement on a non- controversial matter (I mean legally controversial, not common- sense controversial). Anyway, it's never been established that the old rights-clause could prevent a rule change from being adopted as opposed to, say, overruling said new rule (even if it's in R101) once it's in place (e.g. by claiming that your "former r101 right" overruled the new rule.). The rights clause now, and when first implemented, restricts interpretations of Agoran law, not actual changes to the text. Note the parallel to RL judicial processes; when the judiciary voids a law, this doesn't mean the legislature never put the law on the books, but that it lacks any legal force. Even in the old version, it could (arguably) be possible to wholly repeal R101, but then claim "I still have the natural right to do X, and that overrides the fact that r101 no longer exists." -G.
