I hate to come in and just say that this is wrong, but this is wrong. Precedents are established in the GA only in relation to two things: (1) the rules and (2) actual rulings made by the Secretariat.
I basically think that's what I said. The rulings of gen sec consider what has come before, when determining legality. I think where we diverge is in whether you think I'm talking about strict legal precedent/case law, where one resolution sets a standard in law to which all others must comply (which I'm not talking about), and the concept of precedent in the broader general sense, and as it applies to Gensec determinations of legality, within the rules, and examples of that were provided. HoC, Honest Mistake, etc. This seems to me to be violent agreement between us on that point.
On top of that, the rules are not based on precedent in of itself. They are based on the content of resolutions. The reason why the law cannot be amended is not because of some vague assertion to the primacy of the past, but the fact that there is an Amendment rule that prohibits it.
I don't consider it necessarily a vague assertion, and I understand there are limitations that prevent amendments (and it's from those limitations where the rule comes) but it's also pretty much common sense that if you have a law that says 'action x is illegal' and a new resolution that says 'action x is legal' that's going to cause some consternation, so that is a consideration in the application of the rule.
At a fundamental level, there is a distinction in the Assembly between the rules, case law, and what generally happens. The rules are not enforced in all situations, case law is not produced in all situations, and what generally happens is no guide on to the other two, beyond what the Secretariat rules. Simply because something happened in the past does not justify its happening now or again.
And here is where I believe we get at the heart of the issue. The scope of Gensec's power stops at the immediate determination of legality of a proposal, within the rules they have to work with. GenSec is not the Supreme Court. No disrespect intended, but they don't have the authority, and they are not provided the ability to interpret law outside of their purview, which is to make determinations on legality, strictly within the house rules.
Theirs is more a custodial role. I have to assume that Gensec is without the ability to make determinations about what may come as a consequence of their decision. They don't really get to take the long view on what the unintended consequences might be, of resolutions they deem legal (see 457). Their only concern is whether it's legal in the immediate sense. I fully understand that, but that reality also comes with it's own problems.
I'm of the mind that it has to be either/ or: Either Gensec does have the ability to inform on the implications, or they don't. In the case of your repeal, you're suggesting that their process does inform as to the meaning and implications of the target. In the case of 457, Gensec's focus was on the legality of exemptions as a whole. Didn't even touch on what 457 meant in relation to the rules laid out in 35. So, in that case, the wide view was that their process didn't inform (wasn't germane) to the implications of the target, raised in my repeal. I see a bit of a double standard in that. Not from Gensec, per se, but in how some chose to apply Gensec's process in any given situation, when it suits them. There can be a variety of ways they reach their conclusions on legality. Those ways may not specifically address any voter interpretation. I hope I'm being clear, but I think it need to be all or nothing.
It seems, at least to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you make a play at Secretariat-rulings-do-not-require-me-to-vote-some-way, which is true. They do not. However, to say that they are unimportant is untrue, especially to the "GA regulars". The Secretariat's job is about legality, but the impact on interpretation carries forward to members of the Assembly because if those members wanted to make a repeal, that repeal is itself evaluated on its legality
Here's where we diverge again, and for many of the reasons stated above. In the case of 457, where there would very clearly be some informed, long-term fallout from Gensec's decision on legality, that was ignored, perhaps as it needed to be - I'm not sure.
But, it's pretty hard to deny that 457, in it's practical application, goes hard against the spirit of 35. So much so, that many of the same people who were most vocal about how wrong my interpretation of things was, in rejecting the premise of my repeal, were the first to support the proposal that followed, seeking to limit religious exemptions. Using Gensec's decision as ammo to argue against my repeal (because their decision happened to focus on the legality of exemptions), but then later acknowledging that the problems raised in my repeal, exist. You'll forgive me if I see that as some playing it both ways.
Specific to what I think you're getting at, I feel the determination of the legality of 457, by Gensec did set a precedent. Even tried to challenge their decision. I think it ignored the elephant in the room, that given enough of these type of 'legal' exemptions, targeting enough ideological groups, that that represents death by a thousand cuts to 35. When everyone is exempted in their discrimination, then what you're left with is everyone discriminating, and 35 is nullified. Making legal a resolution, that is instrumental in nullifying another regulation - amending that law without repeal - was against the grain of the house rules. That may be controversial, but that's where I land on it.
Imperium Anglorum
