DG5JR16
I must disagree with my esteemed colleague. The Constitution and the Code of Laws have ALWAYS been separate documents. We have different posts for each document, different rules for amending each document, and different Polls for ratifying each document. In fact we used to have the Three Books, the Constitution, the Code of Laws, and the Code of Standards. Each was a separate document with a separate purpose. This Judicial Review is to consider amending Article N so that it is not restricted to only the Constitution and Forum Rules. It is not to define the purpose of the Code of Laws, which is a separate document in its entirety regardless of its purpose.
As this Judicial Review is about Article N, we need to focus on the intent of this Article. It now states that citizens have the right to do actions not forbidden by Forum Rules or the Constitution. This Article was drawn up before the creation of the Code of Laws. If we neglect to "update" this Article, it could be seen as saying that citizens doing the actions prescribed in the Code of Laws are not within their rights. Plus, by not adding it a second time (to the last line), actions prescribed by the Code of Laws may not be substituted by other similar actions, provided such substitution lies within the spirit of these rules. Which means no lee way in its implementation. No substitutions, regardless of the spirit of the Law. Actually, leaving the second one out may not be a 'bad thing'. But regardless, the first instance is what the primary reason of this JR is about. Fine tuning an amendment can be done later.
Because of Article B of the Constitution, citizens are required to follow all lower forms of Law ratified by the people. So whether they must or not is not my concern here. What we should be looking at is the rights of the citizens and the permissiveness the government uses in viewing their actions. I believe the Code of Laws, as a separate document from the Constitution, should be included in legislation concerning the rights of the citizens. Therefore, I submit the following Opinion:
Chief Justice Opinion: Article N does not actually require the citizens to obey/follow the Code of Laws, in answer to your question. That is done by Article B, as shown above. But in answer to the intent of the request for Judicial Review, to protect the integrity of the Code of Laws, an amendment should be drawn up for Article N with the Code of Laws included in the rules that may forbid citizen actions. Because it is a separate document, otherwise we would not be having this JR, if we exclude it from Article N, 1. it would send a confusing message to the public (as shown here) and 2. It would allow the citizens the right to perform actions forbidden in the Code of Laws.