After discussing the law that applies generally to each canon that the Commission concluded the Judge had violated, we will consider each of the Commission’s conclusions in turn. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW AND DISCIPLINE Article VII (Amended), section 8(l)(e), of the Oregon Constitution, provides in part: “(1) In the manner provided by law, and notwithstanding section 1 of this Article, a judge of any court may be removed or suspended from his judicial office by the Supreme Court, or censured by the Supreme Court, for: “(e) Wilful violation of any rule of judicial conduct as shall be established by the Supreme Court * * *[.]” Consistent with this constitutional recognition of its authority, the Supreme Court has adopted the Code. See In re Fadeley, 310 Or 548, 560-61, 802 P2d 31 (1990) (<HOLDING>). The canons of the Code at issue in this case
holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery holdingthat the constitutional provision carried with it the acknowledgement of preexisting rules regulating judicial conduct holding that a violation of the rules of professional conduct may not be used as evidence and citing terry cove north for the proposition that the sole remedy for a violation of the rules of professional conduct was the imposition of disciplinary measures holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them holding that interpretation of a constitutional provision begins with examination of the provisions explicit language and that a court must endeavor to construe the provision in a manner consistent with the intent of the framers and voters