Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - yet in your example the Federal laws dont have a statement that says ALL restrictions are contained in X sign - do they?

Yes. It's nearly exactly the same IMHO.

It's called the Supremacy Clause in our biggest sign of all, The US Constitution. Our BRB, if you will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

It means that whatever the Fed creates in terms of laws, the states (or locals) can create other laws, but they can't change that highest level. Which is why I believe it is akin to "unless stated otherwise, all spells possess the following restrictions." Except in the case of US Federal laws, you can't even state otherwise, so it's stricter.

I believe that bold sentence under the header is the equivalent of the Fed. They explicitly say unless stated otherwise. The very bottom sentence doesn't change that IMHO.

But again, that's English Language verbage. And I don't know if we're getting anywhere. It'd be cool to have a ruling, and yes, US English and British English are slightly different, but I work for a major British Company and my direct boss is in Ireland. So I'm on the phone with those guys all the time. It's not like we're speaking Martian at each other.

I think we've seen these arguments for both sides now, which probably means the thread should die (which in turn means that it will probably be carried out, reeking, in another four months).

The RAW argument fails to convince me either way, although if I had to come down on it, I'd come down on nos' side. However, playing it that way makes you TFG, and every tournament I've been to has ruled no combat casting for Gateway and CotHR. That's the right way to play the game, not the rules.

Duke - Im aware of the clause...

Yet does it also say that other laws can be made, which will have all of the restrictions listed therein? If they dont then it is not comparable, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Yes, it does. The tenth amendment of the Bill of Rights.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Though we're going so far off planet GW going into US constitutional law we're going to hit our heads on satelites any minute.

...which is not the same thing. You are giving *explicit* statements that the rules "above" still apply, when your entire point is that it is only implied in the rules, when the actual written rules state the complete opposite.