On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 19:02 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Amend Rule 105, bullet 3 by appending "Unless specified otherwise by the > > re-enacting instrument, a re-enacted rule has power equal to the power it > > had at the time of its repeal (or power 1, if power was not deifned at > the > > time of that rule's repeal). If the re-enacting instrument is incapable > of > > setting the re-enacted rule's power to that value, then the re-enactment > is > > null and void." > > Why shouldn't it set it to the highest power it's capable of in that case? > I'd argue that bulelt (a) should actually change to not create underpowered rules and just fail to create them, actually. I'll bet you that's been mixed up more than once, and I wouldn't be suprised if we actually had a phantom rule lurking in the ruleset right now as a result of it. > [Re-enactment currently doesn't have a specified power; this causes it to > > work roughly the way you would expect it to.] > > > > Amend Rule 1023 by appending "The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to for > > determining whether two points in time are within N months of each other, > > for N greater than or equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth > bullet > > in the first list. > > It would be nice if you could add days and weeks, while you're at it. > > -Aris > Because while the definition of a month is just obnoxious, I'm excited for the CFJ about leap seconds.
