請選擇 進入手機版 | 繼續訪問電腦版
設為首頁收藏本站

A-Plus互動討論區

 找回密碼
 立即註冊

Login

免註冊即享有會員功能

搜索
熱搜: 活動 交友 discuz
查看: 20|回復: 0

Matt Ryan Falcons Jersey unconstitutional.

[複製鏈接]

3萬

主題

3萬

帖子

10萬

積分

論壇元老

Rank: 8Rank: 8

積分
102747
發表於 2017-10-19 05:44:48 | 顯示全部樓層 |閱讀模式
分享到: 更多
Chartered Accountant and Attorney- at-law,Nike Air Max 2018 Mens Shoes, Chris Ram is convinced that Chief Justice, (Ag) Ian Chang  omitted or ignored certain aspects of law, when he handed down a ruling that paves the way for a person to serve as President of Guyana for more than two terms.Sharing his sentiments on the Ram and McRae website,Jordan Shoes For Sale Cheap, Ram detailed that among other aspects of law, the CJ failed to address Article 65 of the Constitution in the ruling in the constitutional case, which was filed on behalf of Georgetown resident, Cedric Richardson.The Article speaks of Parliament’s powers to make laws. Article 65 of the Constitution stipulates that “Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Guyana.”According to Ram that Article was examined extensively in a highly respected decision of the Guyana Court of Appeal in A.G. v. Mohamed Ally (1987) 41 WIR 176 CA Guyana and was described by the then Chancellor Massiah as words which “do not define and set the limits of the categories of legislation which Parliament might properly enact, but merely state in short formulation,NFL Jerseys Outlet From China, the fullness of Parliament’s legislative authority.”“At the very least, the Court should have offered some explanation for not considering these words,” he said. Ram said that compounding the error of omission, is that the decision also ignores the Constitution’s specific authority to Parliament to alter the Constitution.He noted that Article 66 of the constitution states that “Subject to the special procedure set out in article 164, Parliament may alter this Constitution.”“Mr. Chang has demonstrated a tendency to dissect and examine a single word of the Constitution – as he did in the Budget Cut Case – but yet ignores an entire Article or two!” Ram contended.The case was filed on behalf of Georgetown resident, Cedric Richardson.Richardson had sought an interpretation of the provisions in the constitution regarding the two-term limit for the Guyana presidency.He questioned whether a referendum should not have been held, instead of the National Assembly having the powers to decide to limit the number of terms of a President to two.In 2000, the Guyana Constitution Reform Commission recommended a maximum of two terms in office for a President.The Laws of Guyana were changed in 2001, and assented to by former President Bharrat Jagdeo, which made it clear that, “A person elected as President after the year 2000, is eligible for re-election only once.However on July 9, the Chief Justice (CJ) ruled that the presidential term limit imposed by the 2001 amendment to Article 90 of the Constitution is unconstitutional,Wholesale NFL Jerseys, unless it is approved by the citizens in a referendum.The Chief Justice had ruled that the approval of the people through a referendum is needed for placing term limits on the Presidency and that the 2001 constitutional amendment is invalid and without legal effect.Chang, in his ruling, asserted that: “There can be no doubt that Parliament could have altered Article 90 by two-thirds majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly.But in so far as those alterations diminished and further restricted democratic sovereignty which, under Article 164(2) was procedurally protected by the requirement of a referendum for its legal validity and efficacy, the holding of a referendum was required.”The Attorney-at-law pointed out page 8 of the ruling, in which the acting Chief Justice writes, “The articles of the Constitution having received the favourable vote of the electorate in a referendum represent the direct vote of the people.” “That is simply not true. The 1980 Constitution was never put to the electorate,nfl jerseys authentic cheap,” Ram added.He  noted that the CJ also ignored submission by the then Attorney General on the history of the Amendment and the words of the Leader of the House Mr. Reepu Daman Persaud in introducing Bill 14 of 2000 which was passed and assented to by then President Bharrat Jagdeo.He quoted Persaud as saying that “This Bill broadens the scope of democracy and removes certain powers which are considered dictatorial.”The lawyer also noted that submissions and cogent arguments made by attorneys involved in the case were strangely not mentioned in the 37 -page decision.Ram asserted that “these omissions and commission seem to be of sufficient significance as to undermine the entire ruling, suggesting as it does that the submissions and arguments of the defendants have so little merit that they do not even deserve an acknowledgment by the Court.”He noted further argued that it is hard to accept that Justice Chang really believes that Act 17 of 2000 setting term limits, a feature of an increasing number of Constitutions,Wholesale China Jerseys, had the effect of destroying or weakening the basic elements of the Guyana Constitution.This, according to the lawyer is, the only ground on which the Judge could hold Act 17 of 2000, unconstitutional.
回復

使用道具 舉報

您需要登錄後才可以回帖 登錄 | 立即註冊

本版積分規則

重要聲明:本討論區是以即時上載留言的方式運作,A-Plus補習討論區對所有留言的真實性、完整性及立場等,不負任何法律責任。而一切留言之言論只代表留言者個人意見,並非本網站之立場,讀者及用戶不應信賴內容,並應自行判斷內容之真實性。於有關情形下,讀者及用戶應尋求專業意見(如涉及醫療、法律或投資等問題)。 由於本討論區受到「即時上載留言」運作方式所規限,故不能完全監察所有留言,若讀者及用戶發現有留言出現問題,請聯絡我們。A-Plus補習討論區有權刪除任何留言及拒絕任何人士上載留言(刪除前或不會作事先警告及通知),同時亦有不刪除留言的權利,如有任何爭議,管理員擁有最終的詮釋權。用戶切勿撰寫粗言穢語、誹謗、渲染色情暴力或人身攻擊的言論,敬請自律。本網站保留一切法律權利。

手機版|小黑屋|A-Plus互動討論區    

GMT+8, 2024-3-29 20:37 , Processed in 0.076769 second(s), 23 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回復 返回頂部 返回列表