So if the bill is passed by Parliament and the President does not assent, it dies.
This is what happened to the local government bill, right?
So it's not true to say the Opposition could have passed legislation?
Former Member
Former Member
Originally Posted by Jalil:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Simple matter ...
1. A bill is passed in parliament.
2.A IF IT IS A BILL APPROVED BY PPP -
Bill then sent to the President for approval.
2.B IF IT IS A BILL APPROVED BY AFC-APNU.
2.C Bill then sent to the President for approval.
2.A .....Automatically Approved by President
2.B.......Automatically Approved REJECTED by President
3. ALL AFC-APNU Bill returned to parliament if rejected by the President.
4. It then requires two-thirds of the MPs to approve the bill.
Former Member
So you have to get rid of the PPP because they have created gridlock. Ramotar overrides the majority in Parliament.
So people have to understand that's a big reason why AFC and APNU had to combine before the election. PPP is interested in its own monologue, not national unity and dialogue. It's a triumphalism of the minority.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
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.
This is quite clear. No room for any misunderstanding here.
It now begs the question, what was the AFC/PNC doing on constitutional reform ?
Fact: The AFC/PNC does not want any change to the constitution. Burnham left them a very nice gift.
Former Member
Originally Posted by yuji22:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
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.
This is quite clear. No room for any misunderstanding here.
It now begs the question, what was the AFC/PNC doing on constitutional reform ?
Fact: The AFC/PNC does not want any change to the constitution. Burnham left them a very nice gift.
Don't follow that senile old man off a cliff. The point of this thread was the special procedure for Constitution Amendment Bills which are separately regulated by a different article than the one which regulates ordinary statutory enactments.
Originally Posted by yuji22:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
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.
This is quite clear. No room for any misunderstanding here.
It now begs the question, what was the AFC/PNC doing on constitutional reform ?
Fact: TheAFC/PNC does not want any change to the constitution. Burnham left them a very nice gift.
The same gift the PPP does use to thwart democracy.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
You both seem to agree on the blatant lie that a 2/3 parliamentary majority is needed for any significant constitutional reform.
This is patently false.
The Constitution may be altered in any part by a Bill passed by a majority (33 or more), assented to by the President, and then placed on referendum.
The 2/3 majority rule is only used to bypass a referendum.*
With the sole exception of amendments to the essentially worthless fundamental rights articles which demand a referendum at all times and under all circumstances.
Not sure about this?
Former Member
Originally Posted by KishanB:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
You both seem to agree on the blatant lie that a 2/3 parliamentary majority is needed for any significant constitutional reform.
This is patently false.
The Constitution may be altered in any part by a Bill passed by a majority (33 or more), assented to by the President, and then placed on referendum.
The 2/3 majority rule is only used to bypass a referendum.*
With the sole exception of amendments to the essentially worthless fundamental rights articles which demand a referendum at all times and under all circumstances.
Not sure about this?
Then read the source relevant source document and consult a Guyanese lawyer if you must.
I stand by my post.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by KishanB:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
You both seem to agree on the blatant lie that a 2/3 parliamentary majority is needed for any significant constitutional reform.
This is patently false.
The Constitution may be altered in any part by a Bill passed by a majority (33 or more), assented to by the President, and then placed on referendum.
The 2/3 majority rule is only used to bypass a referendum.*
With the sole exception of amendments to the essentially worthless fundamental rights articles which demand a referendum at all times and under all circumstances.
Not sure about this?
Then read the source relevant source document and consult a Guyanese lawyer if you must.
I stand by my post.
shaitaan, u were actually wrong . . . then u were right
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by KishanB:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
You both seem to agree on the blatant lie that a 2/3 parliamentary majority is needed for any significant constitutional reform.
This is patently false.
The Constitution may be altered in any part by a Bill passed by a majority (33 or more), assented to by the President, and then placed on referendum.
The 2/3 majority rule is only used to bypass a referendum.*
With the sole exception of amendments to the essentially worthless fundamental rights articles which demand a referendum at all times and under all circumstances.
Not sure about this?
Then read the source relevant source document and consult a Guyanese lawyer if you must.
I stand by my post.
shaitaan, u were actually wrong, then u were right
Makes sense.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by KishanB:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
You both seem to agree on the blatant lie that a 2/3 parliamentary majority is needed for any significant constitutional reform.
This is patently false.
The Constitution may be altered in any part by a Bill passed by a majority (33 or more), assented to by the President, and then placed on referendum.
The 2/3 majority rule is only used to bypass a referendum.*
With the sole exception of amendments to the essentially worthless fundamental rights articles which demand a referendum at all times and under all circumstances.
Not sure about this?
Then read the source relevant source document and consult a Guyanese lawyer if you must.
I stand by my post.
shaitaan, u were actually wrong, then u were right
Makes sense.
I think I'm too sober to respond to dat chap today. My head hurts just reading the response.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by KishanB:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
You both seem to agree on the blatant lie that a 2/3 parliamentary majority is needed for any significant constitutional reform.
This is patently false.
The Constitution may be altered in any part by a Bill passed by a majority (33 or more), assented to by the President, and then placed on referendum.
The 2/3 majority rule is only used to bypass a referendum.*
With the sole exception of amendments to the essentially worthless fundamental rights articles which demand a referendum at all times and under all circumstances.
Not sure about this?
Then read the source relevant source document and consult a Guyanese lawyer if you must.
I stand by my post.
shaitaan, u were actually wrong, then u were right
Makes sense.
I think I'm too sober to respond to dat chap today. My head hurts just reading the response.
i think u know EXACTLY what i am talking about . . . read again what i hilited in your initial statement
keep playing yuh stupid
Former Member
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by KishanB:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
You both seem to agree on the blatant lie that a 2/3 parliamentary majority is needed for any significant constitutional reform.
This is patently false.
The Constitution may be altered in any part by a Bill passed by a majority (33 or more), assented to by the President, and then placed on referendum.
The 2/3 majority rule is only used to bypass a referendum.*
With the sole exception of amendments to the essentially worthless fundamental rights articles which demand a referendum at all times and under all circumstances.
Not sure about this?
Then read the source relevant source document and consult a Guyanese lawyer if you must.
I stand by my post.
shaitaan, u were actually wrong, then u were right
Makes sense.
I think I'm too sober to respond to dat chap today. My head hurts just reading the response.
i think u know EXACTLY what i am talking about . . . read again what i hilited in your initial statement
keep playing yuh stupid
Fair enough I see your point. The highlighted portion is technically in the wrong order. I sometimes write from memory and my memory is not perfect. My subsequent posts did fix the error so you're correct.
I stand corrected on that technical point.
1. Parliamentary vote; then
2. Referendum; and then
3. Presidential Assent.
Add Reply
Sign In To Reply
384 online (0 members
/
384 guests)