Post

"President Auxorii, while you make some good points, the truth is that the fact that the Assembly is defined in the Constitution (A1S1) makes its existence necessary; at least until the Constitution is changed. The fact that the Assembly can "create or amend binding rules affecting the operation of the Assembly itself" (A1S4) assumes that the Assembly be operating. Moreover, the Assembly does not have the right to give away its legislative authority; as doing so would require a constitutional amendment as the location of the Assembly's authority is defined outside its operations (A1S1), and therefore outside the Assembly's legislative authority. Of course the Constitution does not mandate in and of itself that the Assembly perpetually hold legislative authority, but one must assume it until an amendment is put forward and approved through the appropriate means. Furthermore, the Constitution does not concede the Assembly the powers to accord the President further authority, as the President's authority is defined in the Constitution (A2S2,3), and the Assembly's in A1S4. Interpreting the statement "Place restrictions on the powers of the Executive and Judicial branches, beyond the limits imposed by this Constitution" as meaning that the Assembly has the right to grant the Executive and Judicial branches further powers would be unreasonable; it goes contrary to the original intent of the Constition's writers, and sets a dangerous precedent.
It is therefore the Court's opinion that the Popular Delegation of Authority Act is not in accordance with the Constitution as a legislation, and that if the Assembly wishes to disband itself, it must do so in a proper manner, i.e. with a constitutional amendment
That would be all, and I consider the matter closed"