The uncertainty about what "re-enact" means in the specific mechanics is probably sufficient ambiguity in rule-change specification to cause the whole thing to fail. Just a guess...
Also note: didn't say what version of the rule was being re-enacted... On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Joe Stefek wrote: > I would question whether it is, in fact, a new rule. It seems to me, at a > cursory glance, that this is an existing, but repealed, rule, and this > instrument > is proposing to repeal the repeal. > --aperfectring > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:12 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Benjamin Schultz > <ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Part of the exercise is -- when was the last time Agora reenacted a > Rule? > > Might be Messy Statements. But note that > > The ID number of the new rule cannot > be specified by the enacting instrument; any attempt to so > specify is null and void. > > > >
