[RULES DISCUSSION] House of Cards rule

[Imperium Anglorum]

The purpose of the house of cards rule is to prevent the actual working clauses from collapsing because they used the working action clauses of a resolution that has been subsequently repealed and as a result (the working action clauses) are no longer in effect.

This. Fundamentally, it is inconsistent for a rule made in this matter to metastasise into an extremely broad prohibition having little to do with the reasons for which it was initially imposed and be plausibly justified.

[Fauxia]

You remember UFoC's Napa repeal, right? Let's pretend it passed. And then I passed my own repeal of the Nuclear Security Convention. The arguments in UFoC's repeal become irrelevant! Oh noes! What will we do now?! This idea that 'arguments become irrelevant' is schizophrenically inconsistent unless you universalise it to both repeals and new legislation. Nobody has been able to show a difference or logical reason for maintaining it as it currently is, beyond 'Buht mah tradishunn'.

Because if you say something that essentially means "The Precedent of GA #6,543 means..." well, then the precedent is overturned via a repeal. Now your preamble is more gibberish than it already was. You could set a strict guidelines of what you can and cannot do, determine it case-by-case, but that seems difficult.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Let's get to the meat of the post you just quoted. Why, then, should we be permitted as now, to reference other resolutions in repeals?

[Tzorsland]

Because if you say something that essentially means "The Precedent of GA #6,543 means..." well, then the precedent is overturned via a repeal.

It does not follow that the precedent is overturned on a repeal. If we have a resolution passed for situation X then the notion of "having previously passed legislation on subject X" is true no matter if that resolution is subsequently repealed because the past cannot be altered. While the following is generally illegal for a whole lot of reasons, it makes a simple example.

Whereas the WA has voted in the past to legalize sex and
Whereas the WA has voted in the past to legalize drugs be it
Resolved that the WA official legalized Rock and Roll in all member nations.

Practical example: Using the two resolutions on abortion to justify "fourth trimester abortions" aka infanticide. Technically even if abortion is outlawed, infanticide could still be legal so there is no house of cards violation. But supporting arguments could use the fact that abortions were made legal (at the very least) in the past.

[Fauxia]

Let's get to the meat of the post you just quoted. Why, then, should we be permitted as now, to reference other resolutions in repeals?

Because the resolution is rendered null and void, not stricken from history. Using a resolution that can be repealed as a basis for argument is different. You should be allowed to say basically whatever you want, besides making a claim of WA opinion on a different issue. If I phrased that terribly and you need an explanation, come back to me.

Because if you say something that essentially means "The Precedent of GA #6,543 means..." well, then the precedent is overturned via a repeal.

It does not follow that the precedent is overturned on a repeal. If we have a resolution passed for situation X then the notion of "having previously passed legislation on subject X" is true no matter if that resolution is subsequently repealed because the past cannot be altered. While the following is generally illegal for a whole lot of reasons, it makes a simple example.

Whereas the WA has voted in the past to legalize sex and
Whereas the WA has voted in the past to legalize drugs be it
Resolved that the WA official legalized Rock and Roll in all member nations.

Practical example: Using the two resolutions on abortion to justify "fourth trimester abortions" aka infanticide. Technically even if abortion is outlawed, infanticide could still be legal so there is no house of cards violation. But supporting arguments could use the fact that abortions were made legal (at the very least) in the past.

You make a good point. I am rethinking this...

[Araraukar]

Let's get to the meat of the post you just quoted. Why, then, should we be permitted as now, to reference other resolutions in repeals?

We shouldn't.

[Imperium Anglorum]

We shouldn't.

So why did you support it in this exact thread, when you said that repeals can reference past resolutions?

[Araraukar]

We shouldn't.

So why did you support it in this exact thread, when you said that repeals can reference past resolutions?

Because I can have an opinion and yet support something else? Like I may have the opinion that all unplanned pregnancies should be aborted, but I would still defend a woman's right to choose.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Let's get to the meat of the post you just quoted. Why, then, should we be permitted as now, to reference other resolutions in repeals?

Because the resolution is rendered null and void, not stricken from history. Using a resolution that can be repealed as a basis for argument is different. You should be allowed to say basically whatever you want, besides making a claim of WA opinion on a different issue. If I phrased that terribly and you need an explanation, come back to me.

Whereas the General Assembly has in the past called for the passage of legislation on internet neutrality in GA c. 406 and has legislated in the past on the topic in resolutions GA c. 89, 273, 395, 396, and 398:

Tell me exactly how that can change, even if all the relevant resolutions are repealed (which isn't possible anyway, since repeals can't be repealed). These are fact claims. If you repeal GA c. 89, which did occur in GA c. 273, that does not change the fact that legislation was in fact passed on the topic. Like you said, they are not stricken from history with a damnito memoriae.

If I interpret your statement broadly, I still don't see why it is relevant. This is a legal proposal. It also referenced an existing, then-active, and now-repealed resolution: Nuclear Security Convention. It does use a resolution that can be repealed as the basis of an argument. In fact, I repealed it. What is the meaningful difference between usage à la this and usage in substantive resolution?

RECALLING the passage of General Assembly resolution #292 which clearly states in clause 4 that "nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the right of member nations to research or use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, nor denying members nations the right to possess or produce nuclear armaments via their own technological and manufacturing capacities.'

ALSO RECALLING General Assembly resolution #308 which states in clause three "Permits the usage of nuclear weapons in a reciprocal role should another hostile nation deliberately target civilian populations in defiance of this accord," effectively rendering clause two of General Assembly #10 which states "DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations," moot,

NOTING that clause three of General Assembly #10 resolution states "REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.", yet fails to clearly define who those "wrong hands may be",

RECOGNIZING clause two of General Assembly resolution #292 effectively closes the loophole in General Assembly resolution #10 clause #1 by stating "Requires member nations take all necessary precautions to ensure their nuclear materials, technology and information that have the potential for weaponization are fully secured against unauthorized release," effectively making clause #1 of General Assembly resolution #10 moot as well,

CONFIDENT that since the passage of General Assembly resolutions #292, and #308, the subject of nuclear disarmament is effectively blocked, and therefore dead,

---

Because I can have an opinion and yet support something else? Like I may have the opinion that all unplanned pregnancies should be aborted, but I would still defend a woman's right to choose.

These are necessarily mutually exclusive positions. What you told me is that one obligation trumps another. Which one is the case here?

[Fauxia]

Well, maybe you are correct, IA

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well, maybe you are correct, IA

What maybe?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Well, maybe you are correct, IA

What correct?

[Fauxia]

Well, maybe you are correct, IA

What correct?

Well, maybe you are correct, IA

What maybe?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Bump, due to renewed discussion of the topic on the Discord.

[Excidium Planetis]

House of Cards: Proposal mandates and operative clauses cannot rely on past resolutions. Repeals may reference other resolutions to provide argumentative support.

That I'll happily agree with. But how exactly "letting resolutions use previous ones to provide argumentative support" does not make them rely on past resolutions? If the previous resolution is repealed, the support for the arguments vanishes.

EDIT: Just to make it clear, the underlined is my edit on IA's post.

So, Ara, are you saying that Protection of Sapient Rights should have been ruled illegal, since one of its arguments relied on a repealed resolution?

[Imperium Anglorum]

So, Ara, are you saying that Protection of Sapient Rights should have been ruled illegal, since one of its arguments relied on a repealed resolution?

Oh damn! Looks like we've already won!

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

I have a few different thoughts on this. To begin with, I agree with IA, as a general matter. "Noting we did X" or "Seeing we said Y" are statements whose truthiness are independent of whatever we did AFTER that. I do not see why we cannot say those things. Falsehood could be covered under the unfortunately named "honest mistake" rule.

We also allow limited referencing of prior resolutions already in the form of committees. We can stack additional duties on a committee and then cause them to continue existing even after we repeal the resolution that created them. It seems a little odd that I can appropriate parts of a resolution that way but not explicitly say that is what I am doing.

I would like to see a rule that permits incorporation by reference as well, along the lines of:

"Adopting the definition of ____ as expressed in resolution XXX" which would function effectively like committee appropriation (the definition continues to live on).

The reasoning being that we are implicitly doing this anyway.

That said, this forum is populated by people who certainly fit the stereotype of American over-litigiousness (and yes I know not all of the people here are American), so I also see the value in a cut and dry brightline to cut back on the ridiculous use of legality as a weapon that goes on.