Constitution II of the South Pacific

Article 1852 : The article 1851 is repeal by clause d : The militia encourage a sort of revolution. Clause j said that it carry a impossible task and a city in gold is impossible.

Clause d :

Clause j :

Article 1853: The repealing of Article 1851 is considered null and void. The existence of the militias in the gold-rush areas is not revolutionary and is for the self-defense of the arising towns, and, as explicitly stated in the article, the primary TSP government is to annex them. Additionally, the 1621 clause J argument is nonsensical, as by article 1849, there is a gold rush- and therefore, there is a possibility of setting up settlements near those areas for the purpose of getting access to this vital resource.

1 Like

Article 1854: Cayo notes that Article 1848 only applies for the time after it was created. Also as an addition, such conversations must be done in private messages in the future.

1 Like

Article 1855 : Eating Plutonium and Uranium is legal

Article 1856: The following parts of Article 1813, 1815 and 1845 are to be amended.

Article 1813: 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, as it is an attempt to repeal permanent articles 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 a referendum shall be called in a future article to determine whether it is correct or not.

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, according to Article 1813. During this period, Hamborn is not prohibited from posting new valid laws.

Article 1845:
I
As an exception to Article 1619, Hamborn will not suffer all the consequences for attempting to repeal a permanent article. If the referendum on Article 1815 passes, Hamborn will only be suspended from writing a new article for just 24 hours instead of the original 72.
II

To encourage the writing of more articles, Article 1594 is amended like the following:

These are amended due to @CayonNS ‘s misinterpretation of Article 1619. Cayo had provided the amendment written in Article 1811 as evidence, however Cayo had failed to realize that although the repeal of permanent articles is banned, the punishment of being suspended for a certain time only applies for those who attempt to introduce a unrepealable or unamendable article. Article 1811.5 is not such an article, as it does not contain such information and has been repealed by Article 1812 with no problem.

Therefore, the planned punishment of @Hamborn is to be cancelled completely. If a future law is made to punish such actions, Hamborn shall not be punished unless they make such an attempt again.

It is to be noted that although Hamborn’s actions in Article 1811.5 does not lead to punishment, it is still an action that must be condemned.

Lastly, Cayo is ordered to apologize to not only Hamborn, but other contributors of this Constitution II for his misinterpretation:

Dear fellow contributors of the Constitution II,
—
Today I wish to apologize, especially to Hamborn, for my misinterpretation of Article 1619 and then writing Articles 1813, 1815 and 1845 without realizing the mistake. This action of mine almost led to improper punishment, and therefore must be condemned.
—
I promise to not make such mistakes again, and I ask you all to also follow our laws when contributing to this Constitution II.
—
Thank you,
Altnavia/CayonNS

Article 1857: Article 1855 is hereby strucked down as illegal and unsafe for the human beings of TSP.

Article 1858: If the Court of Media, Subversion, Sandwiches & Shitfuckery rules with enough adequate evidence that Cayo’s Special Law II on King of the Hill Conflict is unconstitutional, Cayo shall repeal it himself immediately and also fire frozen solid ice cream blocks soaked in liquid nitrogen at the judge using a cannon for the absolute nonsense.

2 Likes

Article 1859: Article 1858 is hereby repealed for an unconstitutional attack on another branch of government and for the unlawful consolidation of power. It is also thereby prolcaimed by this article that the judge is allowed to marry Cayo’s mother and father and become his stepfather to gain custodial rights over Cayo.

2 Likes

Article 1860: Article 1859 is to be struck out and rendered null and void. First of all, the Court of Media, Subversion, Sandwiches and Shitfuckery is not another government branch; it is more like a ‘private court’ owned by Erstavik. The second part of Article 1859 attempts to carry out an impossible task and is also unintelligible, as number one, the judge does not know who Cayo’s parents are, number two, polygamy is illegal in South Korea.

Therefore, Article 1858 is to be valid.

1 Like

Article 1861: CIVIL WAR TIME!

Article 1860 is struck out and Article 1859 is upheld.

2 Likes

Article 1862: Article 1861 is struck out and rendered null and void as it does not provide adequate reasoning or evidence to justify the action of repealing. The sentence ‘CIVIL WAR TIME!’ can be seen as encouraging violence, and Ace shall be condemned for this action.

article 1863: your mum

article 1864: Blah blah blah generic nonsense and stuff here, blah blah blah blah blah

Article 1865: Article 1863 and Article 1864 shall be strucked null and void as they are baseless words that have no physical meaning to them.

1 Like

Article 1866 : We shall speak in english and in french / Nous devons parler en anglais et en français.

Article 1867: Article 1866 and 1865 are hereby null and void.

Article 1868 : Article 1866 is repeal because it is not written in french / L’article 1866 est annulĂ© car il n’est pas Ă©crit en français et en anglais.

1 Like

Article 1869: Article 1868 is made invalid as it attempts to repeal article 1866 with the reason of containing no French, which isn’t true. It is pretty easy to realize that Hamborn originally wanted to repeal Article 1867, but since they wrote 1866, Article 1868 shall be repealed.

Article 1867 is repealed as it does not provide adequate reasoning or evidence for the repeal.

Article 1866 is repealed under Article 1612 and a clause of Article 1621- it is not in the interest of the majority as the number of people who know French are just a minority in this region and it is extremely inconvenient for the majority to use a translator every time they post a new article. This article shall provide a French translation as Article 1866 is valid at the time of writing this article. However, future articles shall not be forced to follow Article 1866.


Article 1869 : L’article 1868 est invalidĂ© car il tente d’abroger l’article 1866 sous prĂ©texte qu’il ne contient pas de français, ce qui est inexact. Il est Ă©vident que Hamborn souhaitait initialement abroger l’article 1867, mais puisque l’article 1866 a Ă©tĂ© rĂ©digĂ©, l’article 1868 est abrogĂ©.

L’article 1867 est abrogĂ© car il ne fournit aucune justification ni preuve suffisante.

L’article 1866 est abrogĂ© en vertu de l’article 1612 et d’une clause de l’article 1621 : son maintien n’est pas dans l’intĂ©rĂȘt de la majoritĂ©, car le nombre de personnes maĂźtrisant le français est minoritaire dans cette rĂ©gion et il est extrĂȘmement contraignant pour la majoritĂ© d’avoir recours Ă  un traducteur Ă  chaque publication d’un nouvel article. Le prĂ©sent article fournira une traduction française, l’article 1866 Ă©tant en vigueur Ă  la date de sa rĂ©daction. Cependant, les articles futurs ne seront pas tenus de suivre l’article 1866.

Article 1870: Article 1866 is hereby null and void. How many of us can speak French? It also is just not practical to have to write in two separate languages.

Article 1871: Article 1870 is to be repealed as it attempts to repeal an article that has already been repealed by Article 1869, which is an impossible task to carry out.