[CANCELLED AND REPLACED WITH #1620]
Article 1618:
Article 1616 shall be rescinded as the article contains information that cannot be accepted as a fact, but rather just an opinion of the writer, @Franz . ‘Information that cannot be accepted as a fact’ are Franz stating that Article 1615 is ‘not in the interest of the people’ and that an article immune to repulsion ‘is highly disapproved by all citizens of the South Pacific’. This information cannot be proven as true facts, as there has been no survey to gather the opinions of all South Pacificans.
Franz’s continued repealing of legitimate articles in the constitution is very dangerous, attempting to cause serious disarray in the region. Such actions must be strongly condemned by the citizens and legislators of the South Pacific.
Lastly, as Article 1616 is considered illegal and repealed, the rescinding of Article 1615 is to be cancelled and Article 1615 shall be recognized as an article of the Constitution II.
Article 1619:
Article 1615 is rescinded for being in violation of Article 1612 as it is not in the interest of the majority of people.
Furthermore, it is to be noted that no article can be immune to repulsion, generally, as such an article would limit the functioning of the Assembly and any other government bodies. Such an article would limit the democratic functioning of the South Pacific as a whole.
As such, a provision is now made such that any article with 3 likes or more is a permanent article that cannot be repealed. If an article attains this qualification after repulsion, the article in question shall be reinstated.
Moreover, it is to be noted that repulsion of a non-permanent article is the right of any citizen of the South Pacific and cannot be condemned as it is essential to maintaining the relevance of the Constitution.
Lastly, Any other attempts by any citizen or legislator, no matter their position, at introducing an irremovable or unamendable article will lead to them being unrecognized as a contributor to the Constitution II of the South Pacific. Any articles published by them in the past and in the future will be repealed with immediate haste and they shall not be furthermore recognized. @CayonNs shall not suffer these consequences now because this was not explicitly stated before.
Note: As evidence, that Article 1615 is not in the interest of the majority of people, various channels are to be noted that have opposed TUA and MEAT. These channels have been run by and/or funded by a number of people, including @Franz, @Hao, @pyrocxrals, and @North. On the contrary, TUA and MEAT have only been supported by @CayonNS. That is a 4:1 majority for anti-TUA/anti-MEAT movements. Evidence of these posts have been attached below.
Article 1620: The rescinding of Article 1615 shall be accepted as it has been proven to violate a previous article.
Article 1618 shall be cancelled and replaced with the following:
Article 1616 shall be rescinded as it contains ‘highly disapproved of by all citizens of the South Pacific.’, which has been proven to be false by Franz himself as he stated ‘4:1 majority’, not all.
The right of any South Pacifican citizen to repeal any non-permanent article is respected. However, continuous repeal of articles that do not cause serious harm to the society can cause disarray to the society. Also, the repeals that do not provide enough reason or does not make enough sense can be understood as attempts to stop the creation of articles by a specific person or attempts to cause harm to our society. For example, Article 1603’s reason to revoke Article 1602, which is ‘televisions per household reaches an all time low of 0.0000000001/1000’ , fails to explain why the law to enforce the purchase of powerful speakers should be revoked. Such actions shall be condemned by the citizens and legislators of the South Pacific.
Article 1621: Regulation of Article Repulsion
In consideration of issues brought to light in recent articles, this article lists all valid reasons for the repulsion of an article, in order of validity. They are
Being in violation of Article 1612
Being in violation of any other article
Encouraging human rights violations, torture, genocide, suicide, and other violence
Encouraging revolutionary tendencies
Accommodating an unnecessary expenditure
Being too direct of a copy of another standing article
Limiting the rights of a citizen (excluding reasonable restrictions)
Limiting the rights of a legislator (excluding reasonable restrictions)
Being extremely inconvenient
Attempting to carry out an impossible task
Attempting to repeal a permanent article
In all cases, adequate evidence or reasoning must be provided to justify the grounds of repulsion.
Note: This article shall be an exception to article 1619. This article shall be unrepealable as it is too essential. However, it is amendable.
Note: All article repulsions previous to article 1621 are not subject to the contents of article 1621 as it was not in effect at that time.
Article 1622: An amendment shall be made to the following section of Article 1619:
This section shall be changed to
As such, a provision is now made such that any article with 3 likes or more by anyone other than the author of the article is a permanent article that cannot be repealed.
Article 1623: Article X and Article 421 are repealed for limiting the legislators right to repeal an article. However, since these may be recognised as reasonable restrictions a referendum will be held. If the majority votes against them being reasonable restrictions, Article 1623 will stand. Otherwise it will become null and void.
Article X and Article 421 will continue to stand as they can be considered reasonable restrictions on the Right to Repeal.
Article X and Article 421 will be repealed in accordance with Article 1623 as they cannot be considered reasonable restrictions on the Right to Repeal.
Article 1624: Article 1622 is to be rescinded and the amendment cancelled as the author had previously thought that an author can like their own post, when it is not possible.
They have been suspended, not annulled, as there is already intent and heavy support to repeal Article 441 and replace it with the aforementioned article at the earliest convenience, therefore such action has been prescribed to preclude unnecessary bureaucracy.
“Do you like brown?” - Pencil’s doodles on her test paper, “BFDI 3: Are You Smarter Than a Snowball?” by Cary and Michael Huang, et. al. (March 1, 2010)
[Rescinded by Article 1637]
Article 1627: All repeals after Article 441 shall be suspended as mentioned in the previous article and the repealed articles shall return to existence. However, citizens are encouraged to not follow the repealed articles. Disobeying the ‘repealed articles’ will not get any citizen in trouble in any way. Those following the so-called ‘repealed articles’ shall be asked to donate 3 US dollars to his cakeness Griffindor’s favorite polar bear.
Article 1628:
Noting that Article 421 has already been repealed, Article 441 has no basis. Additionally, the referendum referred to in Article 441 is non-binding.
Noting that Article 1619 continues to stand, Article 441 is rescinded on account of being based on a non-existing article and thus, attempts to carry out an impossible task. It also limits the Right to Repeal of a legislator and is not a reasonable restriction as it attempts to completely dissolve the Right to Repeal.
As such, Article 1621 comes back into effect.
Furthermore, Articles 1626 and 1627 are null and void as they are based on now non-existing articles and as such attempt to carry out an impossible task.
Article 1629:
Since Article 421 had passed with a majority voting Yes, it has never been repealed as it has banned all repeals after the article. This means repeals after Article 421 should be considered illegal.
Therefore, Article 1623 attempting to repeal is an illegal, invalid article and should be removed from existence.
However, it should be noted that Article 206 states ‘Besern is wrong’, and it hasn’t been repealed, which means Besern’s various actions after the Article, including Article 421 could be deemed ‘wrong’, and therefore invalid.
A referendum shall be held for the next 48 hours. If the ‘yes’ wins, all articles by Besern after Article 206 shall be considered ‘wrong’ and shall be not obeyed.
Should all articles by Besern after Article 206 be considered invalid?
Article 1632:
With the ‘Yes’ of the Article 1629 referendum winning with a 83.3% majority, all articles authored by Besern after Article 206 are officially invalid and ignored.
Article 1634: Every citizen of The Coalition of The South Pacific shall kiss only the feet of His Most Holy and Benevolent Cakeness, Your Lord and Savior, literally FDR, the King of Cake, Emperor, Dictator, Mother, GIF Master, Justice, and Delegate of the South Pacific.
Article 1635: CayonNS officially requests @Franz to specify what are the ‘reasonable restrictions’ in Article 1621 in 72 hours starting from the moment this article is posted.
Article 1636: Recognition of Reasonable Restrictions
In the case of legislators,
The essential rights of a legislator which are necessary for the framing of a constitution are -
The Right to Write any article as long as it conforms with other articles and is inoffensive and necessary;
The Right to Repeal any existing article for reasons as put forward in Article 1621;
The Right to Call for a Referendum on any topic in case of there being no clear answer; and
The Right to Question any legislator regarding the article’s reasons, legitimacy, and meaning.
If any article attempts to restrict such an article, the restrictions may be considered reasonable or unreasonable in nature.
It is reasonable if -
It puts forward restrictions only on the method of exercising the right
It puts forward restrictions on a singular person, however, such restrictions must be agreed upon by a majority through referendum
It puts forward limitation on when or why a right can be exercised, however, such restrictions must be agreed upon by a majority through referendum or the article must be amendable even if acquires the status of a permanent article
It puts forward temporary restrictions due to some crisis or emergency situation, however, such restrictions must specify the time period (which may not exceed two weeks) and must provide sufficient reasoning for the restrictions. Additionally, such a restriction must be affirmed by the Cabinet and the Delegate (yes, the real ones).
A restriction is completely unreasonable if -
It attempts to permanently and completely restrict any of the rights
It attempts to restrict in any manner, even if it meets all other qualifications for being considered a reasonable restriction, the Right to Question as it is the most essential right of a legislator
In any other scenario, excluding the above given cases, if there is a restriction placed on any of the rights, a referendum can be held by any legislator (including the author himself) on whether it is reasonable or not. Until such a referendum is held, the article as a whole will be unaffirmed and it is completely optional whether or not a legislator wants to follow it and they will not be held accountable for violating it.
