Grandfather Clauses: When are they needed, and where they shouldn’t be used

[Alolan_Apples]

Many of you know what a Grandfather Clause is. If not, here’s what it means.

A Grandfather Clause is a part of a policy that exempts everything done before the change takes effect. Although the origins of the term were racist since it was a tool used for disenfranchising minorities, the modern usage of the term refers to almost anything that refer to a policy change. It does not mean that anything against the law that was done before it was written shouldn’t be punishable. It means that anything existing before the regulation was made is still exempt from the regulation as it only applies to the future. It does not just apply to the law. It also goes over institutional policies, organizational policies, and even video game updates.

Examples of when a Grandfather Clause is present:

• California’s Proposition 13 is all centered on it. When you buy a house when it was at a certain property tax, that property tax is permanent, even when the general property tax goes up. But when you sell it, it re-synchronizes the state’s property tax.
• When the US drinking age was raised to 21 in 1984, everyone that was 18 years or older (but still under 21) when the law first took effect were legally allowed to drink, but those who weren’t even 18 when the law took effect had to wait until they are 21.
• Usually when a school district changes the graduation requirements, everyone that was part of the school before the next year (when the changes take effect) had to follow the older graduation requirements while those who begin that stage in the new year follow the new requirements. For example, some high school didn’t require learning foreign language in order to graduate up until the 20th year it was running. After the 20th year, students are expected to learn at least two years of the same foreign language in order to graduate. Those who were sophomores, juniors, or seniors during the 21st year didn’t have to learn foreign language, but those who were freshmen during the 21st year or later do.

Examples of when a Grandfather Clause is absent:

• When New Jersey abolished the Death Penalty in 2007, everyone on death row at the time were sent to life imprisonment rather stay on death row, awaiting for execution.
• Before the June 2012 update in Little Big Planet 2, there was a glitch where you can add a hazard to your sackperson, hence the title “Lethal Sackboy Glitch”. Not only this makes you dangerous to other players, but it also makes you immune to the same kind of hazard (which allowed several players to cheat, including the “Pigs in Elevators (In Space)” bonus stage). After the update, you could no longer glitch your sackperson. The patch didn’t just stop all future incidents. Everyone that had the glitch before the update had it removed. So it basically undone past incidents while preventing future incidents.
• When an upper court strikes down Gerrymandering, not only the state cannot do it again, but they are forced to redraw their districts, even when it’s not a year of reapportionment.

When no Grandfather Clause is present, the change is retroactive. It means everybody is expected to follow the change. That doesn’t mean you can go to jail for past violations of a law that didn’t exist back then. It means that an organization or person is expected to follow the change, whether or not they existed before the change.

When is it needed?

When morals, ethics, or practicality contradict the law, policy, or update, it would be necessary to grandfather in what’s there before. Examples:

• When a law that regulates construction or item ownership goes into effect, every building built and every item owned before the regulation should be left alone. It’s morally wrong to take away others’ possessions by law, especially in a Nazi-esque fascism, and should only be done by court order when the owner is an offender. If building size or building materials are regulated, it would be impractical to expect buildings built before the law to remodel to follow the new law, so they should stick to the older law.
• If new work requirements or school requirements are implemented by law, an organizational policy, or an institutional policy, those who are already working or are in that same school shouldn’t have to follow the new requirements, especially if they are currently working on that goal. It should apply to incoming freshmen or new people in the workforce. For example, newly implemented diversity requirements shouldn’t be applied to older businesses, but it should to newer businesses.
• If an item has been pulled from the digital stores, those who purchased it before the removal should be allowed to keep what they purchase.
• If someone was already being punished for violating a law or policy before its repeal, they should still serve the punishment, as they violated the law back when it’s still a law.
• If a new law changes who or what can have one status and what can’t, the people, places, or things that do not meet the new requirements of meeting that status should not lose their status if they’ve been on it for quite a while.

When shouldn’t it be used?

Sometimes, a new policy that is beneficial or vital would be absolutely necessary, as the policy is there for a reason. Everybody should be subjected to follow, regardless of when something started.

• If a new safety or security requirement is passed, everybody should implement the policy, no matter how expensive it is. Safety and security are absolutely necessary, and a grandfather clause that gives them permission to opt out would be considered dangerous.
• A new environmental regulation passed that not only forbids further damage to the environment, but also requires people to clean up the pollution. While it may seem unjust to force people to undo something once a new law contradicts an activity, pollution is bad for the Earth, as it could create a negative impact on future generations. I wish we can take more CO[SUB]2[/SUB] out of the atmosphere.
• If a new game update prevents glitching or hacking for personal gain, it should also undo the effects glitching and hacking has done, like that Lethal Sackboy Glitch example.
• If a new law does something else beneficial (like the breakup of monopolies and the abolition of slavery), it should not only be done to all future cases, but also past cases as well. When the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, everyone living in slavery were set free. When monopolies were made illegal, all monopolies existing at the time were forced to break up.
• If a new anti-discrimination law is passed, then all businesses or institutions are expected to follow the new laws, whether or not they were running before the laws were passed.