NationStates

If a passed resolution is repealed, does the resolution still follow the "House of Cards" rule as per https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348:

"House of Cards: Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent. However, repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal."

Thanks.

I don't quite understand the question. Perhaps you mean can repealed resolutions be relied upon in a proposal?

^ That.

What do you mean by a repealed resolution following the House of Cards rule?

Mentoka wrote:My guess would be, they are asking if they can reference a repealed resolution in their new resolution without running afoul the House of Cards rule.

A repeal causes a resolution to be Null and Void (what a redundant phrase), and a void law operates as if it never existed. So, probably not based on a plain meaning reading.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Mentoka wrote:My guess would be, they are asking if they can reference a repealed resolution in their new resolution without running afoul the House of Cards rule.

A repeal causes a resolution to be Null and Void (what a redundant phrase), and a void law operates as if it never existed. So, probably not based on a plain meaning reading.

If we're talking about, say: GA 351, which got repealed, and whether you can reference it, then yes.

If we're talking about, say: GA 351, which got repealed, and creating legislation which substantively depends on or extends the resolution, no.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:If we're talking about, say: GA 351, which got repealed, and whether you can reference it, then yes.

In the preamble of a new proposal.

Separatist Peoples wrote:A repeal causes a resolution to be Null and Void (what a redundant phrase), and a void law operates as if it never existed.

Look, the Secretariat can do whatever it likes, but that statement is deceptive. The actual statement is "shall be struck out and rendered null and void." In the first place it in and of itself is not erased but struck out. Therefore it certainly is not erased from history; it was written, voted on and approved. In the second place the term "render null and void" can be defined as "deprive of legal force." "In law, void means of no legal effect."

Now there is a question of whether a repealed resolution ceases its effect from the moment the repeal passes or whether that effect can be applied from the moment the resolution was passed (which is somewhat the argument you are making) but that is different from making the statement that the resolution was never passed in the first place. The resolution was passed but now repealed has (and possibly had) no effect. That question, however is moot to the preamble of a resolution, which really doesn't have any force of law in and of itself in any case.

Moreover, there is an annoying complication to blatantly suggesting that a repeal makes the law as though it never happened at all. Let's say we pass a resolution that legalizes something, which assumed that something was illegal before it was made legal. It is therefore legal for someone to do that thing, except if it is later repealed and then it never was legal in the first place. But that violates the spirit and letter of the ban on ex post facto laws. In other words, a repeal can get you off the hook but it can't place you in hot water (unless we repeal the ban). Again, for the sake of history, a repeal doesn't erase history, it erases the effect of the resolution.

Dirty Americans wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:A repeal causes a resolution to be Null and Void (what a redundant phrase), and a void law operates as if it never existed.

Look, the Secretariat can do whatever it likes, but that statement is deceptive. The actual statement is "shall be struck out and rendered null and void." In the first place it in and of itself is not erased but struck out. Therefore it certainly is not erased from history; it was written, voted on and approved. In the second place the term "render null and void" can be defined as "deprive of legal force." "In law, void means of no legal effect."

Now there is a question of whether a repealed resolution ceases its effect from the moment the repeal passes or whether that effect can be applied from the moment the resolution was passed (which is somewhat the argument you are making) but that is different from making the statement that the resolution was never passed in the first place. The resolution was passed but now repealed has (and possibly had) no effect. That question, however is moot to the preamble of a resolution, which really doesn't have any force of law in and of itself in any case.

Moreover, there is an annoying complication to blatantly suggesting that a repeal makes the law as though it never happened at all. Let's say we pass a resolution that legalizes something, which assumed that something was illegal before it was made legal. It is therefore legal for someone to do that thing, except if it is later repealed and then it never was legal in the first place. But that violates the spirit and letter of the ban on ex post facto laws. In other words, a repeal can get you off the hook but it can't place you in hot water (unless we repeal the ban). Again, for the sake of history, a repeal doesn't erase history, it erases the effect of the resolution.

You seem to be arguing against claims SP didn't make.

Tzors makes a correct and important point, especially regarding HoC. A void law doesn’t act as if it never existed, it simply acts without effect.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Tzors makes a correct and important point, especially regarding HoC. A void law doesn’t act as if it never existed, it simply acts without effect.

Copy-paste from Wiki:

In law, void means of no legal effect. An action, document, or transaction which is void is of no legal effect whatsoever: an absolute nullity — the law treats it as if it had never existed or happened.

Emphasis mine.

Of course, nobody said that all repealed law was damnatio in memoriae.

You know who is damnito memoriae?! You! Gulag! (When Discord jokes cross over...)

Mentoka wrote:Wrong. A law once repealed no longer exists. End stop.

What's this now? https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... 1?start=15

If you want to make objectively false claims, don't do it against things which are so easy to debunk.

Thank you all.