The House of Cards Rule

[Frisbeeteria]

I think Fris worded it the way he did

I didn't reword it at all. It's a direct quote from

No resolution shall be dependent on another resolution. Every resolution must be capable of standing on its own. References to other resolutions are legal so long as the resolution that is doing the referencing could survive if those other resolutions were repealed. A committee may exist in multiple resolutions, and it continues to exist even if the resolution that brought it into existence goes away.

If we're talking personal preferences, I prefer CD's version above over the Bears Armed revision. It's one less thing the GA mods have to keep up with or adjudicate if we simply don't care whether it's been previously used.

[Bears Armed]

So, are you saying that a committee which has lost all of its existing duties stays in existence, and consequently wouldn't need to be re-established before it could be given new ones? That would definitely be a change from previous Modly statements...

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Presumably, it would stay in existence, but would remain out of session until a new resolution gives it new business to consider.

[Frisbeeteria]

That would definitely be a change from previous Modly statements...

Then you'll have to get opinions from other mods. I did state that it was my "personal preference". I'm not actively monitoring the queue these days.

[Christian Democrats]

That's my view too. If a committee has been established and its enabling legislation is repealed, you don't need to reestablish the committee when mentioning it in a new proposal. You simply can revive it just by using its name or assume that its gnomes have been sitting around twiddling their thumbs, waiting for something new to pass.

[Tzorsland]

I would just say a committee is eternal, it never dies, but without active resolutions it doesn't really do anything.

Which is exactly what happens is it not?

The original proposal was "and it continues to exist for as long as that least one resolution that uses it is still in force"

This implies that if all resolutions are repealed the committee has to be created again.

My argument is that one doesn't need to do an exhaustive search to see if there exists at least one resolution that references it before one uses it.

[Guy]

Making a resolution dependent on another e.g. "the definition is the one used in Resolution #999" should remain illegal, as if that resolution were ever repealed it would be problematic.

I don't see why that's an issue. If you reference an existing definition, then that definition is incorporated into the newer instrument.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The better reason would simply be that it's a nuisance having to go search for another resolution to find that definition.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Making a resolution dependent on another e.g. "the definition is the one used in Resolution #999" should remain illegal, as if that resolution were ever repealed it would be problematic.

I don't see why that's an issue. If you reference an existing definition, then that definition is incorporated into the newer instrument.

As an example:

Let's say someone passes a resolution on the torture trade and uses "the definition of torture in Resolution #9".
Then Resolution #9 is repealed with an argument that the definition of torture used is wrong. But then an another resolution would have to be repealed given that even if the WA passed a new resolution banning torture, that new definition couldn't be amended in.

It just seems unnecessarily complicated.

[Bears Armed]

Let's say someone passes a resolution on the torture trade and uses "the definition of torture in Resolution #9".
Then Resolution #9 is repealed with an argument that the definition of torture used is wrong. But then an another resolution would have to be repealed given that even if the WA passed a new resolution banning torture, that new definition couldn't be amended in.

It just seems unnecessarily complicated.

Not to mention the question of whether we'd then be allowed to use definitions even from 'historical' resolutions...

[The Dark Star Republic]

Let's say someone passes a resolution on the torture trade and uses "the definition of torture in Resolution #9".
Then Resolution #9 is repealed with an argument that the definition of torture used is wrong. But then an another resolution would have to be repealed given that even if the WA passed a new resolution banning torture, that new definition couldn't be amended in.

It just seems unnecessarily complicated.

Not to mention the question of whether we'd then be allowed to use definitions even from 'historical' resolutions...

Why not? There's no danger of them being repealed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Not to mention the question of whether we'd then be allowed to use definitions even from 'historical' resolutions...

Why not? There's no danger of them being repealed.

Yes, but what will the UN say?

[Flibbleites]

Not to mention the question of whether we'd then be allowed to use definitions even from 'historical' resolutions...

Why not? There's no danger of them being repealed.

Technically they already have been repealed, back when GA #1 declared the pages of international law to be blank.

[Unibot III]

I don't understand how most things we call House of Cards issues are actually House of Cards issues. I never have. Even if a resolution is repealed, it still exists on the books, it's just not in effect. So any references to past resolutions and any references to past definitions are still workable, even if the resolution is no longer extant. In theory you could say "recalling UN#XX" or the "definition of "poverty" used in UN#XXX" and anybody would be able to refer to the resolution, extant or not.

Putting my Unibot hat on for a second (giving me the incredible superpower to screw with laws in a single bound), one way in which you could make a law depend on another law is to say "X shall be funded by the WA General Fund" - given the WA General Fund is not a committee but a fund so the committee exception doesn't apply - the GAO is the committee which organizes the WA General Fund.

This creates an enormous cock-up, since WA General Fund basically is unrepealable as it stands even now, since people have been tagging "WA General Fund" into resolutions like drunken sailors over the years, not acknowledging that if GA#17 is repealed, the WA General Fund will either (1) no longer exist, or (2) not receive its involuntary donations - making it an empty piggy bank. However, if GA#17 is repealed and the WA General Fund is protected as if it were a committee, the WA could engage in deficit spending (GA#17, which prohibits deficit spending, would no longer apply) and turn the WA General Fund into a bottomless debt pool with no donations coming in.

Here's some resolutions that may depend on GA#17.

Resolution	Status	Cause for dependency
Access to Life-Saving Drugs	Quasi-Dependent	By using "usual WA funding mechanisms" the resolution gives itself some wiggle room. "Usual" could in theory mean something other than the WAGF.
The Gem Trading Accord	Quasi-Dependent	The same wiggle room as with "Access to Life-Saving Drugs" - this resolution uses the phrase "funded by normal sources" - which assumes, of course, there is a normal source.
Missing Minors Act	Quasi-Dependent	"ALLOWING Nations without funds for an MCO to apply to the World Assembly General Fund (WAGF) for funding." I say Quasi-Dependent because, in theory allowing something to apply isn't the same as receiving anything back. But would the WAGF even exist to apply to?
The Early Learning Act	Quasi-Dependent	This is a funny one. It requires the GAO "to allocate and provide funds". If GA#17 is repealed, the GAO, a committee, would still exist - but it wouldn't have the funds to allocate, unless the GAO allocates some other funds from some other unspecified source to comply.
Uranium Mining Standards Act	Quasi-Dependent	The GAO would still be around to "conduct any and all essential financial checks " required, but nations would not be able to "apply to the WA General Fund" for more cash, unless like the Missing Minors Act, the WAGF exists to be applied to, but applying is in effect pointless.
Assisted Suicide Act	Not Dependent	This resolution "prohibits the use of World Assembly funds for assisted suicides and euthanasia procedures" - in doing it doesn't depend on the WA General Fund or even the notion of WA funding at all, since it's simply prohibiting funding for the areas if there was funding.
World Space Administration	Semi-Dependent	Curiously, this resolution called for funding from two sources: " from the WA fund and VOLUNTARY contributions from member states". Unfortunately, it's unclear whether the WAGF would exist in name or not if GA#17 is repealed; if not, then this resolution is wholly dependent on GA#17, but if the WAGF would exist, but with zero revenue, then the resolution could still be funded primarily by its VOLUNTARY donations.

This isn't a purely academic question either, since the WA has created another Fund before, the WA Humanitarian Fund (#118) which was collected via a human rights ad valorem tariff. If another resolution had made use of the WA Humanitarian Fund, grandfathering the WA Humanitarian Fund in as if it were a committee would be problematic, since if #118 was repealed (and it was) then the WA Humanitarian Fund would have no tariff to collect revenue from.