The future judge and other people must note that this part of the lawsuit is completely unreasonable, and therefore must be dismissed.
The plaintiff has claimed that Franz and I ‘created a sort of dictatorship to stop new help to construct the Constitution II’, and gave the Articles 1621, 1619, 1805 and 1804 as evidence.
The following are the articles mentioned:
Article 1619 is an article restricting the writing of unrepealable or unamendable articles. The reason for this was provided in the article itself:
such an article would limit the functioning of the Assembly and any other government bodies. Such an article would limit the democratic functioning of the South Pacific as a whole.
Article 1621 is an article about the action of repealing articles. It exists to prevent completely nonsensical article repeals from causing disarray in our region.
Neither of these two articles have anything related to the ‘dictatorship’ the plaintiff claimed. Let us look at the definition of ‘dictatorship’, brought from the Cambridge Dictionary:
Neither articles establish a dictatorship in the South Pacific; such a crime would be taken to the High Court and the criminals ejected and banned from the region if committed.
Cayo does realize that Hamborn wrote ‘some sort of’ before dictatorship, indicating that they meant something more like a situation where the rights to write articles are severely restricted. However, it is to be noted that Articles 1619 and 1621 do not make severe restrictions. The laws introduced in the two articles are necessary to ensure a better Constitution II and to actually prevent a dictatorship-like situation.
Article 1804 is an article written by Hamborn, and Article 1805 repeals it. There is no problem at all with these two articles, as Article 1804 violates an existing valid law (Article 1621) that prevent repeals without adequate reasoning or evidence. Article 1804 provided none of them, therefore the repeal of it does not lead to any problems.
Therefore, the fifth case presented by the plaintiff is completely unreasonable and must be dismissed as soon as possible by the court.
Thank you, CayonNS / The Cayon Democratic Republic of Altnavia
That is the problem : Article 1804 is mission is to stop constitutional laws that are not Neutral and its intellegible it can’t be repeal by article 1805 this an abuse even that all your defence disapear. You know that some dictator was elect like everyone.
Finally : You made other article after article 1790 and at no time you repealed it that weird but when I post Article 1804 you said that is intelligible and it.
I should add that you attempt to falsify a referendum ?
Ah. Now that is a big problem, there is no judge…
Maybe @Konsa , an RMB moderator?
Or probably @Erstavik could do the cases he is not involved in…
That is the problem : Article 1804 is mission is to stop constitutional laws
Cayo would like to note that if Article 1804 had provided adequate reasoning for their repeal, it would had been a brilliant article, but since it doesn’t, there is no problem with its repeal.
Finally : You made other article after article 1790 and at no time you repealed it that weird but when I post Article 1804 you said that is intelligible and it.
Could you please explain what you mean exactly? I have repealed the articles that violate laws with proper evidence based on existing laws, therefore I see no problem.
I should add that you attempt to falsify a referendum ?
I would like to point out that I am a resident of the South Pacific and I have the right to participate in the referendum.
That not the problem is that you vote on your own referendum
Thats lunar Article 1790 instore a dictatorship and you don’t activate clause d that illogical
Yes then I will proclam myself emperor and you can’t even activate clause d of Article 1621 because I’m a king the only things that can stop it was Article 1804 but you repealed it…
The Honorable Constitutionalist Legend is making his one and likely only stop on this thread to point out that while many have brought up articles restricting/regulating the repealment of articles, Unhonorable Consistutionalists have, in the past, created articles banning the repealment of articles, either in general or in specific cases. Those articles were repealed. Constitution II is a game of entropy, no matter what you do your laws will eventually fall into obscurity and lose all influence or the Honorable Constitutionalists will grow tired of their restrictions and reject their legitimacy outright.
I would like to say that there is no problem with me voting in my own referendum, a similar action has already happened before and it had no problem:
Article 1790 instore a dictatorship and you don’t activate clause d that illogical
I did not repeal Article 1790; I repealed Article 1799. Article 1799 originally made Article 1791 invalid, but since Article 1799 is invalid now, Article 1791 is valid again and Article 1790 is currently invalid. Although Article 1791 did not use Article 1621 clauses in its reasoning, it did provide enough explanation, therefore it does not cause any problems. Cayo might or might not repeal and replace Article 1791 in the future.
Yes then I will proclam myself emperor and you can’t even activate clause d of Article 1621 because I’m a king the only things that can stop it was Article 1804 but you repealed it…
If such an article is written, I am able to use Article 1612 and Article 1621 to repeal it. Such an action has already been done a long time ago, in this: