[DannyBee]

"Clearly, it doesn't follow the 'intent' of the parties."

And who is deciding what that intent? Right now, the mob, so the parent is right :)

Your analogies to courts defeats the entire argument against that.

Courts were, in fact, set up as deciders of that thing called "law".

If code is law, so to speak, you don't need them. There is no intent.

[splintercell]

> And who is deciding what that intent? Right now, the mob, so the parent is right :)

Considering we can decide to abolish the constitution in America (or in any country) any time, does that mean we don't have a constitutional republic in America? Technically we can never say that we have a system X which is not Mob rule because the mob can always abolish it.

Literally speaking, there is no such thing as 'code is law' because in your definition there is no such thing as law, because anything which can be modified by the mob is not law and everything can be modified or abolished by the mob.

[DannyBee]

"Considering we can decide to abolish the constitution in America (or in any country) any time, does that mean we don't have a constitutional republic in America?"

The former is not correct, so the latter is nonsense. The constitution has no provision for abolishing it, the same as it does not have a provision allowing secession.

There is actually even caselaw on this, and it's very clear that it is about a perpetual union.

"Technically we can never say that we have a system X which is not Mob rule because the mob can always abolish it." That is 100% not what has happened here. In the constitutional system, there is a process for amending the constitution. it is not mob rule, or anything close to it. it is possible for basically 100% of the people to be against or for a thing, and them be unable to make it happen directly. (even if they call a constitutional convention, they send representatives, not a mob, etc)

In the other other case, the rules are 100% made up by whoever has the largest mob, directly. That is mob rule.