Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 03:29:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You're completely incorrect. The resolution, if passed, may not be
> enforceable, but there is no procedural bar within the Constitution to
> passing a general resolution that is contrary in intent to anything at
> all.
There's no *procedural* bar against us passing a wide variety of nonsense.
Hopefully, we'll be smart enough to deal with the most egregarious
nonsense during the discussion phase or even better before it gets enough
seconds to come to vote [rather than having to vote on nonsense].
> If passed, and if the Social Contract has not been amended in a
> compatible fashion in the meantime, all this means is that "enforcement"
> of the general resolution would have to be suspended until the tension
> is removed -- whether by having another GR to retract Mr. Suffield's, or
> by amending the Social Contract.
That's not *all* that this would mean, but the things you say "it means"
would certainly be the case.
But, for example, it might also mean we weren't capable of putting
together a ballot which would address the issues we were voting on.
--
Raul
Reply to: