Index ← 3481 CFJ 3482 3483 → text
=============================  CFJ 3482  =============================

      Repealed Rule 2469 (Dictatorship) is an Instrument with Power-3.

======================================================================

Caller:                      G.                                 

Judge:                       o           
Judgement:                   FALSE           

======================================================================

History:

Called by G.:                3 May 2017
Assigned to Murphy:          4 May 2017
Murphy Recused:             19 May 2017
Assigned to o:              19 May 2017
Judged FALSE by o:          22 May 2017

======================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

It's ALSO interesting that Repealing a rule doesn't explicitly remove 
its power.  It ceases to be a Rule, but does it continue to be an 
Instrument with some kind of power?  So a re-enacted rule would come 
in with the power it had when repealed, by default?  Likely not, but 
it's a possibility.

The more I think about this last part, the more it concerns me.  In 
particular, in our old ruleset, with "definition and continuity of 
entities", repealing a rule would make it cease to exist (thus, it 
would automatically be removed of power).  Even without that ceasing-
to-exist defined, it's part of judicial precedent, so that's probably 
what happens if you only read R105(b).

HOWEVER.  Once the language for "re-enact" was added in R105(c), it 
implicitly created a new category of thing:  the "repealed rule".  
This is clearly not a Rule, but it is now a tracked thing, in spite of
the 'no-tracking' provision in R105(b) - it has tracked ID and text in
case the rulekeepor needs to re-enact it with its "same text".  And 
this tracked thing NEVER HAD ITS POWER REMOVED.  It just got moved 
from the "rule" to the "repealed rule" category of thing.

======================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

- Rule 2469 was repealed by Proposal 7839 (17-Jan-2017).

Rule 105/12 (Power=3)
Rule Changes

      Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,
      as part of its effect,

      (a) enact a rule.  The new rule has power equal to the minimum
          of the power specified by the enacting instrument,
          defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not
          specify or if it specifies a power less than 0.1, and the
          maximum power permitted by other rules.  The enacting
          instrument may specify a title for the new rule, which if
          present shall prevail.  The ID number of the new rule cannot
          be specified by the enacting instrument; any attempt to so
          specify is null and void.

      (b) repeal a rule.  When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a
          rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record
          of it.

      (c) reenact a rule.  A repealed rule identified by its most
          recent rule number may be reenacted with the same ID number
          and the next change identifier.  If no text is specified,
          the rule is reenacted with the same text it had when it was
          most recently repealed.  If the reenacting proposal provides
          new text for the rule, the rule must have materially the
          same purpose as did the repealed version; otherwise, the
          attempt to reenact the rule is null and void.

      (d) amend the text of a rule.

      (e) retitle a rule.

      (f) change the power of a rule.

      A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
      Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.

      Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
      change to be void and without effect.  An inconsequential
      variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not
      constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any
      other variation does.

      A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
      full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
      specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
      least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
      take effect.

      This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
      created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can
      become a rule or cease to be a rule.

======================================================================

Judge's Arguments:

The only applicable rule granting a power other than zero is Rule 2141:

> Every rule has power between 0.1 and 4.0 inclusive. It is not
> possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.

However, under Rule 105, a repealed rule is not a rule:

> When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule, and the Rulekeepor
> need no longer maintain a record of it.

As a repealed rule must necessarily have power zero, by Rule 1688 and
by the absence of any other applicable Rule, it also ceased to be an
instrument:

> An Instrument is an entity with positive Power.

Therefore, I find the statement FALSE. Repealed Rule 2469 is neither
an instrument nor an entity with power 3.

======================================================================