From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Mon Jun 03 2002 - 11:05:16 PDT
Richard S. Holmes wrote: > > JUDGEMENT: We've been down this road before, haven't we? Rule 185.5 > was invalidated because of its "Future rules shall all be INVALID due > to inconsistancy with this rule" provision. And now we have "ALL > FUTURE RULES ARE INVALID". I see no reason why one should be VALID > while the other is not. > > Yet there are those who argued 185.5 should have been VALID, and their > arguments are not without merit. > > Then again, no one proposed overturning that judgement, did they? Indeed not. It hinges on one's interpretation of the ROs with respect to what constitutes consistency of the rules. I happen to disagree with your interpretation, but I wouldn't say you are flatly wrong. It being your responsibility to interpret the ordinances this round, I see no necessity to overturn your ruling on those grounds. Some times I'm more cantankerous about such things than others; this is one of those other times. -Jesse -- Rule Date: 2002-06-03 18:05:27 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST