Court rules changes

I propose we repeal this part of the Court rules: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8015996&t=6738296

It is the part covering the appointment of THOs, and is currently redundant as the exactly same thing is covered in law.

Any objections?

Well, redundancy is OK, the question is if there is any conflict with the laws and court rules?

Repealing it outright might be construed as the court ceding judicial authority to the legislative branch.

I say leave it alone unless the rule needs to be changed in light of a potential problem.


What is your reason, other than redundancy in the legal code, for repealing this if no conflict exists?

My reason is exactly redundancy.

Though redundancy can be good in some situations, this is not true in legislation. It creates potential for conflicts, and means that should one source of law be amended, we also need to be mindful to amend the other as well.

I don't think we would be perceived as ceding any power. Those particular rules are long overdue a repeal anyway, as they have been there since before the passage of the current Legal Code.

Repealing redundant rules also makes the Court rules easier for citizens to parse, by reducing their length. We want citizens to focus on the important ones, not the rules that add nothing new to the already existing legislation.

Any more comments?

None from me.

Funk, are you in favor or against?

Eh, what the Hell, remove the redundancy.

That's a vote for.

Thanks Roman. I'll purge them.