Thanks for the answer. I guess I was confused by the explanation Jared gave during the discussion why the EPH technical amendment was a lesser change, then. It sounded like he was saying that the state of mind of the voters at the time they gave the amendment first passage was relevant.
I kind of wish I'd thought of this during the final Business Meeting, instead of a couple of hours later. Although I'm not sure anyone would have thanked me for bringing up the hypothetical as a Point of Parliamentary Inquiry.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2016-08-23 02:39 am (UTC)I kind of wish I'd thought of this during the final Business Meeting, instead of a couple of hours later. Although I'm not sure anyone would have thanked me for bringing up the hypothetical as a Point of Parliamentary Inquiry.