This one's been in the FLR forever: CFJ 1104 (called 20 Aug 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference clause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not prevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how the Rule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise.
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104 On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > It *is* super-interesting in a constitutional delegation-of-powers > sense! I would say that R1030 does actually turn this into a > conflict. But it's not a conflict between Rule A and Rule B. It's a > conflict between Rule A and Rule 1030, which says that Power overrides > the deference clause in Rule A (and R1030, at power 3,2, would win of > course). But I'm far from certain of this interpretation. > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:03 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > > > > > Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power. Power is > > > the first test applied (R1030). > > > > That is so interesting. It’s counterintuitive to me that it would work that > > way. To take an example, here are two hypothetical rules: > > > > Rule A (power 2): “Except as provided by other rules, a player MUST hop on > > one foot.” > > > > Rule B (power 1): “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player MAY > > elect to skip or gallop instead of hopping on one foot.” > > > > Under your reading, Rule A overpowers Rule B, so that players must hop on > > one foot; right? > > > > Rule 1030 governs precedence in case of “conflicts,” but there is no > > conflict here. Rule A expressly allows itself to be overruled by other > > rules, and Rule B is such a rule. So giving full effect to Rule A requires > > that we also give effect to Rule A, because Rule A tells us to. > > > > That would not render the rule powers meaningless, because, e.g., a power 1 > > non-rule instrument still could not overrule Rule A. > >
