If the Coalition was serious about Constitutional Reform it would have already published a proposal for us to peruse but the Coalition is perfectly happy with the present Constitution.

They are happy with it now that the demographics are in their favor.

If the PNC loses this election, no big deal. They will succeed in 5 or 10 years at the most as the Black/Mixed population's majority become reflected on the voter rolls.

The PPP is too stupid for their own good or else they would have scrambled to send us back to the 1966 Constitution and bring our system of governance in line with CARICOM.

Indians are living on borrowed time politically in Guyana. Even if the PPP wins next month, they are fundamentally doomed to lose in 5 years. Not if but when.

I am not an Attorney but if you are correct, then there is no reason not to have the Constitution revised. Both sides are to blame. If you are not correct, then we need to see both sides work together to have the Constitution revised.

This is the one bright spot of the Constitution. A Constitution Amendment Bill that passes with less than a 2/3 majority in Parliament only needs a referendum to succeed.

I'm sure the Guyanese public would vote in a heartbeat to rubbish the present Constitution. The problem is that both our two major parties seem to like the Constitution. Therein lies the problem. And KFC only seem to care about Vice President wuk.

Shaits good find can you point to the article in the

constitution.

Article 164

Section 2

Thank's will take a look,wondering how DG

miss it.

Thank's will take a look,wondering how DG miss it.

I have not missed the article on the constitution.

DG is still reading the 1966 Constitution. He hasn't gotten around to 2001 yet. He's still under the impression Britain is still somehow magically responsible for defending us against Venezuelan invasion.

Originally Posted by Django:

Thank's will take a look,wondering how DG miss it.

I have not missed the article on the constitution.

Post the article for us please, I'm having an impossible time copying and pasting from PDF for some reason.

Article 164. (1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3), a Bill for an Act of Parliament to alter this Constitution shall not be passed by the National Assembly unless it is supported at the final voting in the Assembly by the votes of a majority of all the elected members of the Assembly.
(2) A Bill to alter any of the following provisions of this Constitution, that is to say (a) this article, articles 1,2, 8, 9, 18, 51, 66, 89, 99 and 111; and
(b) articles 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, 10 to 17 (inclusive), 19 to 49 (inclusive), 52 to 57 (inclusive), 59,60, 62,63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72 (in so far as it relates to the number of
regions), 90 to 96 (inclusive), 98, 108, 110, 116, 120 to 163 (inclusive, but excepting article 132), 168 to 215 (inclusive, but excepting articles 173, 185, 186, 192 (2) and (3) and 193), 222, 223, 225, 226, 231 and 232 (excepting the definition of "financial year"),
shall not be submitted to the President for his assent unless the Bill, not less than two and not more than six months after its passage through the National Assembly, has, in such manner as Parliament may prescribe, been submitted to the vote of the electors qualified to vote in an election and has been approved by a majority of the electors who vote on the Bill:

Guyana Constitution

Extract of Section 164

164.

(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3), a Bill for an Act or Parliament to alter this Constitution shall not be passed by the National Assembly unless it is supported at the final voting in the Assembly by the votes of a majority of all the elected members of the Assembly.

(2) A Bill to alter any of the following provisions of this Constitution, that is to say ––

(a) this article, articles 1, 2, 8, 9, 18, 51, 66, 89, 99; and

(b) articles 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, 10 to 17 (inclusive), 19 to 49 (inclusive), 52 to 57 (inclusive), 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72 (in so far as it relates to the number of regions), 90 to 96 (inclusive), 98, 108, 110, 116, 120 to 163 (inclusive, but excepting article 132), 168 to 215 (inclusive, but excepting articles 173, 185, 186, 192 (2) and (3) and 193), 222, 223, 225, 226, 231 and 232 (excepting the definition of "financial year") shall not be submitted to the President for his assent unless the Bill, not less than ten and not more than six months after its passage through the National Assembly, has, in such manner as Parliament may prescribe, been submitted to vote of the electors qualified to vote in an election and has been approved by a majority of the electors who vote on the Bill: 

Provided that if the Bill does not alter any of the provisions mentioned in subparagraph (a) and is supported at the final voting in the Assembly by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all the elected members of the Assembly it shall not be necessary to submit the Bill to the vote of the electors.

(3) In this article

(a) references to this Constitution or to any particular provision thereof include references to any other law in so far as that law alters the Constitution or, as the case may be, that pr ovision; and

(b) references to altering this Constitution or any particular provision thereof include references to repealing it, with or without re-enactment thereof or the making of different provisi on in lieu thereof, to modifying it and to suspending its operation for any period.

Translation Into English:

The Opposition which had an absolute majority of 33 votes had the power to ORDER a Constitutional Referendum and they chose not to.

Amendment Process:

Majority in Parliament passes Bill Ordering Referendum then Referendum is Held then Bill is sent to the President for Assent.

Like I said I am not an Attorney. But I dont see Article 164 listed.

Article 164. (1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3), a Bill for an Act of Parliament to alter this Constitution shall not be passed by the National Assembly unless it is supported at the final voting in the Assembly by the votes of a majority of all the elected members of the Assembly.
(2) A Bill to alter any of the following provisions of this Constitution, that is to say (a) this article, articles 1,2, 8, 9, 18, 51, 66, 89, 99 and 111; and
(b) articles 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, 10 to 17 (inclusive), 19 to 49 (inclusive), 52 to 57 (inclusive), 59,60, 62,63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72 (in so far as it relates to the number of
regions), 90 to 96 (inclusive), 98, 108, 110, 116, 120 to 163 (inclusive, but excepting article 132), 168 to 215 (inclusive, but excepting articles 173, 185, 186, 192 (2) and (3) and 193), 222, 223, 225, 226, 231 and 232 (excepting the definition of "financial year"),
shall not be submitted to the President for his assent unless the Bill, not less than two and not more than six months after its passage through the National Assembly, has, in such manner as Parliament may prescribe, been submitted to the vote of the electors qualified to vote in an election and has been approved by a majority of the electors who vote on the Bill:

I hope you are right Shaitaan Bhai but I am reluctant because if it is that simple, why no movement from either side to have the Constitution revised??

Note the underlined part in the aforementioned section of Guyana Constitution.

Restating ...

[[QUOTE]]

Provided that if the Bill does not alter any of the provisions mentioned in subparagraph (a) and is supported at the final voting in the Assembly by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all the elected members of the Assembly it shall not be necessary to submit the Bill to the vote of the electors.

[[UNQUOTE]]

Because they don't really want Constitutional reform. They all happen to like the Constitution as is. Every parliamentary party does. They only differ in who should benefit from the Constitution. We could have had a virtually new Constitution since 1992 but no one wants one.

DG gat a good point there with regards to the 2/3 majority to approve the Bill

That just means that referendums are NOT necessary when two-thirds of Parliament vote for the Amendment and the Amendment does not alter the sections which are listed as fundamental rights.

So when you don't have a two-thirds majority, then referendums are ALWAYS necessary with a majority vote.

Did you read the part about a 2/3 vote only being necessary to AVOID a referendum?

DG is not disagreeing with me. We agree.

Nehru, the constitution is quite clear on how changes can be made.

The major issue is that, in most cases, it requires a two-third majority of the MPs' support.

Sir,

Did you understand that the point of this thread was how to amend the Constitution at all times without a 2/3 parliamentary majority? Via referendum?

Because of the need to secure a two-third majority for passages.

Are you just stupid or something?

Just answer this question:

Does one need a 2/3 majority in Parliament to amend the Constitution? yes or no?

You can ask all the questions to your heart's content.

It is my decision when to provide a response.

Provided that if the Bill does not alter any of the provisions mentioned in subparagraph (a) and is supported at the final voting in the Assembly by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all the elected members of the Assembly it shall not be necessary to submit the Bill to the vote of the electors

Shaits i agree with you.

It's pretty simple language. And the conclusion is also simple...the principal political parties do not want the Constitution changed.

Evidence the Coalition's vague use of the term "Constitutional Reform" that could mean almost anything.

sadly, Demerara_Guy is effectively correct

this thread is just so much idle masturbation masquerading as insight

as anybody paying attention these past 3 years of minority rule in Guyana would know, ANY bill passed by the majority needs the assent of the president to have force in law

the effective override of a president refusing to sign a majority passed bill (such as a bill for referendum considered here) is the return of the bill for compulsory assent by a 2/3 majority of the legislature [see Article 170(1-6) of Guyana's Constitution]

as we say, 'same 6 & 4'

therefore, it is sheer scampishness to claim that the Opposition majority is equally to blame for non-movement on constitutional reform

no "lie" is being "perpetrated" . . . Shaitaan, stop your NONSENSE!

The "lie" in question here is the constant yammerings from both sides that they need the other major party's agreement for any Constitutional reform.

The fact is they don't.

You pass a Bill with 33 votes, it goes to referendum, and is then presented to the President for assent.

That can be accomplished by any Majority Government.

And yes this is also an indictment of the Tenth Parliament where the Opposition did not order a single referendum as they had the unilateral power to do so as presidential assent comes AFTER a referendum triggered by a majority vote. We could have at least forced the PPP President to reject a referendum approved Amendment Bill. But dem bais didn't even do that.

no sir, you have it backwards

it's not  . . . "You pass a Bill with 33 votes, it goes to referendum, and is then presented to the President for assent."

it's correctly . . . You pass a Bill for referendum with 33 votes which is then presented to the President for assent; if signed, we proceed with the referendum.

got it?

"shall not be submitted to the President for his assent unless the Bill, not less than two and not more than six months after its passage through the National Assembly, has, in such manner as Parliament may prescribe, been submitted to the vote of the electors qualified to vote in an election and has been approved by a majority of the electors who vote on the Bill:"

Just take a deep breath and read slowly and carefully. ok?

Bhai, Dat man ah Techa in Merika he brite laka Tide

Gawd help dem poor pickney dem if dis man is their English Techa

Simple matter ...

1. A bill is passed in parliament.

2. Bill then sent to the President for approval.

3. Bill returned to parliament if rejected by the President.

4. It then requires two-thirds of the MPs to approve the bill.

i was wrong; i overlooked the carve-out in 170(1)

Article 164 is clear  . . . parliament has the power to go forward with the referendum on a simple majority, and then present to the president for assent subject to 2/3 majority override

Thank you very much. The mark of a gentleman.

I hope dis lovey dovey shyte doan las too long, yall does have nice fites

Ah give it like one more post before redux regroups and starts besieging my castle all over again in his never ending Crusade against the infidel (me)