Article 2151: Hereby established that Artticle 1247 may not be repealed or changed, and hereby forth this article shall not be repealed or changed.
article 2512: Soppo! Soppo! SOPMOD, Soppu.
1 Like
Article 2513: The Delegate is back
1 Like
Article 2514: The Court of Media, Subversion, Sandwiches & Shitfuckery shall be vested with exclusive jurisdiction to hear the cases “Duwa Trial on selling Drugs” [CR.01], “Duwa’s counter-sue to Hamborn” [CR.02], and “Duwa suing Hamborn of Topic of Hall of Spam” [CC.01], in the event that the Supreme Court fails to adjudicate such cases within twenty-four hours of the issuance of this Article.
1 Like
@CayonNS where tf are you it’s been 23 hrs
1 Like
Article 2155: The following shall be accepted as official spellings.
Kaeik 
Paii 
Ais Kreem 
Baeigl 
Kwasong / Quasong 
Apbl 
Paainapbl 
Yunaitid Staeits of Uhmerika 
Ohshon waeiv 
The Sauth Pasifik 
Cheez 
Kyoot —> @mavenu
Also please check article number, ExquisiteGentleman messed up in his most recent article.
And oh I see a few articles to repeal…
Article 2156 :
Clause 1 : We see that Erstavik inactivity in High Court case mean that the court of Sandwich & Shitfuckery shall be evinced of Every high court case.
Clause 2 : As we seen the fail of Hall of Spam High court, hereby repeal Article 2129, Article 2124, article 1909 and 2062. That mean, The High Court is dissolve.
Clause 3 : To not let criminals in the nature, Hamborn decided to expell Cayo, Tin and xshott from the former High Court
Clause 4 : indications of case :
[CR.01] : Duwa is condemned for closing drug store
[CR.02] : Hamborn is not guilty.
[CR.03] : not guilty
[CR.04] : invalidated : inactivity
[CC.01] : not guilty
Clause 5: By reading this article, you recognise that Hamborn is right and you hereby can’t sue Hamborn
Article 2157: Article 2156 is repealed for its many unreasonable and incorrect clauses to abolish the Supreme Court.
The author, Hamborn, decided to use the term ‘High Court’. This is the name of the official regional court, not the court based in the Lampshade Bar and Grill. The court that should have been mentioned instead is the ‘Supreme Court’.
Clause 2 is unreasonable because it is hard to see that the court has failed. There are no existing regulations on how long a case can last, and there have been no judges who decided to give up from the cases.
Clause 3 is unreasonable because Associate Justice Hamborn does not have any authorities to expel anyone from the Supreme Court. Also notes that xshotss was never a judge in this court.
Clause 4 is unreasonable because these decisions were not discussed between the judges and only one person (Hamborn) is in favor of it, which is under 50% of the total three judges. Also, Hamborn cannot participate in judging cases that involve him as the plaintiff or defendant.
Hereby repeals Article 2156.
Article 2158 :
Cayo can’t repeal Article 2156 as we forcely read the Article and Clause 5, Cayo recognise that I’m right.
Amendment : every High Court citation there is modified to be Supreme Court.
Article 2159: Article 2158 is repealed as Clause 5 of Article 2156 does not prohibit a repeal, only suing Hamborn. Therefore, Article 2157 is valid.
article 2160: stop arguing
Article 2161 : The typography shows thats is recognise and you can’t sue so you can’t repeal it.
REPEALED
Article 2162: I sue the authors of all previous 2161 articles for $96 Billion
Article 2163: Hereby warns the authors of the following laws:
These two authors attempt to introduce a permanent article to the Constitution II of the South Pacific. Such an article is strictly prohibited by Articles 1616 and 1619. If the authors of the above articles do not remove the part that makes an article permanent before 2026-03-31T07:00:00Z, they will be punished according to the amendment of Articles 1616 and 1619 in Article 1811.
“being warned and suspended from writing a new article for three days.” -Article 1811
It shall also be noted that according to existing law, all laws with three or more likes are permanent.
Article 2161 is also unreasonable; suing and repealing are different actions. Preventing somebody from suing a certain person does not prevent them from repealing the other person’s article(s).
END OF THE CONSTITUTION II
I was thinking about Article 1629 when I saw that Article 205 say that everyone is wrong. So The constitution is finished at Article 205 that say “everyone is wrong”.
So every article after Article 205 is deemed illegal.
So we have 2 choices, we rename every article after Article 205 as Article 204.1, 204.2 … But n article is saying that we should go in Article 1000 (after Article 205)
And other one idk
Article 2158
Article 2156, 2157, 2158, 2159, 2161, 2163 are cancelled and hereby renames Article 2160 and 2162 to 2156 and 2157 respectively as the Supreme Court sucks and @Hamborn can’t single-handedly decide the outcome of cases handled by the Supreme Court.
It’s illegal under Article 205 as I said last article is 205 so you can’t repeal an article that doesn’t exist. @Duwa
No, they all exist, are you blind?
@Duwa no I’m not blind
Article 2165:
The most recent article by Duwa is renamed to Article 2164.
This is incorrect as ‘everyone is wrong’ means that even Besern is wrong. So therefore, it makes article 205 wrong, which means everybody is right, but that would make article 205 right, causing a paradox.