I think the Ossification judgement should address what it means to make a single rule "change," as opposed to multiple rule changes. That would help us know what it would mean for an arbitrary rule change to be IMPOSSIBLE.
In particular, i would like to know: if I can draft a single new rule that is IMPOSSIBLE to enact, would that be sufficient to demonstrate Ossification? Because I am confident that I can draft such a rule. Or is it the case that the enactment of a single new rule might involve multiple "rule changes"? And if that's the case, then what does it mean to have a "single" or "multiple" rule change? Is each sentence of a new rule a separate "change"? Or each clause? Or is it divided into separate changes in some other way? In my opinion, when you have a single rule being enacted, then there really is no principled way to say whether it's a single rule change or multiple changes, except I guess if the new rule consisted of changing a single letter or number... > On Aug 2, 2019, at 8:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > A little gratuitous for CFJ 3765-3766: > > It's likely that an "arbitrary rule change" can be made by first > making other rule changes to remove any impediments, and then making the > arbitrary change. However, in judging whether some kind of change is > POSSIBLE, we judge based on the current ruleset - not the hypothetical > ruleset in which a few other changes have been made. This point (in what > the judgement covers) is worth addressing explicitly.
