Preventing “reasonable limits” arguments from eroding Tsm’syen law
Preventing “Reasonable Limits” Arguments from Eroding Ts’msyen Law
Under Ts’msyen law, the concept of “reasonable limits” as used in foreign constitutional or statutory systems does not define, restrict, or override *ayaawx*. Unexamined use of such language risks gradual erosion of Ts’msyen authority, interpretation, and responsibility.
This page explains how Ts’msyen law prevents external limitation frameworks from weakening ayaawx.
Foundational Understanding
Ayaawx contains its own limits.
These limits arise from:
- responsibility tied to authority
- balance between beings, land, and people
- restraint governed by law
- accountability through witness and correction
- protection of future generations
Foreign “reasonable limits” frameworks are not required to control Ts’msyen law.
What “Reasonable Limits” Language Does
In external legal systems, “reasonable limits” language:
- shifts authority to courts or administrators
- allows balancing against external priorities
- invites reinterpretation over time
- normalizes gradual restriction of rights or law
When imported uncritically, it transfers power away from Ts’msyen law.
Incompatibility with Ayaawx
Ayaawx does not operate on abstract reasonableness tests.
Instead:
- limits are relational, not discretionary
- restraint is grounded in responsibility, not convenience
- balance is assessed through lived impact, not abstract standards
- authority to limit conduct remains internal
Applying external tests replaces Ts’msyen judgment with foreign judgment.
Internal Limits Under Ts’msyen Law
Ts’msyen law already limits action through:
- wilp stewardship obligations
- clan balance and kinship restraint
- Elder guidance
- adaawx precedent
- feast witness and public accountability
- restoration requirements after harm
These limits are lawful because they arise from ayaawx itself.
Risk of Incremental Erosion
Erosion often occurs gradually through:
- casual borrowing of “reasonable limits” language
- framing ayaawx as subject to external tests
- silence when foreign standards are applied
- administrative convenience overriding law
Once normalized, external limitation becomes assumed supremacy.
Safeguards Against Erosion
To prevent erosion, Ts’msyen law requires that:
- ayaawx be named as the source of all limits
- foreign limitation language be avoided or explicitly rejected
- internal standards of restraint be articulated instead
- interpretive authority remain with Elders and wilp
- ambiguity be resolved internally, not externally
Clarity protects jurisdiction.
Engagement with External Systems
When engaging systems that rely on “reasonable limits” language:
- Ts’msyen law is stated as primary
- participation does not imply acceptance of external tests
- internal limits are referenced instead
- interpretive authority is reserved
- withdrawal remains an option where law is threatened
Engagement must be conditional.
Role of Elders
Elders safeguard against improper limitation.
They:
- assess whether restraint aligns with ayaawx
- distinguish lawful balance from imposed restriction
- correct misuse of external language
- protect long-term integrity of law
Elder guidance prevents quiet drift.
Recording Without Importing Supremacy
When Ts’msyen law is described or recorded:
- internal limits are named explicitly
- foreign terminology is contextualized or avoided
- no equivalence is implied
- room for future correction is preserved
Words carry power.
Relationship to Future Generations
Preventing erosion protects those not yet born.
If law is gradually limited today:
- future generations inherit weakened authority
- restoration becomes harder
- external supremacy becomes normalized
Protection now preserves freedom later.
Continuity
By rejecting “reasonable limits” arguments as a governing standard:
- ayaawx remains whole
- internal restraint remains lawful
- external reinterpretation is resisted
- Ts’msyen authority endures
Ts’msyen law contains its own wisdom. It does not require foreign permission to be balanced.