First, I feel as though my character is being impugned here unfairly. As the Chair of the Assembly, I fulfilled my duties of translating passed bills into the Charter. That included fixing formatting errors that were very frequent under IP.Board's text editor. This happened every single time the Charter post was edited, and sometimes formatting errors were missed and left behind. I also saw this problem occur frequently under other Chairs. Some common formatting errors were the introduction of extra empty articles, incorrect spacing, different fonts and font sizes, and many more minor errors. I fixed all of those when I was Chair, and I imagine all other Chairs did the same thing, including Belschaft. This is not a criminal case, yet I feel that I am being accused of criminal activities, when all I did was fulfill the duties of the position as I understood them.

Second, there is no way to reconstruct what the Charter was before the formatting was edited for errors. Administrator and moderator post edits were not recorded in IP.Board. There is no version history. Yes, we can go through voting records and reconstruct the Charter, but who has the authority to do that? Certainly not the Chair, under the High Court's ruling. The High Court itself has no power to rewrite the Charter, either. It can only declare General Laws unconstitutional and reconcile contradictions between Charter sections. In order to conduct a reconstruction, like Belschaft is suggesting, the Assembly would have to vote on an entirely "new" Charter, as the Assembly is the only body with the authority to make any changes.

Third, building on the High Court's lack of authority mentioned above, I do not believe the High Court is able to declare the existing Charter defunct in its entirety. The only laws the High Court can declare defunct are General Laws, of which the Charter is not one. It is a good thing the High Court did not attempt to do that in its decision, anyways, because it would arguably have lacked the jurisdiction to do so under Article 4, Section 5, part 2. Kris did not ask the High Court to determine whether past actions were illegal, or whether the current Charter has legal force, so attempting to rule on those questions would be in violation of that part of the Charter.

Fourth, I want to address this idea that I, as Chair of the Assembly, had no business interpreting the law. That is not how our government works. The judiciary is not the only body that has the authority to interpret law. Rather, the judiciary has the final say in which interpretations are authoritative. In exercise their duties, all Cabinet members must interpret all relevant laws. That is how an executive branch works. We cannot execute the laws without first interpreting what they mean.

Lastly, I want to stress, yet again, that we're talking about typos and formatting errors. I don't know why we're acting like I changed any actual laws.