Article 1718: The RMB mayor shall be responsible for clearing the streets of llama droppings after all parades. It is allowable to recruit delinquints and orphans to complete this task, so long as they only speak when spoken to.
2 Likes
Article 1719: All residents are required to write at least three letters each containing more than 30 words to their family or closest friends every year. The letters must be written by hand on a piece of paper. If it is not possible for a person to write a letter by hand, the Craziest Person shall write it instead.
Article 1720: Snap elections would be called every time someone celebrates their birthday during a leap day.
1 Like
Article 1721: All household water supplies shall contain powerful antidepressants
2 Likes
Article 1722: a grand statue of Harambe shall be erected on every government building
Article 1723: Article 1722 is rescinded as it accommodates an unnecessary expenditure. This decision has been made according to Article 1621. Instead of grand statues, smaller statues no longer than two meters in height are allowed to be installed.
Article 1724: mint green is set as the standard color of all studio apartments.
Article 1725: all lampshades must be TSP blue
Article 1726: all skyscrapers must have a green tint to them
Article 1727: Article 1726 does not apply to skyscrapers that have begun construction before the posting of the article.
Article 1728: in sight of Articles 1726-27 all old skyscrapers must be painted green
Article 1729: Article 1728 is rescinded as it accommodates an unnecessary expenditure. There is no reason to repaint all old skyscrapers using millions of dollars. This decision has been made according to Article 1621.
Article 1730: Article 1721 shall be struck out as null and void as clause e of Article 1621 states that
“Accommodating an unnecessary expenditure” may be repulsed.
Bur realizing that this is a necessary expenditure because i said so
Article 1731:
Article 1621 is amended to include a new reason (l) -
l. Article being unintelligible
Furthermore, Article 1730 is rescinded undered the newly added reason (l).
1 Like
Article 1732: @Franz shall be required to edit his Article 1621 post to add the amendment.
Furthermore, the rescinding of Article 1730 shall be cancelled for two reasons:
- Franz’s reason for the rescinding did not exist when Article 1730 was made.
- An article being unintelligible is an opinion. It should be explained why it should be considered unintelligible.
1 Like
Article 1733: Article 1730 is rescinded once again under reason (l).
If anybody manages to give me a reasonable explanation as to what Hao was trying to say in it, I will repeal this article myself.
1 Like
Article 1734: Article 1730 is valid, and the rescinding of the article shall be cancelled.
Cayo does understand ‘because I said so’ in Article 1730 might not look good. However, it should be noted that it does not have any problems, since @Hao mentioned the reason for the decision and there were no laws at that time prohibiting such actions in articles. It is true that Article 1721 does accommodate an unnecessary expenditure.
@Franz’s new amendment to justify his decision to repeal Article 1730 came almost two days after Article 1730. Therefore, it should not apply to Article 1730, and the rescinding should be invalid.
In Article 1621, there is this part:
It should be the same with amendments. As Franz’s new amendment was not in effect at the time of the writing of Article 1730, it should not be a reason for the rescinding.
1 Like
Article 1735: Article 1734 is repealed for the following reasons,
Firstly, Article 1730 is a grammatical abomination since it uses both “struck out” and “null and void” and the end of the sentence should include “an article accommodating…” and there is also the typo “bur”. He also forgets to use punctuation. Mind you, this is an absolutely remarkable number of grammatical errors for there to be in so short of an article.
Secondly, he himself recognized said article as a “necessary expenditure” which goes against the very reason for repulsion. Meaning that Article 1730 is not only grammatically incorrect but also self-contradictory.
Thirdly, Cayo’s point where he cited the following note from Article 1621,
is an incorrect interpretation of the statement as he fails to understand that the statement means that “all article repulsions” previous to Article 1621 are not invalid despite not following the guidelines stated within the article. Articles written before Article 1621 or an amendment of Article 1621 can still be repealed under one of its clauses as it is not a guideline for 'articles" but rather, it is a guideline for “article repulsions”
Fourthly, Article 1730 has a personal opinion not mentioned as a note or PS, but as a part of the article which is confusing to say the least. By this I refer to “because I said so”.
2 Likes
Article 1736: Article 1735 is repealed, Article 1730 is repealed for a different reason and all articles claiming that Article 1730 is valid shall be considered invalid.
The first reason provided by @Franz in Article 1735 fails to explain why Article 1730 should be removed. ‘Struck out’ and ‘Null and void’ can both be used in a single article. As an example:
For the typo, there is this law that hasn’t been repealed:
Because most readers can easily understand what the article is about, Article 1730 does not have a problem related to typos.
Punctuation is often not used in articles. @Franz also forgot punctuation in several articles of his own, for example, Article 1638.
Also, in Article 1735, where @Franz claimed that missing punctuation should be a problem.
Therefore, the first reason provided by @Franz is not reasonable.
The second reason provided in Article 1735 is true, and Cayo understands that that is a problem.
Cayo shall not argue about the third reason.
However the fourth reason fails to explain why Article 1730 should be removed. There are no standing laws that prohibit personal opinions from being part of an Article, not as a note or PS.
Because the first reason and fourth reason of Article 1735 fails to explain, Article 1735 is repealed. However, since the second and third reasons do explain that Article 1730 should be removed, Article 1730 shall be repealed by the following reason:
- The second reason given in Article 1735:
Please note that Article 1621’s clause l has not been used because Article 1730 was made before the clause.
With this article, Article 1730, 1735 and all articles claiming that Article 1730 is valid shall be invalid.
2 Likes
Article 1736: Under the Right to Call for Referendum, I call upon all members of the Legislature to express their opinion over the course of the next 48 hours on the following legal question -
Can the clauses of Article 1621 be used to repeal articles published before it was introduced and does the same apply to amendments?
- Yes
- No
0
voters
PS: I believe yes, since Article 1621 is not a guideline for how articles should not be written, but rather for how article repulsions should be justified.
1 Like