Talk:325
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
(→Debate) |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
<!--BEGIN DEBATE--><br> | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--><br> | ||
But will someone not try to find a way to work around it? For example if 55% want the law passed they would create a new law, not repealing it, but rendering it useless or effectless.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 15:48, 23 November 2006 (EST) | But will someone not try to find a way to work around it? For example if 55% want the law passed they would create a new law, not repealing it, but rendering it useless or effectless.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 15:48, 23 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Good Point. Maybe a change to the proposal that eliminates that would be good. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 16:55, 23 November 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 21:40, 23 November 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
It should be more difficult to repeal a rule than to amend it, or to create a new one. We should endeavor to work within the framework that we create wherever possible, and only to remove a part of that framework when no other options are available.
Debate
Add comments
But will someone not try to find a way to work around it? For example if 55% want the law passed they would create a new law, not repealing it, but rendering it useless or effectless.--Shivan 15:48, 23 November 2006 (EST)
Good Point. Maybe a change to the proposal that eliminates that would be good. --TomFoolery 16:55, 23 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
