Actually, Bels, I don't quite think you're being pedantic, although I would agree with the second charge that this seems to be a purely personal crusade.

My point remains -- and will remain -- that you, as the court, do not get to define something as illegal and then go on a witch hunt about what has previously been done. Interpreting the law an creating new law is one in the same, since the Court is deciding how the law can be interpreted.

If the question was "Were GR's actions illegal?" this would be a different question. However, the question asked what was powers does the CoA have? Going forward, the CoA does not have the ability to interpret the law as GR had. However, you also don't have the ability to now suggest that because you interpreted the law as x, something that happened eight months ago is retroactively illegal since the individual did not anticipate how the Court would rule several months later.

To take this a step further, by your logic -- Ditortilla is completely correct. The Charter, Legislature and Judiciary are all null and void, meaning that you don't even have the ability to rule on this topic. None of the do and we should all assume that Kris now our supreme ruler.