ronan posted:Stormborn posted:your sophomoric topic mini-essay on a "Burnham" you only have cartoon knowledge about is noteddo you know that LFFSB was a Communist whose contempt for the inherited Westminster document was known by anyone who was anyone from practically the 1st day he stepped into office?
that he was constrained only by the correlation of forces in his overhaul of the legacy constitution? . . .
have you properly read the Declaration of Sophia?
"5.11 As we complete our tenth year in office, and proceed to the country's tenth anniversary of independence, we cannot do so with a Constitution out of step with modern trends, and our own ideas and ideologies; a Constitution which reflects for the most part the beliefs and ideology of our former imperialist masters; a Constitution which was taken out of the drawer, so to speak, as were several others for various ex-British colonies; with the minimum relevancy to the Guyanese peoples' needs, aspirations and thrusts. The Constitution must go and in its place a new and relevant Constitution must be substituted."
do you know anything of Burnham's tasking of Shahabudeen for his Socialist Constitution?
do you have any idea what was in store constitutionally for Guyana if kabaka hadn't died in 1985 and the merger agreement with CBJ was consummated?
your first two paragraphs are a pitiful mishmash of contradiction, confusion, IGNORANCE and bluster guided by a baffle-'em-with-bullsh!t con man scheme in turn dependent for success on the short attention spans of the mostly dumb PPP plantation dwellers you used to overseer on GNI
fortunately, i am here to lift up your dress
the third para . . . well, it's simply more ritual scratching of the itch of your insecurity, and the continuing, boring effort to staunch your diminishment; so i struck it out
uh huh
O let me get this...you are saying you know when all you do is spout declarations that you know! Yes, shahabudeen was tasked to write a constitution and having no foundation with such learning he cobbled together what we have mirroring what he saw in the commonwealth. We only have two distinct liberal models on the planet. All others are permutations of these two. Constitutionalism is only two hundred years old and the first written one being the US with its fountainhead in coventalism, greek and roman law and the enlightenment creed. The other is the loosely held conventions of the British historical experience which we as members of the commonwealth are familiar with and from which most commonwealth countries formalized their primer social contract. The patterns are that one is decentralized with distributed power centers and the other is centralized with power consolidated an the executive from a single constituency.
You are a dunce. You see the reality of our parliamentary system and its mirroring in organization and structure of the brits; what do you call it if not Westminster like? You see its lack of separation of the chief exec and the legislation so which system maximize for that? You see the deferment of the judiciary to the legislative branch so indirectly on bended knees to the executive; which system is that? You notice the single constituency where the legislature is impotent with respect to the executive, which system is that? We have a defacto elected dictatorship; which system aims at that under the guise of strong majoritarian government? Now please tell us which system we have. Surely you do not mean to tell us that because you believe Burnham was a communist we have a communist constitution? I suggest you read what that means or if you know apply.
As I note in each post; up you are an empty loud mouthed lout whose only strength lies in pretentious huffing and puffing. I dare you to explain, for us as I do in each post what system we have. Give it a label since all things fall under the umbrella of some system of thought.