But it's a truism that the rules only regulate what they regulate, we don't need a special rule to say what is already implicit.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:49 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > On 6/16/2019 4:28 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent > > on regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too > hasty? > > > > I create and pend the below proposal > > > > First, why the heck would you repeal that as a solution? It applies pretty > heavily to various CANs and CANNOTs even if SHALLs are broken - v. bad idea > I think. > > I think there are precedents that this applies to SHALL, but I figured > rather than digging I'd do a proto-CFJ that showed a logical consequence of > the judgement, in case we wanted to wholly re-evaluate, or to see if that > logical consequence was a reason to file for reconsideration. > > -- >From V.J. Rada
