On 2/24/2019 10:11 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> The ultimate point is that the CFJ doesn’t consider the
differencesbetween > the situation where ONE rule claims priority/deference
to the other and
> the other is silent, versus when BOTH rules give INCONSISTENT
> priority/deference answers, versus when both rules give CONSISTENT
> priority/deference (in which case no conflict because the rules agree, and
> therefore no R1030).
I wholly agree, and that's by design. The first clause of R1030 makes it
clear that rules simply cannot defer or prefer to higher/lower powers - it's
very purposeful security. This is why it's important to treat clauses like
"except as prohibited" as signaling conflicts to be resolved via R1030,
rather than as "lack of conflict". Otherwise, we're permitting rules to
delegate things to lower-powered rules contrary to R1030.
There's an entirely-independent protection worth considering, in R2140 -
even if a higher-powered rule defers to a lower powered-one, if the lower-
powered one then makes use of that deference to "set or modify a substantive
aspect" of the higher-powered rule, which is further defined as "any"
aspect, it may be blocked.
