Drugb posted:

.

Also of note, Granger must give his reasons for rejecting each member of the list. He did not do soOur jackass Granger will make up a reason, there is no burden on him to justify the reason, he could merely say, "meh nah like dem rass". 

Funny thing this.  The PPP had 23 years to change the constitution and didn't want to do that.  You see Burnham's constitution suited their purposes.

Now they ran and scream " we gun tek back Guyana to de 60s".  Do they think that their supporters will benefit if this were to happen?

caribny posted:

Drugb posted:

caribny posted:

Why not. Jagdeo would impose an elected dictatorship over blacks if he had his way. Yes taking back Guyana for "his" people who he defined as rural people "we know who they are".

Of course we expected you to support jackass Granger's dictatorship move.  Now somehow you found a way to change the focus to Jagdeo who you claimed called the PPP a coolie people party, that is until I schooled you and exposed your wickedness. It was in fact the PNC who called the PPP a coolie people party during their campaign. 

Of course I would expect you to defend Jagdeo the Indo dictator. Now he is screaming about taking Guyana back to the 60s.  This is Jagdeo's "mo fiah" moment.

Now you are an infant so you don't know, but Guyana will not survive if the 60s comes back again.

Rohee called the PPP a coolie people party and said that Jagdeo was right to describe as such. He said its Indo supported and Indo led.  Then we have Jagdeo screaming that "our base is in the rural areas, you know who they are".  And then screaming "if you don't vote for the PPP GDF and GPF are going to rape and kill you".  Then going into Amerindian areas and ranting that if the PNC wins they will kill all straight haired people.

When asked to prove that he wasn't a racist Jagdeo was unable to furnish proof.  You see you cannot go to an intelligent person like Hughes and show pictures of Jagdeo pushing up against black women and then offer this as proof that he isn't racist.  So he was unable to prove his point when he sued Kissoon because he called him an institutional racist.

Any way you are a person who screams that blacks are a bunch of criminal failures so  can see why you cannot fathom why over 95% of Guyanese blacks think that he is a racist.

Why don't you shut your racist ass. You repeat the same shit over and over and hope that people will believe you. GNI has given you a long rope this forum has allowed  you to spill  racist hate.

kp posted:

 

Why don't you shut your racist ass. You repeat the same shit over and over and hope that people will believe you. GNI has given you a long rope this forum has allowed  you to spill  racist hate.

Oh yes discussing that Jagdeo is a racist, and couldn't prove that he wasn't is racist.

Now Jagdeo wants to take Guyana back to the 60s.  If Granger had said that you all would be screaming "black man a kill ahbe".

But continue to be Jagdeo's slave.

ksazma posted:

"Asked if he agreed with Patterson's appointment, Ramjattan said "I certainly would agree with the choice yes because it is the president's choice and he didn't find it acceptable the other names and he found that one acceptable. That's my opinion on the issue".

Can someone please translate what Ramjattan stated here into English. 

Perhaps stating ....

"I must agree, 1,000,000,000 percent, or else ...."

caribny posted:

Drugb posted:

Also of note, Granger must give his reasons for rejecting each member of the list. He did not do so

Our jackass Granger will make up a reason, there is no burden on him to justify the reason, he could merely say, "meh nah like dem rass". 

Funny thing this.  The PPP had 23 years to change the constitution and didn't want to do that.  You see Burnham's constitution suited their purposes.

Now they ran and scream " we gun tek back Guyana to de 60s".  Do they think that their supporters will benefit if this were to happen?

Major parts of the constitution require as a minimum sixty six percent of the MPs in parliament.

The current legislature has 33 members for the government and 32 for the opposition.

GTAngler posted:

Zed posted:

GTAngler posted:

Even if they could, Granger followed the Constitution to a T.

Please explain how.

 

Read the Constitution. In particular, Article 161 Sub Paragraph 2 on page 130.

You might want to reread the constitution or get some one to help you understand what you are reading. These documents get complicated with all their paragraphs and proviso, etc. Also, refer to the chief justice recent written ruling or have some lawyer explain that to you. If you do not have it, Django might be able to get it for you. He seems able to find these.

Drugb posted:

Demerara_Guy posted:

Drugb posted:

 

This gives him the authority to appoint a rigger. 

Provided that if the Minority Leader fails to submit a list as provided, for the President shall appoint a person who holds or has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge.

The president received a list from the Leader of the Opposition, hence the president was bound to select one or reject the entire list.

In that case the leader of the opposition can then submit another list.

In this specific instance, the president rejected the list of nominees and unilaterally appoint a person to the position.

From all legal positions, the president implemented his sole decision on this matter without any guidance from the constitution.

Also, the decision was based on what he-the president personally believes, not what the constitution outlines.

You missed these two words and it invalidates your argument. If Granger found the list to not fit the criteria, no judges or fit and proper person then he can appoint his own judge. 

Provided that if the Minority Leader fails to submit a list as provided

What happened to the decision of the Chief Justice? Of no validity?

Zed posted:

Drugb posted:

Demerara_Guy posted:

Drugb posted:

 

This gives him the authority to appoint a rigger. 

Provided that if the Minority Leader fails to submit a list as provided, for the President shall appoint a person who holds or has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge.

The president received a list from the Leader of the Opposition, hence the president was bound to select one or reject the entire list.

In that case the leader of the opposition can then submit another list.

In this specific instance, the president rejected the list of nominees and unilaterally appoint a person to the position.

From all legal positions, the president implemented his sole decision on this matter without any guidance from the constitution.

Also, the decision was based on what he-the president personally believes, not what the constitution outlines.

You missed these two words and it invalidates your argument. If Granger found the list to not fit the criteria, no judges or fit and proper person then he can appoint his own judge. 

Provided that if the Minority Leader fails to submit a list as provided

What happened to the decision of the Chief Justice? Of no validity?

It does not address the freedom of the president to arbitrarily find a candidate unacceptable for frivolous reasons. 

Zed posted:

Drugb posted:

Demerara_Guy posted:

Drugb posted:

 

This gives him the authority to appoint a rigger. 

Provided that if the Minority Leader fails to submit a list as provided, for the President shall appoint a person who holds or has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge.

The president received a list from the Leader of the Opposition, hence the president was bound to select one or reject the entire list.

In that case the leader of the opposition can then submit another list.

In this specific instance, the president rejected the list of nominees and unilaterally appoint a person to the position.

From all legal positions, the president implemented his sole decision on this matter without any guidance from the constitution.

Also, the decision was based on what he-the president personally believes, not what the constitution outlines.

You missed these two words and it invalidates your argument. If Granger found the list to not fit the criteria, no judges or fit and proper person then he can appoint his own judge. 

Provided that if the Minority Leader fails to submit a list as provided

What happened to the decision of the Chief Justice? Of no validity?

"The ruling by Chief Justice (ag), Roxanne George-Wiltshire, allows the President to unilaterally appoint a Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM)but Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo believes the judgment only applies to future processes."

CJ ruling allows president to unilaterally appoint GECOM Chair in the future.

https://newsroom.gy/2017/09/27...chair-in-the-future/

Amral posted:

In this video clip I notice that old man Patterson was going to sign the document with the wrong end of the pen. Baap ray baap. Bungling begins. He might beat Basil.

Yuh notice that too eh

Who say we old ??? we still sharp and got good eyes.

Granger sign with he own pen rass. The man is a pro. Carry yuh own pen and use it. Show them who is boss

Drugb posted:

Zed posted:

Drugb posted:

Demerara_Guy posted:

Drugb posted:

 

This gives him the authority to appoint a rigger. 

Provided that if the Minority Leader fails to submit a list as provided, for the President shall appoint a person who holds or has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge.

The president received a list from the Leader of the Opposition, hence the president was bound to select one or reject the entire list.

In that case the leader of the opposition can then submit another list.

In this specific instance, the president rejected the list of nominees and unilaterally appoint a person to the position.

From all legal positions, the president implemented his sole decision on this matter without any guidance from the constitution.

Also, the decision was based on what he-the president personally believes, not what the constitution outlines.

You missed these two words and it invalidates your argument. If Granger found the list to not fit the criteria, no judges or fit and proper person then he can appoint his own judge. 

Provided that if the Minority Leader fails to submit a list as provided

What happened to the decision of the Chief Justice? Of no validity?

It does not address the freedom of the president to arbitrarily find a candidate unacceptable for frivolous reasons. 

What has to happen before the president exercise his right to appoint unilaterally? What is the process? That for me is the crucial issue. Many are missing that so as to assign blame. It takes two to discuss. If one of the parties has a particular outcome already decided on, then the other party is from day one at a disadvantage. 

It is amazing that Granger is saying to the Guyanese people that these people on Jagdeo's three lists, or many accomplishments,  are not 'fit and proper'. Does he not realize what Guyanese are thinking about themselves now with Granger's apparent definition of 'fit and proper'.

The rigging has started. Coolies will never learn that they cannot trust the blackman.

Gilbakka posted:

This evening the AFC issued a statement fully supporting Granger and blaming BJ for the whole thing. The AFC has just nailed its own coffin.

When you play with dogs, you are bound to get fleas. I am not saying that the PNC are dogs because the AFC would nailed their coffin by joining with the PPP too. The AFC most effective role was to be a disruptor to whoever was in office. They had enough votes to be a strong third force but they wanted to enjoy the fruits of the other two parties who have been in the struggle for more than half a century before their formation. Now they are irrelevant and emasculated.

Gilbakka posted:

Amral posted:

In this video clip I notice that old man Patterson was going to sign the document with the wrong end of the pen. Baap ray baap. Bungling begins. He might beat Basil.

Plus Granger did not get up to shake Patterson's hand. Then it looked like Patterson was going to stay there and Granger told him 'guh sit dahsaide'

Demerara_Guy posted:

ksazma posted:

"Asked if he agreed with Patterson's appointment, Ramjattan said "I certainly would agree with the choice yes because it is the president's choice and he didn't find it acceptable the other names and he found that one acceptable. That's my opinion on the issue".

Can someone please translate what Ramjattan stated here into English. 

Perhaps stating ....

"I must agree, 1,000,000,000 percent, or else ...."

Reading what Rumjaat said, maybe he was drunk when he made that statement. He has to agree with Granger at all times. . He found that name acceptable, Where did that name come from???was it ever discussed???

Ramakant-P posted:

The rigging has started. Coolies will never learn that they cannot trust the blackman.

so how come Corbin is your buddy friend?

Drugb posted:

caribny posted:

Amral posted:

Can Caricom intervene?

No.  The secretariat isn't empowered to act against a head of state, and no head of state will act against another one.

Any GTAngler says that Granger can do this then he did nothing wrong.

Granger had the upper hand all along when he was given the leeway to interpret who should be a "fit and proper person"

Article 161 (2) states, “Subject to the provision of paragraph (4), the Chairman of the Elections Commission shall be a person who holds or who has held office as a Judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court, or who is qualified to be appointed as any such Judge, or any other fit and proper person, to be appointed by the President from a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the Leader of the Opposition after meaningful consultation with the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly.”

 

This gives him the authority to appoint a rigger. 

Provided that if the Minority Leader fails to submit a list as provided, for the President shall appoint a person who holds or has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge.

Exactly why the constitution needs to be amended. He can refuse lists to his heart's content and then thumb his nose and put whomever he chooses, which is exactly what he did.

Zed posted:

GTAngler posted:

Zed posted:

GTAngler posted:

Even if they could, Granger followed the Constitution to a T.

Please explain how.

 

Read the Constitution. In particular, Article 161 Sub Paragraph 2 on page 130.

You might want to reread the constitution or get some one to help you understand what you are reading. These documents get complicated with all their paragraphs and proviso, etc. Also, refer to the chief justice recent written ruling or have some lawyer explain that to you. If you do not have it, Django might be able to get it for you. He seems able to find these.

I need help understanding? I said he used and followed the constitution to a T. Why don't you explain what Granger did wrong then? The only thing wrong here is the constitution itself.

GTAngler posted:

Zed posted:

GTAngler posted:

Zed posted:

GTAngler posted:

Even if they could, Granger followed the Constitution to a T.

Please explain how.

 

Read the Constitution. In particular, Article 161 Sub Paragraph 2 on page 130.

You might want to reread the constitution or get some one to help you understand what you are reading. These documents get complicated with all their paragraphs and proviso, etc. Also, refer to the chief justice recent written ruling or have some lawyer explain that to you. If you do not have it, Django might be able to get it for you. He seems able to find these.

I need help understanding? I said he used and followed the constitution to a T. Why don't you explain what Granger did wrong then? The only thing wrong here is the constitution itself.

You know that the alphabet starts at A and proceeds quite  while until it gets to T. Same thing with the constitutional requirement. Reread what the constitution stipulates and what the Chief Justice ruled.

Please see my post about what granger has to do at the beginning of the process and when he can exercise his authority to unilaterally make a selection. 

Demerara_Guy posted:

 

Major parts of the constitution require as a minimum sixty six percent of the MPs in parliament.

 

This being the PPP excuse. Well sit down and take Granger's choice now because he is NOT in violation of the constitution. All he needs to say is " I don't like the 18 selected" and he has satisfied the constitution.  He is NOT obligated to chose from this if they don't meet his satisfaction.

The Carter arrangement set in place a mechanism where the president would chose from a list provided by the opposition, but this isn't baked into the constitution so isn't illegal.

So continue to make excuses for retaining the Burnham constitution.

Zed posted:

GTAngler posted:

I need help understanding? I said he used and followed the constitution to a T. Why don't you explain what Granger did wrong then? The only thing wrong here is the constitution itself.

You know that the alphabet starts at A and proceeds quite  while until it gets to T. Same thing with the constitutional requirement. Reread what the constitution stipulates and what the Chief Justice ruled.

Please see my post about what granger has to do at the beginning of the process and when he can exercise his authority to unilaterally make a selection. 

Correct Zed.

The constitution is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition must submit a list to the president from which a person should be chosen.

The only specific occasion that the president can name a person is when the Leader of the Opposition does not submit a list.

In all cases the Leader of the Opposition submitted a list.

GTAngler posted:

 

Exactly why the constitution needs to be amended. He can refuse lists to his heart's content and then thumb his nose and put whomever he chooses, which is exactly what he did.

People are of the impression that the Carter mechanism to insist that the GECOM be selected by the president from the list is the constitutional arrangement.  Granger is NOT under any obligation to abide by this agreement.

All those who said NOTHING when Jagdeo refused to change the constitution, because it suited his purposes, need to sit up and learn their lesson. 

Jagdeo operated from the premise that the PPP would never lose. Well they did and now the limitations of the constitution are being used against them.

Appointed by the President from a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the Leader of the Opposition after meaningful consultation with the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly.”

 

Granger said the list isn't acceptable to him. The constitution doesn't say that he must justify his choice. All it says is that the list is unacceptable to the president.

They can carry this to court.

The PPP never thought that they would lose so didn't see why the constitution should be fixed. Clearly the PNC wasn't going to change their own constitution as they dreamed of the day when they would regain power.

So here we are and people can scream about why Granger isn't abiding by the Carter mechanism, but there is nothing that legally prevents him from refusing to do this.

Jagdeo will make better use of his time if he insists that an independent commission be established to change the constitution. On that he will have the support of most right thinking Guyanese.  But he will NOT do this as he loves the constitution, because if he wins it serves his interests very well.

Demerara_Guy posted:

 

The constitution is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition must submit a list to the president from which a person should be chosen.

.

Please post where it says that Granger must chose from Jagdeo's list.

It specifically says that if the president doesn't think that the list is suitable, and note that all that is needed is the president to think that it isn't suitable,  then he can chose his own, based on certain criteria.

Dragging up what the PPP did, in an era when they thought it impossible that they would ever lose an election, because of our ethnic demographics, is irrelevant.

Ramakant-P posted:

The rigging has started. Coolies will never learn that they cannot trust the blackman.

And the Indo KKK behavior of the PPP itself and of vast numbers of PPP supporters justifies why blacks cannot trust Indians either.

caribny posted:

Demerara_Guy posted:

Major parts of the constitution require as a minimum sixty six percent of the MPs in parliament.

This being the PPP excuse. Well sit down and take Granger's choice now because he is NOT in violation of the constitution. All he needs to say is " I don't like the 18 selected" and he has satisfied the constitution.  He is NOT obligated to chose from this if they don't meet his satisfaction.

The Carter arrangement set in place a mechanism where the president would chose from a list provided by the opposition, but this isn't baked into the constitution so isn't illegal.

So continue to make excuses for retaining the Burnham constitution.

1. Perhaps, you need to become conversant with the Guyana constitution.

2. Granger is in absolute violation of the constitution since he unilaterally elected the Chairman of GECOM.

3. The constitution does not give a president the authority say; "I do not like the listed candidates"; reject a list of nominees and then appoint unilaterally a GECOM chairman.

4. And regarding the constitution, study it again on the requirements for making those important changes. It requires, as a minimum, two-thirds of support of the MPs in parliament.

5. The provision were made by Burnham when he; miraculously; got more than two thirds of the MPs elected for his party.

6. Currently, PPP/C and PNCR/AFC has 52 and 53 seats respectively.

caribny posted:

Demerara_Guy posted:

The constitution is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition must submit a list to the president from which a person should be chosen.

Please post where it says that Granger must chose from Jagdeo's list.

It specifically says that if the president doesn't think that the list is suitable, and note that all that is needed is the president to think that it isn't suitable,  then he can chose his own, based on certain criteria.

Dragging up what the PPP did, in an era when they thought it impossible that they would ever lose an election, because of our ethnic demographics, is irrelevant.

Take the time to read the Guyana constitution, c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y.

Demerara_Guy posted:

.

1.

2. Granger is in absolute violation of the constitution since he unilaterally elected the Chairman of GECOM.

.

If the leader of the opposition fails to submit a list as provided, meaning a list which includes people who the PRESIDENT thinks are suitable, then the president is free to make his choice.

1.  The test is that the PRESIDENT needs to find these people suitable.

2.  The President is under no obligation to state why he does NOT think that these people are suitable.

3. If no suitable people are submitted in the list than he can make his own selection.

This was crafted by Burnham and the PPP needs to remember this.

Demerara_Guy posted:

 

Take the time to read the Guyana constitution, c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y.

Time for you to furnish evidence that the president is forced to accept someone from a list furnished by the president.  He is NOT.  All this says is that the process must BEGIN with a list(s) submitted by the president.  This was done. 

Granger allowed 18 names, so more than the 6 stipulated. None were acceptable to him so he made his own choice.

You always scream about how nothing can be done about the constitution. I bet you all decide to that it should be changed now, given how much power this gives to the president.

caribny posted:

Demerara_Guy posted:

.

1.

2. Granger is in absolute violation of the constitution since he unilaterally elected the Chairman of GECOM.

.

If the leader of the opposition fails to submit a list as provided, meaning a list which includes people who the PRESIDENT thinks are suitable, then the president is free to make his choice.

1.  The test is that the PRESIDENT needs to find these people suitable.

2.  The President is under no obligation to state why he does NOT think that these people are suitable.

3. If no suitable people are submitted in the list than he can make his own selection.

This was crafted by Burnham and the PPP needs to remember this.

The PPP probably kept this in place because they never thought that the people would kick them out on their tiefin asses. 

Zed posted:

GTAngler posted:

Zed posted:

GTAngler posted:

Zed posted:

GTAngler posted:

Even if they could, Granger followed the Constitution to a T.

Please explain how.

 

Read the Constitution. In particular, Article 161 Sub Paragraph 2 on page 130.

You might want to reread the constitution or get some one to help you understand what you are reading. These documents get complicated with all their paragraphs and proviso, etc. Also, refer to the chief justice recent written ruling or have some lawyer explain that to you. If you do not have it, Django might be able to get it for you. He seems able to find these.

I need help understanding? I said he used and followed the constitution to a T. Why don't you explain what Granger did wrong then? The only thing wrong here is the constitution itself.

You know that the alphabet starts at A and proceeds quite  while until it gets to T. Same thing with the constitutional requirement. Reread what the constitution stipulates and what the Chief Justice ruled.

Please see my post about what granger has to do at the beginning of the process and when he can exercise his authority to unilaterally make a selection. 

I asked you to explain. Apparently you still can't grasp what I am saying. I said he followed the CONSTITUTION as it is currently worded.  

caribny posted:

Demerara_Guy posted:

 

Take the time to read the Guyana constitution, c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y.

Time for you to furnish evidence that the president is forced to accept someone from a list furnished by the president.  He is NOT.  All this says is that the process must BEGIN with a list(s) submitted by the president.  This was done. 

Granger allowed 18 names, so more than the 6 stipulated. None were acceptable to him so he made his own choice.

You always scream about how nothing can be done about the constitution. I bet you all decide to that it should be changed now, given how much power this gives to the president.

Good luck trying to explain it's the wording of the constitution and it's lack of imposing any restrictions to him that Granger used.

caribny posted:

Demerara_Guy posted:

Take the time to read the Guyana constitution, c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y.

Time for you to furnish evidence that the president is forced to accept someone from a list furnished by the president.  He is NOT.  All this says is that the process must BEGIN with a list(s) submitted by the president.  This was done. 

Granger allowed 18 names, so more than the 6 stipulated. None were acceptable to him so he made his own choice.

You always scream about how nothing can be done about the constitution. I bet you all decide to that it should be changed now, given how much power this gives to the president.

I have provided the exact sections of the constitution many times on this specific topic which clearly stated that Granger's selection is in error and in violation of the process.

Again, the president can indeed appoint someone of his choice ONLY when the Opposition Leader does NOT submit a list of candidates.

Mars posted:

.

The PPP probably kept this in place because they never thought that the people would kick them out on their tiefin asses. 

The irony is that, with the PPP not sure of the inevitability of victory their behavior would have been no different.  One can see the names that Jagdeo selected and a significant numbers of these suggest that he wasn't serious about the process.

Ryhaan Shah....a person who hates blacks with the same passion of the white supremacists!!!!!!!

Demerara_Guy posted:

Zed posted:

GTAngler posted:

I need help understanding? I said he used and followed the constitution to a T. Why don't you explain what Granger did wrong then? The only thing wrong here is the constitution itself.

You know that the alphabet starts at A and proceeds quite  while until it gets to T. Same thing with the constitutional requirement. Reread what the constitution stipulates and what the Chief Justice ruled.

Please see my post about what granger has to do at the beginning of the process and when he can exercise his authority to unilaterally make a selection. 

Correct Zed.

The constitution is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition must submit a list to the president from which a person should be chosen.

The only specific occasion that the president can name a person is when the Leader of the Opposition does not submit a list.

In all cases the Leader of the Opposition submitted a list.

It states "list not provided for". That doesn't mean no list. It means the list submitted did not meet Granger's criteria.

Demerara_Guy posted:

.

I have provided the exact sections of the constitution many times on this specific topic 

Let me summarize this.

1. The leader of the opposition must submit six names. If these are suitable to the president he selects one.

2. If not suitable to the president then he can make a unilateral decision.

3. He is under no obligation to state why the 6 are deemed unsuitable to him.

This isn't about submitting the names of suitable people. This about people suitable to the PRESIDENT.

You can read part of the constitution, interpret it as you wish, and then ignore the clause that Burnham stuck in to ensure control. But that doesn't change the facts.

This is a constitution which gives the president too much power and the silly PPP didn't change it because they thought that they would rule forever.