Typically judges are allowed to expand upon and more clearly define the laws - making rulings based on common-sense. I would like to inquire as to whether or not the court affords itself the power to expand upon and define the law beyond the exact language of the Constitution through verdicts.

For example, if someone argued in court that a horse was not property, and a judge ruled that a horse was property, the judge would theoretically be making a ruling that transcends the precise bounds of the language of the Constitution.

Or, to give a more radical example, if someone tore down someone else's claim pillars to build, and they went to court for theft of property and or griefing, and a judge ruled that claim pillars do not constitute a "Development", the judge would be making a ruling that goes beyond what the Constitution itself states.

N.B. I am not asking you to decide either of these two hypotheticals here, but simply to note that these demonstrative hypothetical rulings do transcend the precise language of the Constitution.

It is my understanding that judges are empowered to make such rulings. It is my understanding that the check on this power is the power of the mistrial request, the power of the recall, and most importantly the power of the people to pass bills directly expanding definitions in the Constitution.

In addition, the people could also pass a resolution instructing the court to rule a certain way. I will get back to this possibility at the end.

In CivClassics certain judges began to set the social norm that the judges did not have this power. As far as I know, this was a radical change in the understanding of judicial power.

So I have two questions:

1. Do the judges afford themselves the power to make rulings which expand upon the scope of the letter of the law?

2. If the people of Mount Augusta pass a resolution that instructs the courts to rule a certain way under certain circumstances, given that the resolution's language does not directly conflict with the language of the Constitution, will the judges follow it? Further, if you say that you will, is it because you believe that you are legally obligated to, OR because you personally would want to satisfy the people of Mount Augusta even though you are not legally required to under resolutions?

Thank you.