Article 1817: Hamborn is double condemned for criticizing Cayon for not reading their post on Constitution 3, all the while claiming there were 1816 articles before this one, a claim that is extremely easily fact checked to be incorrect.
2 Likes
Article 1818 : Rectification : This was real because it was based on the number of article : With this we will at 1818 articles posted.
1 Like
Article 1819: As per articles similar to and including article 190 and article 290 Hamborn is officially proven to be incorrect about the true number of articles. Further insistence of their correctness will be seen as willful ignorance.
1 Like
article 869 :We shall return to official number of article.
Article 1821: Those wanting to remain with the legacy numbers as established before article 1820 (now titled article 869) are free to do so; as per article 1000, any following the law set by article 1820 must add an asterisk after the article number to avoid any confusion with a previous article of that number under the legacy system
1 Like
Article 1822:
You really think that new have time to read every laws 1816 laws you are crazy !
Cayo wants to note that he does not think so, even Cayo hasn’t read through the entire thing. And as Legend pointed out already, saying 1816 laws is proof that Hamborn did not pay much attention to this Constitution II.
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.
Cayo wants to note that there is no such ‘original goal’ and we can post whatever law we want as long as it does not violate previous laws. For example, there is a law that we should use Planck length to measure anything smaller than a regular baseball. That law was written by Cayo himself.
article 869 :We shall return to official number of article.
This Article shall be declared invalid as Article 1000 clearly states that all future articles must be numbered with a number higher than 1000.
Article 1821: Those wanting to remain with the legacy numbers as established before article 1820 (now titled article 869) are free to do so
Noting that Article 1000 states that all future articles must be numbered higher than 1000, Cayo wishes to ask @Legend to either explain more about this law or repeal it.
Article 1823: Honored Constitutionalist Legend has taken article 1820 (named such because changing it to article 869 could be seen as a violation of article 1000 clause B) to be de-facto repealing clause A of article 1000, and as per the second part of article 1821 has ibtroduced a system to avoid any possible violations of clause C of article 1000. It is the Honorable Constitutionalist’s desire that this should settle any doubts the Honorable Constitutionalist Cayon has about the integrity of article 1821.
1 Like
Article 1824:
Although Article 1820/869 did not clearly state whether or not their intention to repeal clause A of Article 1000 exists or not, it could be understood as an attempt for repealing. However, Cayo would like to ask @Hamborn if that is true or not to confirm.
and as per the second part of article 1821 has ibtroduced a system to avoid any possible violations of clause C of article 1000.
Although this does make sure that we can avoid confusion, future articles may still possibly be in violation of clause C of Article 1000 as they will use a number that has been already used before.
A way to avoid this is to amend Article 1000 so future articles will not have any problems. Cayo might work on that if no one else does it before.
Cayo would like to note that as residents of the South Pacific, we may freely amend parts of Article 1000. But repealing is not allowed, as it is a permanent article according to Article 1619:
As such, a provision is now made such that any article with 3 likes or more is a permanent article that cannot be repealed.
Lastly, Cayo would like to note that Article 868 does not exist.
1 Like
Article 1825 :
Viewing that Article 10 had 4 likes. Then I repeal Article 1623 because it attempt to repeal a permanent article (Article 1619)
This show that Article X is reinstated !
@CayonNS Anything to say ?
1 Like
This is not a new article. I repeat, THIS POST IS NOT A NEW ARTICLE.
Just to make sure nobody tells me that I forgot to number this.
Now, I find that a very controversial problem. At the time of Article 1623, I did not fully support it because it seemed as if the clauses of Article 1621, which were made after Article X, were being used as evidence. It way decided that that is illegal later on in another article.
But the repeal of Article 1623 means that Article X is valid again, and the existence of Article X causes many problems. Therefore, I shall do this:
Article 1826 : It can’t be this a tentative to repeal a permanent article and officially can’t be repealed but the Article 421 can be repeal with actually 1 like.
1 Like
Article 1827: Article X is to be amended like the following:
Article X:
Section 1: The existing constitution in its entirety is repealed.
Section 2: No further “null and void” or “repeal” or similar article shall be respected or observed unless it is spaced by at least five articles that do not mention the aforementioned terms.
It shall be noted that three likes or more does not make an article unamendable, just unrepealable, in case somebody in the future wonders about this.
Also, Article 1826 violates this:
Therefore, it shall be repealed. An amendment to this article shall be introduced by Cayo really soon.
Article 1828 : Constating that Article 421 on respect of this article : Article 1621 is repeal by Article 421, By now, every article after 421 which repeal an article are repeal and repealed article are reinstated.
@CayonNS and @Franz Sadly article 1621 fell on the 14th december 2025.
Article 1829:
The previous Article 1829 shall be renamed to Article 1828.
Article 1828 shall be declared invalid as Article 421 is repealed and invalid according to the Article 1629 referendum and Article 1632. Therefore, it cannot be used as evidence/reasoning.
Article 1621 stays valid.
Also, a part of Article 1619 shall be amended:
As such, a provision is now made such that any article with 3 likes or more is a permanent article that cannot be repealed. Even if If an article attains this qualification after repulsion, the article in question shall be reinstated. the article shall stay repealed.
Article 1830 : Hamborn contest article 1815. This article demend the nullifie of Article 1815. @CayonNS
Article 1831:
It shall be noted that Hamborn must provide explanation on why he wants to repeal Article 1815.
Article 1832 : I request to nullifies it because it punish and not warn. @CayonNS
Article 1833: Cayo would like to note that that is not a valid reason, as the amendment for Article 1619 does say that a punishment will be done along with the warning:
Article 1834 : The amendment is not posted on their original article so that don’t work because not officially change. @CayonNS
Article 1835: It shall be noted that there is no such requirement that amendments must be applied on the original article for it to work. Also, it shall be noted that @Franz has left our community, which means it cannot be edited on the original article.