Talk:325
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
TomFoolery (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
== Debate == | == Debate == | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | ||
| - | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | + | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--><br> |
| - | + | But will someone not try to find a way to work around it? For example if 55% want the law passed they would create a new law, not repealing it, but rendering it useless or effectless.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 15:48, 23 November 2006 (EST) | |
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 20:48, 23 November 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
It should be more difficult to repeal a rule than to amend it, or to create a new one. We should endeavor to work within the framework that we create wherever possible, and only to remove a part of that framework when no other options are available.
Debate
Add comments
But will someone not try to find a way to work around it? For example if 55% want the law passed they would create a new law, not repealing it, but rendering it useless or effectless.--Shivan 15:48, 23 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
