Article 1798: Repeal all articles meant to oppress or overthrow Cake.
Article 1799: Article 1791 will be overturned and deemed unconstitutional to the democracy of the South Pacific. Instead Disney, Comcast, and Paramount will all have a say in who wins.
Article 1800: We start crossing the Alps with Napoleon in May.
Article 1801: His Majesty F. F. Franz makes his final farewell by a post in his favourite thread of all time.
“It has been an honour.” - Franz
5 Likes
Article 1802: With tears, Cayo writes a final law related to his friend and arch-nemesis @Franz.
I. Article 1801 is repealed according to Article 1612 because farewells are usually deemed to not be in the interest of the majority.
II. A S3 card of Altnavia shall be sent by Cayo to The Novum Regnum in no longer than two hours from the posting of the article.
III. Whenever Cayo finds a post by Franz in the forums or on the RMB that Cayo hasn’t reacted to, he shall add a 
.
IV. Benevitan shall produce exactly 86 flags with the sentence ‘Franz is a great person’ printed on it.
3 Likes
Article 1803:
Article 1594, which is:
Shall be amended like the following to encourage the writing of more articles.
Article 1594: Two or more articles in a row authored by the same person is are allowed if no other person writes an article for at least two one full weeks since the most recent one.
Article 1804 :
The The South Pacific is neutral : that means every article in the constitution which take a position like im the chief and to my friends are just erased by this article.
Article 1805: Article 1804 is repealed according to Article 1621 because it does not provide enough explanation for why such articles must be repealed. Article 1621 states:
In all cases, adequate evidence or reasoning must be provided to justify the grounds of repulsion.
Article 1806 : Referendum :
Section 1: The article 1621 restrict the liberty of expression and proclam himself as an unrepealable without vote.
Section 2 : The article 1621 gave too many powers to repeal an article which is in contradiction with article 1623.
Section 3 : If yes win, in the few next articles new rules will be vited however, if no win then this article repeal himself.
- Article 1621 disapear and restore every article was repealed by that article ?
- Article 1621 continue to exist and article 1806 disapear ?
0
voters
Article 1807:
Article 1806 is to be struck out and rendered null and void according to Article 1621 for it being unintelligible (Clause l).
Section 1 of Article 1806 could be seen as reasonable; However, considering how Article 1621 prevents completely unreasonable rescinding actions, @CayonNS thinks that it must be kept.
Section 2 is unreasonable, because:
- Article 1621 did not give any new powers for repealing; it created restrictions.
- Article 1621 was written before Article 1623, therefore it is not required to obey Article 1623. Also, Article 1623 is nothing about Article 1621 restricting rights; it is about repealing Articles X and 421.
Just to clarify, Cayo does not fully support Article 1623 as it attempted to repeal articles made before the article which provides the evidence. Since Article 1737’s referendum, Article 1621 cannot be used to repeal articles made before.
Section 3 of Article 1806 is unclear, as it mentions the choices ‘yes’ and ‘no’ but in the vote the choices are named different.
Lastly, Cayo encourages Hamborn to set a certain time to clarify when the referendum ends in future referendums.
Article 1808 :
Section 1 : The Article 1806 is reapealed by Hamborn.
Section 2: The Article 1621 become an support for the Article 1808.
Section 3: If this 48h referendum passes, these rules will be applicated :
- The referendum will last 72h
- One of the clause of article 1621 are not respected except b,c,k.
- Quote the clause of Article 1621.
If one of these rules are not respected, the referendum is cancel by the article 1808.
Did the article 1808 is adopted and become a permanant law ?
- Yes
- No
0
voters
Article 1809:
Article 1808 is to be rescinded as the referendum being held attempts to introduce a permanent article. This action is illegal according to Article 1619, where it says:
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.
It should be noted that this does not apply to Articles 1619 and 1621.
However, Hamborn shall not suffer the consequences because Hamborn’s law is awaiting its referendum to be passed, which means it has not been introduced yet. However, a warning is to be issued to prevent such actions repeating in the future.
Another reason for Article 1808’s rescinding is that it attempts to do an impossible task, as Article 1806 has already been repealed by Article 1807:
Article 1806 is to be struck out and rendered null and void according to Article 1621 for it being unintelligible (Clause l).
It shall be noted that Article 1807 does not disobey this part of Article 1806:
Section 3 : If yes win, in the few next articles new rules will be vited however, if no win then this article repeal himself.
Where it states that Hamborn shall repeal the article himself, because:
- A set time for when voting ends had not been set, which means there is not a time when we can determine which option takes victory.
- There are no parts in the article that restrict other people from rescinding the article. Also, Article 1807 used Article 1621 as evidence, which does not have anything related to the results of the referendum.
Article 1810 : Hereby Condemn CayonNS and UnitedDisneyStates : The article 1790 which literally instore a dictature in the South Pacific. Today, Article 1790 is not repealed by clause d of Article 1621. But when Article 1804 is intelligible and ban every corruption in the constitution this article is repealed. If this is South Pacific that mean this a controll dictature with corruption, advantage for Franz, UnitedDisneyStates and CayonNS.
1 Like
Article 1811:
I.
This part of Articles 1616 and 1619 is amended:
Lastly, Any other the first time any citizen or legislator, no matter their position, attempts by any citizen or legislator, no matter their position, at introducing to introduce an irremovable or unamendable article will lead to them being warned and suspended from writing a new article for three days. If such an action is repeated by the same person, they shall be 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.
@Franz .
II.
Articles 1792, 1793 and 1794 shall be repealed according to clauses in Article 1621 as they encourage violence and revolutionary tendencies. Article 1794 also limits the rights of citizens and legislators supporting certain desserts.
III.
Article 1795 is made invalid according to Article 1619 as it attempted to introduce permanent articles. According to the newly amended Article 1619 (written above), @Erstavik shall be warned and suspended from writing new articles for three days starting from the posting of this article.
Please note that the only permanent articles are Article 1619, Article 1621 and the articles that have three or more likes according to current law.
IV.
Article 1795 by @ExquisiteGentleman shall be renamed to Article 1796 and then repealed as it is in violation of Article 1612. Such an opinion is most likely not in the interest of the majority.
V.
Article 1798 is repealed as it does not obey this part of Article 1621:
In all cases, adequate evidence or reasoning must be provided to justify the grounds of repulsion.
VI.
Article 1799 is to be repealed, meaning that Article 1791 is to be made valid again and Article 1790 invalid again. It does not provide adequate reasoning or evidence about why Article 1791 must be overturned.
VII.
Lastly, Cayo condemns UnitedDisneyStates, ExquisiteGentleman, Erstavik, Flaming and Silva for their articles listed above.
Its time for a reset : 1811 articles thats alot and new people here can be lost then if you want a restart and a blank paper go here : Constitution III of the South Pacific - Lampshade Bar and Grill - The South Pacific
Article 1812: The previous post shall be declared null and void. Not only is is against the spirit of our grand Constitution, it also incorrectly states the number of articles in the constitution
2 Likes
Article 1813: Hereby condemns Hamborn for their attempted ‘reset’, as they attempted to ignore the hard work of many contributors to our Constitution II and only provided ‘that’s a lot (of articles)’ as evidence for the action.
Although Hamborn has written that Constitution III is for those ‘who want a restart’ and not for all, the word ‘reset’ used earlier indicates that they are willing to repeal the entire Constitution II as a whole. This is against Article 1619, and according to the new amendment, Hamborn is to be warned and suspended from writing new laws for three days starting from the posting of this article.
However, Cayo’s interpretation of that part of Hamborn’s article may be wrong, so Hamborn shall be allowed to post new articles if they claim that Cayo’s interpretation is wrong with reasoning.
Also, because their repealed article related to this action does not have a number, It shall be named Article 1811.5.
It shall be noted that Cayo does realize that this article below exists. However, as ‘Article 1811.5’ has already been repealed by Article 1812, Cayo thinks that there is no need to rename it into something else.
Article 1002: Adding on to the ruleset of Article 1000, article numbers must be equal to the previous article number plus 1, and will be confirmed utilizing the Desmos Scientific Calculator in the case of discrepancies. Any articles that both
1.do not follow these rules
2.are not grandfathered in before article 1000
will be considered null and void and will be ignored unless they are fixed BEFORE another, correct article is posted.
1 Like
Article 1814 :
These two quote proves that CayonNS only read the article and do 0 investigation on Constitution III more over, I condemn CayonNS to block new peoples to help the South Pacific with all article cited on few articles ago that attempts again to instore a controled environment in the favour of CayonNS(Note cya in the court) !
Article 1815: As Cayo is not a very good person when it comes to interpretations of articles sometimes, Cayo shall call a referendum lasting for 48 hours. During this period, Hamborn is not prohibited from posting new valid laws.
Is Cayo’s Interpretation in Article 1813 right?
- Yes
- No
0
voters
Furthermore, it shall be noted that Cayo still condemns Hamborn as the action of creating a new Constitution III and stating that it is in a parallel world could mean that the South Pacific is no longer one connected community and makes things very confusing. Franz had also done something similar in the past, when he had made a new Change The Channel thread and claimed it was in a parallel world. Franz’s action caused severe confusion, as certain programs exist in one Change the Channel thread but not the other, and both threads exist in the same region together. Hamborn is encouraged to give up on ‘parallel worlds’.
Hamborn wrote:
new people here can be lost
Cayo would like to note that it is quite obvious that new people can be confused and lost with what already exists. But that does not mean that a new version must be created every time someone new joins in, but the new person should try to understand the existing games and enjoy them together.
1 Like
Article 1816 : You really think that new have time to read every laws 1816 laws you are crazy !
this illogical : You are saying that my action to do this is illogical… Article 1619… Images from Change the Channel more over I seen that it mention tua that belongs to Change the channel.
The essence of the Constitution II is to not be serious see article 18 to 100 and now this is serious that not the original goal. More over I have suspicion that you voted your own referendum that just manipulation.
I never say that : I say that 1811 articles is too much that logical because I said new will not to have read this.
Finally, you shouldn’t be that serious you are just stop new write here with Article 1616 and 1619. This is my last article here goodbye I will rest here only if you respond to me. See me on Constitution III !
1 Like