Article 2051:
Section I.
The Craziest Person of the South Pacific establishes a committee consisting of one person, one piano, one model of Korean Air new livery HL8515 aircraft, one teddy bear, two pencils, two globes, one chair, one iPad and one bandana to determine whether Articles 1909 and 2045 by Erstavik is reasonable or not.
Section II.
The committee established by Section I shall be named the Cute Cayo’s C(Q)uite Cool Craziest Comedic Committee (CCCCCCC) and shall also be known as the 7C’s.
Section III.
The CCCCCCC notes that according to Article 1909 Section 6, the common law of England shall be the rule of decision in all courts of the South Pacific.
The CCCCCCC notes that Article 2045 has used multiple interpretations of law sourced from real judgements in England, and assumes that the committee in Article 2045 has used these thinking that the law of England shall be the rule of decision in the case.
The phrase ‘in all courts of the South Pacific’ could imply that it must be used in even the High Court, but considering the context, it shall be understood that this only applies to courts not mentioned in the regional charter, such as the Court of Media, Subversion, Sandwiches and Shitfuckery.
Article 2045 was made by no such court, and since usually people must follow the laws of the place they are in and not the laws of any other region, the CCCCCCC thinks that Article 2045 can be repealed using clause l of Article 1621 (being unintelligible).
Section IV.
Erstavik is to be reminded that Article 1909 mentioned:
However, elections to choose the justices have never been held, therefore the Supreme Court established by Erstavik currently holds no power. The Supreme Court was designed to play a vital role in this Constitution II, as in:
The CCCCCCC advises Erstavik to hold the elections for choosing the justices.
Section V.
Although there are no legal problems with Article 1909, CCCCCCC thinks that Section 6 is very unintelligible and therefore should be repealed.
The aforementioned section is unintelligible because there is absolutely no reason why courts in the South Pacific must be governed with English laws. The South Pacific already has its own existing set of laws to govern itself, and it does not need the law of England to take over decisions that can be made according to the Constitution II. CCCCCCC also notes that it is hard to understand why the law of England was chosen, especially when the number of English people are a minority and England is also based in Europe, not the South Pacific.
The section can be also seen as inconvenient for those operating courts who have nothing to do with English laws.
Section VI:
Under the right to call for referendum, CCCCCCC shall hold two referendums for 60 hours.
- If the first referendum passes, Article 1909 shall be amended to remove the entirety of Section 6, like the following.
Article 1909:
Section 1.
This Article shall apply to and govern any case or controversy in which jurisdiction is not vested in the High Court of the South Pacific or in the Court of the South Pacific for the District of Government Island.
Section 2.
The Supreme Court of the South Pacific is hereby established and shall be the final arbiter of the meaning, interpretation, and application of this Constitution.
The Supreme Court shall further serve as the court of last instance in all cases arising under this Article.
Section 3.
The Supreme Court shall be composed of three Justices.
The Justices shall be chosen by election and shall serve terms of three months, and may be re-elected as provided by law.
Section 4.
The Court of Media, Subversion, Sandwiches & Shitfuckery is hereby constituted as the trial court and court of first instance for all cases arising within the jurisdiction conferred by this Article.
Section 5
The Media, Subversion, Sandwiches & Shitfuckery Court of Appeals is hereby established as the appellate court possessing jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Court of Media, Subversion, Sandwiches & Shitfuckery, subject to further review by the Supreme Court of the South Pacific.
Section 6.
The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to, nor inconsistent with, this Constitution or the laws of the South Pacific, shall be the rule of decision in all courts of the South Pacific.
- For
- Against
- The second referendum is for asking people their opinions on Article 2045. Even if it succeeds, it will not have immediate effect. However, it can be used as evidence to repeal Article 2045 in the future.
- Yes
- No