On Wed, 2021-09-22 at 12:50 +1000, Telna via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2021-09-22 12:35, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> > This seems far from harmless to me; I think a plausible reasing is that
> > a sufficiently high-powered rule containing this text is impossible to
> > repeal. (This may mean that by AIAN, we can't enact it in the first
> > place, but I don't really want to take a risk here.)
> >
>
> This part at least shouldn't be a problem even if your concern holds;
> here are two possible constructions that would bypass that:
> {
> Enact a Power-5.1 rule with the text:
> "All other Rules notwithstanding, every Rule can be repealed by proposal."
> Repeal the Rule "High Five", then the just-enacted Rule.
> }
> and
> {
> Amend the Rule "High Five" by removing the line "This is the
> highest-powered Rule, no matter what. Even if it wouldn't be, it is."
> Repeal the Rule "High Five".
> }
The first construction clearly wouldn't work: "this is the highest-
power Rule, no matter what". So you can't enact a power-5.1 rule.
The second construction is less obvious, but I think that the "no
matter what" and "even if it wouldn't be" mean that the restriction
survives being repealed or amended; its text might no longer be in the
ruleset, but it would still be in effect. Rule 105 implies that rules
can't do anything after being repealed, and common sense implies that
the old text of a rule has no lasting effects after the rule is
amended, but a power-5 rule would be capable of overriding all that.
--
ais523
