Article 2032: I declare war on people who has a polished egg
Article 2033: @Ari and the Office of World Assembly Legislation are hereby declared to be joined in marriage in perpetuity, and this Article shall not be repealed, amended, or otherwise abrogated except upon the concurrence of three-fourths of the electorate, expressed in a referendum duly held.
5 Likes
Article 2034: hell naw
2 Likes
Article 2035: I hereby declare Me and Delegate Candidate / Emperor of Pie @Erstavik legally married in a non-binding marriage and we are now officially first husband and work husband (Delegate).
3 Likes
Article 2036: Declares that Tin did call dibs on being first first husband of soon-to-be Delegate @Erstavik and shall be refer to as such.
3 Likes
Article 2037: Article 2024 is hereby repealed, it having been determined that its provisions are irreconcilable with, and stand in direct conflict with Article 1991.
Article 2038: I lock my marriage with @Konsa . He can’t file a divorce in any circumstances.
This article cannot be repealed
3 Likes
Until death do we part.. stabs you multiple times
1 Like
Sorry, I’m immortal
But you aren’t *Shoots rounds of MG
1 Like
Article 2039: @CayonNS officially asks Duwa if Article 2038 should be seen as a permanent, unrepealable article. Duwa must reply within 72 hours.
Also Cayo shall note that the previous two posts do not belong here. Such posts have been prohibited by an existing article (I do not remember the exact article number).
Yes
1 Like
psst read Article 1811… you sure?
Article 2040:
I: Repeals Art. 1811 because no one said I can’t
II: @CayonNS may not declare any article invalid for 65 hours, 37 minutes and 41 seconds
III: This article cannot be repealed
1 Like
Article 2041: @Duwa will have NO responsibility for teaching @CayonNS to be anti-corruption.
Anyways *Throws 10 bags full of money at @CayonNS
1 Like
Article 2042:
Article 2040 is invalid.
Section II does not apply to Cayo’s current action as Article 2040 itself was illegal from the start, therefore Section II can be ignored.
If anyone does not agree, a referendum can be held. The referendum is not required to be inside of an article and anybody, including Duwa, can hold it.
Article 2040 is invalid and repealed because of the following reasons:
-
The first section does not provide adequate reasoning for the repeal. All repeals require proper reasoning to be provided, mandated by Article 1621.
-
The second section attempts to restrict the rights of a citizen and legislator, Cayo, without any law to justify the action.
-
This action of introducing an unrepealable article is strictly prohibited by Article 1616 and 1619.
Article 2038 is also declared null and void as Duwa attempted to make it a permanent, unrepealable article. Duwa confirmed this in a reply to Cayo’s Article 2039.
According to the amendment of these two articles done by Article 1811, Duwa shall be banned from posting any legal articles in this Constitution II for 72 hours until 2026-02-09T15:18:00Z. It shall be noted that it does not prohibit Duwa from writing articles; it only does not allow any of them to be valid.
Also according to Articles 1616 and 1619, @CayonNS shall issue an official warning to Duwa along with the punishment.
Article 2041 is repealed according to Article 1594. Just in case anyone questions why this action has been done if Article 2040 has been declared illegal, Cayo would like to note that they are still articles, whether repealed or not repealed. If they are numbered, they are an article no matter their validity.
@CayonNS hopes that this enforcement of law today will act as a warning to all participants of the Constitution II. Any person attempting to introduce a permanent, unrepealable article shall be given a 3 day ban and any person who attempts to do it again for a second time will be permanently banned from contribution and will have their articles removed immediately according to Articles 1616 and 1619. Please note that any article with 3 or more likes are legally permanent according to law.
From now on, articles with less than three likes that can only be repealed with a method that is not either 1. just providing adequate reasoning or 2. holding a referendum for a set amount of time and considered succeeded when more than 50% votes in favor will be strictly prohibited and anyone who attempts to introduce such article will receive the exact same punishment given to somebody who attempts to introduce a completely unrepealable article. It shall be noted that this only applies for future articles, therefore @Erstavik is not subject to any punishments as of now. This law shall be introduced to prevent unintelligible articles or law breaking articles that are almost impossible to repeal.
It shall be noted that reactions such as 
or 
are also considered likes, as they are by the system, including them in the count of likes in multiple statistics.
Last but not least, Cayo would like to say that this is the first time anyone has ever been punished according to Articles 1616 and 1619. Cayo hopes that all contributors follow the laws existing and such an event does not occur again.
1 Like
Article 2043: do you believe in life after love
Article 2044:
Im devoicing @CayonNS
1 Like
Article 2045:
Section 1.
A committee is hereby established for the purpose of reviewing and reporting upon the legality of Article 2042.
Section 2.
[1] Pursuant to § 1, the ad hoc Committee undertakes to consider whether Article 2042 is ultra vires, and, if so, what legislative action is required.
[2] The Committee recalls that Article 1909 § 6 codified the reception of the common law of England as the rule of decision in the courts of this Region, provided that such law be not repugnant to the laws of this Region or to this Constitution.
[3] The Committee finds that, in determining repugnancy, a rule at common law or a constitutional article under review is not primarily to be tested against any single provision of the Constitution, but rather against the basic constitutional structure upon which the Constitution rests.
[4] The Committee further finds that the preservation of an independent judiciary pertains to the basic structure of the constitutional order, and recalls that Article 1909, inter alia, vested such independent judiciary with the power to adjudicate cases or controversies arising under this Constitution.
[5] The Committee notes the opinion of Lord Steyn in R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, wherein his Lordship observed that
“It is not unthinkable that circumstances could arise where the courts may have to qualify a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism. In exceptional circumstances involving an attempt to abolish judicial review or the ordinary role of the courts, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords or a new Supreme Court may have to consider whether this is a constitutional fundamental which even a sovereign Parliament acting at the behest of a complaisant House of Commons cannot abolish.”
[6] The Committee recalls that a bill of attainder is not a law, but rather a judicial act masquerading as legislation. As Blackstone defined law, as distinct from a judicial sentence:
“It is a rule: not a transient sudden order from a superior, to or concerning a particular person; but something permanent, uniform, and universal. Therefore a particular act of the legislature to confiscate the goods of Titius, or to attaint him of high treason, does not enter into the idea of a municipal law; for the operation of this act is spent upon Titius only, and has no relation to the community in general; it is rather a sentence than a law.”
1 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 44.
[7] The Committee further notes the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Liyanage v R [1967] 1 AC 259 (PC), in which the Council considered whether Acts of the Parliament of Ceylon constituted bills of attainder and, if so, whether Parliament had usurped judicial power and thereby acted ultra vires. Their Lordships held, inter alia, that:
“Their Lordships cannot read the words of s 29(1) entitling Parliament to pass legislation which usurps the judicial power of the judicature, e.g. by passing an Act of attainder against some person or instructing a judge to bring in a verdict of guilty against someone who is being tried—if in law such usurpation would otherwise be contrary to the Constitution… In so far as any Act passed without recourse to section 29(4) of the Constitution purports to usurp or infringe the judicial power it is ultra vires”
and further that:
“The pith and substance of both Acts was a legislative plan ex post facto to secure the conviction and enhance the punishment of those particular individuals… These alterations constituted a grave and deliberate incursion into the judicial sphere… Quite bluntly, their aim was to ensure that the judges in dealing with these particular persons on these particular charges were deprived of their normal discretion”
at 289–290.
[8] The Committee also notes the judgment of the High Court of Australia in Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455, in which the Court, citing Liyanage, held that legislation may amount to a usurpation of judicial power, particularly in a criminal context, where it prejudges an issue with respect to a particular individual and requires a court to exercise its function accordingly, and that it is upon this principle that bills of attainder offend against the separation of judicial power (see also Polyukhovich v Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501).
[9] Mindful of these precedents, the Committee considers whether Article 2042 usurps powers vested in the judiciary by Article 1909.
[10] Article 2042 contains several sections. Insofar as is pertinent to the Committee’s inquiry, the provisions banning @Duwa from posting any valid legislation for a period of seventy-two hours are of particular relevance. While Article 1616 provides for sanctions against any citizen or legislator who attempts to introduce an “irremovable or unamendable article,” that provision is general in nature. Pursuant to Article 1909, the determination of whether such a transgression has occurred, and whether any punishment is to be imposed, is vested exclusively in the judiciary. Unlike Article 1616, which operates generally, the provisions of Article 2042 are directed at a particular individual and operate solely for the purpose of imposing a judicial sentence. Cf. Blackstone, supra.
[11] Insofar as any provision of Article 2042 purports to impose a sentence or punishment, such provision is ultra vires and therefore void.
[12] For the foregoing reasons, the Committee hereby repeals Article 2042; provided, however, that such repeal shall not be construed to revive, by implication or otherwise, any Article previously repealed by Article 2042 (see Article 1972).
Section 3.
The ad hoc Committee, having completed its determinations and taken such legislative action as was necessary, is hereby dissolved.
1 Like
Article 2046: By 2046, all TSPers have to be married to another TSPer, referencing Who Married Who thread. /j
By 2046 also, Erstavik and Name 0 shall get married
1 Like