# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_March 9 10 1990_S13
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

(cf. October 16, 1989 Commission on Constitutional Matters interpretation of Bylaws 8.05,a
and 8.07, b). Interpretation of Bylaws is solely the responsibility of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters. Neither bylaw 8.37 nor Bylaw 8.51 grants authority to the
Commission on Appeals to supersede the authority of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters to issue binding interpretations of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.
8. Question: Bylaw 8.51, f, provides for an "advisory opinion" from either the Commission on
Constitutional Matters or the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, depending on the
nature of the question. What is meant by "advisory" in this context, and under what conditions
would a Commission on Constitutional Matters interpretation be merely "advisory?"
Response: Bylaw 3.533,d states emphatically and without qualification that "opinions
rendered by the Commission shall be binding on the question decided unless and until they
are overruled by a synodical convention." Consequently, an opinion rendered by the
Commission on Constitutional Matters given to the Commission on Appeals or Commissions
on Adjudication is binding and advises them of what is the official interpretation. They are
then obliged to apply that interpretation to the facts as they determine them to be. As stated
previously, only one body is authorized to give a final binding interpretation.
9

Question: If a question is raised about the consistency of a Rule of Procedure with the
Constitution or Bylaws of the Synod, who makes the determination as to whether that rule is
binding or not?
Response: Since the Rules of Procedure are to be "consistent with the Bylaws," pursuant to
8.51 they are subject to review by the Commission on Constitutional Matters for such
consistency. It is preferable that they be reviewed by the Commission on Constitutional
Matters prior to their being published and distributed.

10. Question.: In view of the provisions of Article XI,a,1-2 of the synodical Constitution, as well as
Bylaw 3.69,m, may the President of the Synod hold the Commission on Appeals to exercise only
such rights and responsibilities as have been conferred on the Commission by the Synod? Is it
consistent with Bylaw 8.69 for the President (or some other synodical office or entity) to review
the decisions of the Commission on Appeals from the standpoint of doctrine or the jurisdictional
authority of the Commission on Appeals?
Response: Response to these questions is embedded in previous questions, particularly
question 6. Both Article XI,B, and Bylaw 3.69,m, are clear with regard to the authority and
responsibility of the President in the areas identified. The President has the authority, as
stated in Article XI,B,2 "to see that all the aforementioned (officers, employees of the Synod,
individual districts, district presidents) [parentheses added] act in accord with the Synod's
Constitution." This obviously would involve a review of the activities and decisions of those
people. Since he is the supervisor of doctrine, that review is also within his authority and
responsibility.
11. Question: Does the bylaw stipulation that the decisions of the Commission on Appeals are final
apply only to decisions within the scope of the Commission's authority, or to all dimensions of
decisions, even if they are beyond the constitutional authority of the Commission?
Response: Without question, the finality of Commission on Appeals decisions applies only to
and is binding upon the parties to that particular matter within the scope of its constitutional
jurisdiction. Decisions of Commissions on Adjudication and the Commission on Appeals