Request for Clarification

If it may please the Court, I have some questions concerning the characteristic of being obeyable about a law in The North Pacific.

I am requesting a resolution to an ambiguity in the law, in accordance with the Article 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution of The North Pacific:

Constitution of The North Pacific:

Article 5. The Court
1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.

Click to expand...

I am not requesting a review of the constitutionality of any law nor of the legality of government policy herein; therefore the requirement to show standing is moot.

I have held that Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is an obeyable law in The North Pacific. As such, it can be obeyed or disobeyed.

Opinions by others have been offered here, here and here that claim that the clause in question cannot be disobeyed.

Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 is reproduced below for your convenience:

Section 7.3: Religious Observance:

14. Flemingovianism shall be adopted as the religion and church of The North Pacific.

Click to expand...

Please be so kind as to inform us as to whether or not the above clause possesses the characteristic of being obeyable.

I thank you for your time.

>^,,^<
Alunya

As a rider to this request for resolution of ambiguity, I would like the court to further consider whether the following clauses of our laws have the characteristic of being obeyable:

Clause 7.1.2

Clause 7.1.5

Should the cover desire, I will submit these as separate requests, but I am trying to save paperwork, since these are similar cultural laws.

Alunya:

I am not requesting a review of the constitutionality of any law nor of the legality of government policy herein; therefore the requirement to show standing is moot.

Click to expand...

While the Court's prior ruling is admittedly not completely clear on the matter, it does state that its decision is made with respect to a request to resolve conflicts or ambiguity in the law, and makes a determination as to the petitioner's standing in that request:
[quote="Affected Party" ruling]...the Court is charged with "resolving conflicts or ambiguities" in the law [...] Flemingovia met the requirement defined in the Constitution.[/quote]
This Court is therefore unable to accept the quoted line of argument.