Talk:385
From Nomicapolis
(discuss amongst yourselves...let me give you a topic...) |
(→Debate: precedence and stare decisis) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|2|Add comments}} | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|2|Add comments}} | ||
<!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | ||
| - | + | I'd make this proposal explicitly take precedence over the rules it's intended to replace (otherwise most of it will only go into effect if/when they get repealed), and I'd also like to drop the reference to ''stare decisis''. There's a reason that such a policy isn't actually part of American law but rather just a policy of the courts; it binds a judge to follow any precedents that are contrary to the actual wording of the rules. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 09:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT) | |
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 13:03, 1 May 2007
Proposed by --Tucana25 02:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Debate shall end for this proposal by May 5, 2007 00:01 EST.
I've combined rules 321, 328, and 363 as well as provide continuation of a judge if no players vote in a months election...If anyone would like to change anything about the position of 'judge', please let me know and i'll consider its merit. --Tucana25 02:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Debate
I'd make this proposal explicitly take precedence over the rules it's intended to replace (otherwise most of it will only go into effect if/when they get repealed), and I'd also like to drop the reference to stare decisis. There's a reason that such a policy isn't actually part of American law but rather just a policy of the courts; it binds a judge to follow any precedents that are contrary to the actual wording of the rules. Wooble 09:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Vote
For
Against
Abstain
