Tell me more ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 3 down vote favorite

I'm working on updating a constitution, but as it is for a non-incorporated entity it doesn't have to be legally perfect. I'm much more interested in clarity.

Here is what I have at the moment:

If any of the regulations of the Guild, the rules of Societies Council, or other provisions enrolled upon the Guild Statutes Book should disagree with this any portion of this Constitution or with any Regulations, then those rules shall be overruled.

Regulation is defined earlier in the document as

a rule or law that is passed by committee, with on going consequences to the club.

Basically:

If A,B, or C contradicts X or Y, then uses A, B or C instead

share|improve this question
Note: you want "ongoing" not "on going". – Daniel Harbour Jul 7 '12 at 11:41

closed as too localized by simchona♦, jwpat7, MετάEd, JLG, RegDwighт♦ Sep 29 '12 at 0:31

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.

3 Answers

up vote 5 down vote

Suggestion:

Rules of the Guild, the Societies Council, or the Guild Statutes Book supersede any conflicting regulations in this Constitution.

share|improve this answer
I'm trying to say the opposite, so Subsede? or reverse order – oxinabox Jul 7 '12 at 4:24
How about just reversing the order, then? I edited the answer to reflect what I think you are saying. – Keith Flower Jul 7 '12 at 4:57
supercede is the right word. A,B and C supercede X and Y. – Jim Jul 7 '12 at 6:21
1  
X can supersede (supercede) Y only if X is instituted later than Y. So, a constitutional amendment supersedes an article or clause of the original constitution. But if a court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, the constitution cannot be said to have superseded that law. – Daniel Harbour Jul 7 '12 at 11:53
1  
@TimLymington- Maybe it's a AE/BrE thing or maybe it's just two alternate spellings either is fine by my dictionary. – Jim Jul 7 '12 at 17:25
show 1 more comment
up vote 1 down vote

I would go for something like:

In case of contradiction between:

  1. the Constitution or Regulations, and
  2. any rules or regulations instituted by the Guild, the Societies Council, or other provisions enrolled upon the Guild Statutes Book,

the Constitution and Regulations (1) will be definitive, and the rules, regulations, or other provisions (2) will be deemed void.

Or:

The Constitution and Regulations override, and may not be superseded by, any rules or regulations instituted by the Guild, the Societies Council, or other provisions enrolled upon the Guild Statutes Book. Should a rule, regulation, or provision contradict the Constitution or Regulations, it will be deemed invalid and the Constitution and Regulations will remain in force.

share|improve this answer
you are saying the opposite of my meaning. – oxinabox Jul 8 '12 at 4:34
You want the constitution to be overridden without special mechanisms (constitutional amendments frequently require a larger quorum and/or a larger percentage of votes in favour)? Anyway, no problem, just change the last two lines of option 1 to the rules, regulations, or other provisions (2) will be definitive, and relevant portions of the Constitution and Regulations (1) will become void. – Daniel Harbour Jul 10 '12 at 18:06
That is correct, we are a suborganistation of the Societies Counsel (who is a sub- of the guild), who we have no ability to control. If our constitution comes into breach, they can cut off 40% funding, and quietlikly freeze our funds, and kick us out of our clubroom. (Though 20 clubs were found in breach this year, with no consequences beyond having to change there constitution) The alternitive to putting a clause allowing the constitution to be overridden, is to incorperate all there know rules into the consituion, and change the constitution every time they change a rule. (totally do-able) – oxinabox Jul 11 '12 at 2:11
@oxinabox All clear, that makes more sense now. The formulation in my previous comment should work then. – Daniel Harbour Jul 11 '12 at 5:44
up vote 0 down vote

On the basis that rules A are to be applied but rules X are to be ignored:

  1. Rules A supersede rules B.
  2. Rules A are to be preferred.
  3. Rules A take precedence.

(1) is better if the makers of the new rules have the power to revoke or rescind the other rules or decisions. If they have no such power, (2) or (3) are better.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.