i told you guys the ppp do not want no electio,they will run to the courts,mose will skin they batty and ram a batton up their stink hole
Former Member
Former Member
Similarly the court cannot overturn a decision by the parliament.
Former Member
The contradiction by the soupies are amazing.
On one hand they are hollering the PPP will win the PPP will win the PPP will win and on the other hand they are hollering the PPP will challenge the no confidence in court.
If you are so confident in the greatness of the PPP they should be upping the anti and call the election now before the no confidence vote to demonstrate their power and confidence that they will actually win and win a majority back in parliament.
Former Member
When the dust settles, the P.P.P/C will stand tall, with a majority victory, given to them by the Guyanese populace.....thus progress will continue.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Conscience:
When the dust settles, the P.P.P/C will stand tall, with a majority victory, given to them by the Guyanese populace.....thus progress will continue.
what an ass living in dum dum house
Former Member
A majority awaits the P.P.P/C
Former Member
Originally Posted by Conscience:
A majority awaits the P.P.P/C
It does not matter what kind of ghrah pooja the PPP does, it cannot get a majority....they have to rig mightily and give the amerinds more than ATVs and Chainsaws in the bead trading exercise.
Originally Posted by Conscience:
A majority awaits the P.P.P/C
So why the need for the PPP/C to challenge the no confidence in court? Why not welcome it and go to the populace if you are so certain of a majority?
Former Member
Originally Posted by Conscience:
The National Assembly cannot overturn a decision of the President, and therefore the National Assembly cannot move a motion of no-confidence over an action which is made in the name of the President. As such, I respectfully submit that so long as an action is directly authorized by the President, it cannot be the subject of a no-confidence motion.
The second element is that the motion must state the reason why the motion of no-confidence is being moved. Now there is no need for a justifiable reason. Any reason can be given, but a reason must be provided. A mere resolve clause cannot constitute a motion of no-confidence, because it would be deficient in an element necessary to create a binding obligation on the part of the government to resign. Without a basis, a motion merely expressing lack of confidence in the government becomes an ordinary motion. It will not be binding on the government and will not trigger a constitutionally-imposed resignation of the government.
I believe APNU was trying to indicate this all along to the AFC. APNU was saying all along that all it saw was a resolve clause. And there are now reports in the media indicating that a motion submitted to the Clerk of the National Assembly by the AFC merely has a resolve clause and not any âwhereasâ clauses.
It is hard to see any Speaker allowing a resolve clause alone to be debated in the National Assembly. Such a motion would be deficient. If, however, such a motion is allowed to be debated and passed, the PPPC is likely to launch a judicial challenge, as is within its right to do, and will most likely succeed in having the Court deem that a mere resolve clause cannot trigger a constitutionally mandated resignation of the government.
It makes a mockery of the National Assembly and the democratic process for any political party to table a motion with a mere resolve clause. What is the National Assembly being reduced to? Is it being reduced to a mere instrument to trigger the resignation of the government?
The National Assembly is supposed to be a place for debate and discussion. This is the basis upon which decisions are arrived at.
The National Assembly is not a place for the making of unilateral decisions? As such, how can the National Assembly be asked to pass a motion without debate, and how can there be a debate on a mere resolve clause? How can any Speaker be asked to approve for debate a mere resolve clause? About what will the members of the National Assembly be debating?
Any motion that has a resolve clause and no âwhereas clausesâ cannot form the basis of a valid motion.
excerpts from the kaieteurnews
PRESIDENT cannot overturn the decision of the HOUSE unless he comply with the consitution and show just reason which he has not done.
Former Member
Originally Posted by KishanB:
Originally Posted by Conscience:
The National Assembly cannot overturn a decision of the President, and therefore the National Assembly cannot move a motion of no-confidence over an action which is made in the name of the President. As such, I respectfully submit that so long as an action is directly authorized by the President, it cannot be the subject of a no-confidence motion.
The second element is that the motion must state the reason why the motion of no-confidence is being moved. Now there is no need for a justifiable reason. Any reason can be given, but a reason must be provided. A mere resolve clause cannot constitute a motion of no-confidence, because it would be deficient in an element necessary to create a binding obligation on the part of the government to resign. Without a basis, a motion merely expressing lack of confidence in the government becomes an ordinary motion. It will not be binding on the government and will not trigger a constitutionally-imposed resignation of the government.
I believe APNU was trying to indicate this all along to the AFC. APNU was saying all along that all it saw was a resolve clause. And there are now reports in the media indicating that a motion submitted to the Clerk of the National Assembly by the AFC merely has a resolve clause and not any âwhereasâ clauses.
It is hard to see any Speaker allowing a resolve clause alone to be debated in the National Assembly. Such a motion would be deficient. If, however, such a motion is allowed to be debated and passed, the PPPC is likely to launch a judicial challenge, as is within its right to do, and will most likely succeed in having the Court deem that a mere resolve clause cannot trigger a constitutionally mandated resignation of the government.
It makes a mockery of the National Assembly and the democratic process for any political party to table a motion with a mere resolve clause. What is the National Assembly being reduced to? Is it being reduced to a mere instrument to trigger the resignation of the government?
The National Assembly is supposed to be a place for debate and discussion. This is the basis upon which decisions are arrived at.
The National Assembly is not a place for the making of unilateral decisions? As such, how can the National Assembly be asked to pass a motion without debate, and how can there be a debate on a mere resolve clause? How can any Speaker be asked to approve for debate a mere resolve clause? About what will the members of the National Assembly be debating?
Any motion that has a resolve clause and no âwhereas clausesâ cannot form the basis of a valid motion.
excerpts from the kaieteurnews
PRESIDENT cannot overturn the decision of the HOUSE unless he comply with the consitution and show just reason which he has not done.
Bhai Kish, leh abie check the Forbes constitution. Someting deh inside seh de man can ovaturn de "no kanfidence moshan".
Former Member
Originally Posted by skeldon_man:
Originally Posted by KishanB:
Originally Posted by Conscience:
The National Assembly cannot overturn a decision of the President, and therefore the National Assembly cannot move a motion of no-confidence over an action which is made in the name of the President. As such, I respectfully submit that so long as an action is directly authorized by the President, it cannot be the subject of a no-confidence motion.
The second element is that the motion must state the reason why the motion of no-confidence is being moved. Now there is no need for a justifiable reason. Any reason can be given, but a reason must be provided. A mere resolve clause cannot constitute a motion of no-confidence, because it would be deficient in an element necessary to create a binding obligation on the part of the government to resign. Without a basis, a motion merely expressing lack of confidence in the government becomes an ordinary motion. It will not be binding on the government and will not trigger a constitutionally-imposed resignation of the government.
I believe APNU was trying to indicate this all along to the AFC. APNU was saying all along that all it saw was a resolve clause. And there are now reports in the media indicating that a motion submitted to the Clerk of the National Assembly by the AFC merely has a resolve clause and not any âwhereasâ clauses.
It is hard to see any Speaker allowing a resolve clause alone to be debated in the National Assembly. Such a motion would be deficient. If, however, such a motion is allowed to be debated and passed, the PPPC is likely to launch a judicial challenge, as is within its right to do, and will most likely succeed in having the Court deem that a mere resolve clause cannot trigger a constitutionally mandated resignation of the government.
It makes a mockery of the National Assembly and the democratic process for any political party to table a motion with a mere resolve clause. What is the National Assembly being reduced to? Is it being reduced to a mere instrument to trigger the resignation of the government?
The National Assembly is supposed to be a place for debate and discussion. This is the basis upon which decisions are arrived at.
The National Assembly is not a place for the making of unilateral decisions? As such, how can the National Assembly be asked to pass a motion without debate, and how can there be a debate on a mere resolve clause? How can any Speaker be asked to approve for debate a mere resolve clause? About what will the members of the National Assembly be debating?
Any motion that has a resolve clause and no âwhereas clausesâ cannot form the basis of a valid motion.
excerpts from the kaieteurnews
PRESIDENT cannot overturn the decision of the HOUSE unless he comply with the consitution and show just reason which he has not done.
Bhai Kish, leh abie check the Forbes constitution. Someting deh inside seh de man can ovaturn de "no kanfidence moshan".
Let him try and see if we nah have BUNJAL DUCK fuh CHRISTMAS.
Let us see if DANALD got balls more than balanjee.
Add Reply
Sign In To Reply
274 online (0 members
/
274 guests)