Does it count as a military decree if the decree is a statement joined by various leaders with different power bases? How do you determine if the military role is “decisive”? Who determines it?
What transforms a statement or request into a “decree”? Assuming it is the use or threat of force, must the use of force be to enforce the request rather to enforce some other existing law?
Is all police action military force in Egypt?
Must a request backed by threat of enforcement fall outside the ordinary legal framework in order to be a decree, or can it still be a decree if it was lawful under the Constitution?
If this fits the definition of deposing a leader by military decree, why did the first revolution not fit that definition?
Does the context of the law, its purpose, and the use of the phrase “military coup or decree” suggest that the action must involve the military taking power, rather than giving power to the existing head of the Supreme Court?
Do those same extra- and inter-textual factors require us to consider the extent of democratic support for the deposing of the head of state, or the existence of legal alternatives?
Does it matter if Morsi was only the titular head of state but the military had real power before and after Morsi being deposed?
Is it possible to be duly elected and then act undemocratically or unconstitutionally sufficient to remove the designation as “duly elected head of state”?
What if Morsi was thought to have been duly elected at the time but subsequent investigation revealed some degree of vote-rigging?
Again, the question is not what is the best interpretation of the statute. The question is whether there’s any good faith “wiggle room.” Your view of what is and what is not an absurd question to ask is not reasonable.