Grouped Lawsuit

[CayonNS]

@Hamborn

Case 5 :

Reason : They created constitutional to create a sort of dictatorship to stop new help to construct the Constitution II.

Defeandant : @Franz, @CayonNS

Evideance : Article 1621, Article 1619, Article 1805 and Article 1804 (respect clause l) of the Constitution II of the South Pacific.

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:

@Franz

Article 1619:
Article 1615 is rescinded for being in violation of Article 1612 as it is not in the interest of the majority of people.
Furthermore, it is to be noted that no article can be immune to repulsion, generally, as 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.
As such, a provision is now made such that any article with 3 likes or more is a permanent article that cannot be repealed. If an article attains this qualification after repulsion, the article in question shall be reinstated.
Moreover, it is to be noted that repulsion of a non-permanent article is the right of any citizen of the South Pacific and cannot be condemned as it is essential to maintaining the relevance of the Constitution.
Lastly, Any other attempts by any citizen or legislator, no matter their position, at introducing an irremovable or unamendable article will lead to them being unrecognized as a contributor to the Constitution II of the South Pacific. Any articles published by them in the past and in the future will be repealed with immediate haste and they shall not be furthermore recognized. @CayonNs shall not suffer these consequences now because this was not explicitly stated before.

Note: As evidence, that Article 1615 is not in the interest of the majority of people, various channels are to be noted that have opposed TUA and MEAT. These channels have been run by and/or funded by a number of people, including @Franz, @Zhuang, @pyrocxrals, and @North. On the contrary, TUA and MEAT have only been supported by @CayonNS. That is a 4:1 majority for anti-TUA/anti-MEAT movements. Evidence of these posts have been attached below.

Additionally, these are not the only anti-TUA efforts but only a few of numerous examples.

@Franz

Article 1621: Regulation of Article Repulsion
In consideration of issues brought to light in recent articles, this article lists all valid reasons for the repulsion of an article, in order of validity. They are

1. Being in violation of Article 1612
2. Being in violation of any other article
3. Encouraging human rights violations, torture, genocide, suicide, and other violence
4. Encouraging revolutionary tendencies
5. Accommodating an unnecessary expenditure
6. Being too direct of a copy of another standing article
7. Limiting the rights of a citizen (excluding reasonable restrictions)
8. Limiting the rights of a legislator (excluding reasonable restrictions)
9. Being extremely inconvenient
10. Attempting to carry out an impossible task
11. Attempting to repeal a permanent article
12. Being unintelligible

In all cases, adequate evidence or reasoning must be provided to justify the grounds of repulsion.

Note: This article shall be an exception to article 1619. This article shall be unrepealable as it is too essential. However, it is amendable.

Note: All article repulsions previous to article 1621 are not subject to the contents of article 1621 as it was not in effect at that time.

Note: 1st AMENDMENT - Added reason (l)

@Hamborn

Article 1804 :

The The South Pacific is neutral : that means every article in the constitution which take a position like im the chief and to my friends are just erased by this article.

@CayonNS

Article 1805: Article 1804 is repealed according to Article 1621 because it does not provide enough explanation for why such articles must be repealed. Article 1621 states:

In all cases, adequate evidence or reasoning must be provided to justify the grounds of repulsion.

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:

a country ruled by a dictator

And then let’s look at the definition of ‘dictator’.

a leader who has complete power in a country and has not been elected by the people

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