Your Honours,

Amicus brief by Jebediah

While the last amicus brief may be correct, and also applies to Article 1.4 of the charter, which states...

"Any constitutional law passed by the Assembly that directly affects the gameside community or its home governance, as determined by the Chair of the Assembly, must also receive the consent of the gameside before coming into force, where that consent shall not require more than a three-fifths supermajority in a vote."

...this is of no bearing to the case, as there exists a very similar Article 13.2:

"Any amendment to the Charter or constitutional laws that directly affects the gameside community or its home governance, as determined by the Chair of the Assembly, must also receive the consent of the gameside community before coming into force, where the consent shall not require more than a three-fifths supermajority in a vote. Additionally, the Local Council may originate amendments to its structure in the Charter, which must receive the consent of the Assembly before coming into force."

While these have differences between them, the notable parts for the purposes of this case - on whether or not this amendment should go to a gameside referendum - do not change between either section. The only difference is that one applies to new legislation, while the other applies to amendments (both apply to all constitutional laws, however one of them mentions the Charter by name while the other does not). In light of this, I beg the court to consider arguments made with an erroneous use of Article 1.4 as if they were using the correct Article 13.2.