On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, omd wrote: > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > Not a god, no. An Instrument of the gods. > > > >> but, as above, I think the implication is "actions that the President CAN > >> take". > > > > ...as an Instrument. > > Well, you said that "CAN take actions" counts as R105 permission to > take the action of modifying a rule, but I argue that that clause > doesn't empower the President to take any new actions, as that would > have made the President a god even before e was made into an > instrument, so there is no permission.
I know. I'm saying 'CAN do general stuff X by mechanism Y' means 'CAN do specific stuff within X' and you're saying the general is too general to grant new specific permissions but refers to already-existing-more- specifically-granted abilities. I fully understand it's a very close judgement call on how much to extrapolate the general to the specific under the heading of "permission", on which the rules are silent, as this is not part of MMI or otherwise defined. Looking forward to a judgement. -G.
