Law and Justice

Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

The Constitution – Love It, or Leave

It’s not a secret! The President himself said it loud and clear on just about every media outlet – and he didn’t hold back. He said “if we don’t pass this health bill, America will be bankrupt”. In my view, the question is what has a health bill got to do with the solvency of our treasury?

Here is my ‘take’ on this deal:

• This administration has completely blown our national bank account, and with our creditors pounding on the door of the treasury for their interest payment, there is an urgent need for cash. That’s where you and I come in, because we are the only source of income to remedy this sorry situation, ergo…

• Create a ‘cash cow’ that will generate huge amounts of revenue, but disguise it as a desperately-needed service to the American people, something both valuable and necessary, such as health care. Ah, yes… health care – or to be more precise, socialized health care, the veritable ‘Holy Grail’ of the Democratic Party for nigh on a hundred years.

• Next, load up the ‘Cash Cow Bill’ with everything under the sun, making sure to get all the votes necessary to execute the scam, even to the point of buying off dissident members of the Congress with disgracefully blatant and specific bribes. Finally – and most important of all – delay the promised services for at least four years. That way, the Treasury will have income without having to provide the service, and – bingo! They’ve got cash-flow.

Upwards of 70% of us just plain and simply don’t want this ‘Health Care Reform’ bill, mainly because we can see right through it. The political tricks applied by Pelosi and Reed, the two main perpetrators of this fraud, have been shamelessly transparent – and that’s the only transparency that ‘We, The People’ have seen evidence of since Presidential Candidate Obama promised us total transparency in his Administration should he be elected. Well, he was elected, but we have yet to see any evidence of the transparency promised us. In fact, everything the President/his Administration have done on our supposed behalf has been largely partisan and done behind closed doors, and calls to investigate any/all irregularities have been stonewalled – which makes Congressman Joe Wilson (R) South Carolina’s accusation shouted out during the State of the Nation address “YOU LIE!” the stand-out understatement of this Congress.

This is not the CHANGE we were duped into believing would be our reward for putting Obama into office – this is business-as-usual, stinks-like-a-dead-fish, corrupt Chicago politics! Unfortunately, just enough of us bought the snake-oil that put into motion the ‘change’ that would lead us down the garden path to America’s ruin.

Make no mistake, we needed ‘change’ – but change for the better, not worse. The promise seen by the majority of the electorate in this charismatic Senator from Chicago turned out to be as disappointing as the revelation to the female fans of the movie star ‘hunk’ Rock Hudson that he was anything but what he seemed, and that he was, in fact, gay!

This president is not so much phony as incompetent. We, and most of the rest of the Free World, were sold the proverbial ‘bill of goods’. We bought a lemon, a charismatic community organizer, when what we needed was a Reaganesque statesman, not just another ordinary politician who cries ‘wine’ and sells vinegar… a truly non-partisan reconciler, not a profoundly ideological polarizer… a noble peacemaker, not a global appeaser… a President, not a pretender at the helm of our storm-tossed Ship of State.

Instead of action we are given reaction – and, on the world stage, that can be fatal, especially when partnered with inexperience. Lawyers aren’t the only sharks in the global seas – the ‘Great White’ varieties of certain world leaders have such small fry as lawyers for lunch! The world stage should not be perceived as nothing more than just a larger community to organize – the dynamics of an American inner-city community aren’t comparable to the dynamics of the world’s community of diverse nations.

In the game of football, leaders always want the ball because they see opportunity to move the team forward, but this stagnant three-and-out, leaving everything up to the punter is not the foundation of a winning team. Obama came onto the world stage as an unknown – a political rookie who seems to have lacked even the basic wisdom that you only get one chance to make a first impression. As the ‘new kid on the block’, he failed to impress his peers. His tele-prompter served him well on his home field, though his inordinate dependence on it soon began to be seen as a substitute for sincerity, a pre-programmed inability to speak from his heart. Abroad, under very close scrutiny, he was largely deemed ‘an empty suit’. He has failed to impress even the lowliest of the world leaders, and through that failure, he has embarrassed and degraded his country.

We are fast becoming a ranking member of the Third World-economy class, dependent on the forbearance and benevolence of others – China, for instance. A major problem for us is that this Administration steadfastly disavows any and all responsibility for our National state of affairs, repeatedly pointing the finger of blame at their predecessors, the dastardly Bush Administration. This puerile ‘pass the buck’ leadership style is wearing mighty thin, and no doubt has legendary Democrat President Harry ‘The Buck Stops Here’ Truman spinning in his grave.

While there may be enough meat left on that carcass to make a weak broth, it falls well short of making a hearty soup. For one thing – the main thing – didn’t the Democrats take command and control of the Congress in the 2006 elections? Didn’t that put the responsibility of government squarely in the laps of the Democrats a full two years before this Obama travesty?

Forgive me my confusion – and please correct me if I’m wrong – but I was of the belief that the President has no power over the National purse-strings without the majority consent of the Congress, due to the ‘checks and balances’ aspect of our government which was designed to keep us from falling into the clutches of a king or similar dictator. If that is, indeed, the case, I submit for consideration the argument that the Democratic Party, by dint of an independent majority, controlled both the Senate and the House of Representatives, rendering the Bush Presidency a so-called ‘lame duck’ Administration. Thus, how can we accept that the Bush Administration is entirely responsible for the entirety of this catastrophic mess we are currently experiencing? I would freely wager that a majority of Americans would count themselves fortunate if our current deficit was ‘only’ as much as it was when Bush left office!

In Obama’s case, I would paraphrase Presidential Candidate Bill Clinton’s campaign catch-phrase ‘It’s the economy, stupid!’ to ‘It’s the SPENDING, stupid!’ At this rate, we soon won’t even be able to afford the Poorhouse – what then, Dickensian debtors’ prisons? (Is that what the ‘concentration camps’ standing ready in numerous locations across the country are for? If not, then what is their intended purpose?) If Obama is so keen to redistribute the wealth, why doesn’t he mandate that ALL over-paid government employees share their wealth with the beleaguered taxpayer? Maybe he should launch an ‘adopt-a-taxpayer’ relief fund amongst the ‘fat cats’ he so reviles (with the exception of his pet ‘fat cat’ campaign contributors). Why did the already ridiculously well-paid government employees just receive a raise when seniors received NOTHING?

Cowards and charlatans blame others for their mistakes – leaders accept responsibility for any and all shortfalls, both their own and others under their control. At least, that was the standard during my military career. In my experience, those who embraced those responsibilities were the true and trusted leaders. I saluted them then, and I salute them now.

My conclusion is that we, as the citizens of this nation, are in serious trouble. Our government is rapidly growing out of control, ever expanding into a nationalized carbon-copy of Socialist Europe, financed against our will by our hard-earned tax dollars.

This is a blatant contravention of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If this Republic is to survive – and I submit to you that it must – We, the People are duty-bound to rescue it. If this Republic means anything to you, your children, their future progeny – and, most importantly, to the trust imposed on us by those who fought, bled and died for it throughout our history, and who, with their blood obliged us to do the same for those yet unborn – we must act, NOW!

Now is the time!

Already, this government has gone too far: they have shown contempt for our reasoned protests and admonitions. They have cast aside, with utter disdain, their oath of office, destroying any trust due them from us. They are, in effect, traitors to our core beliefs and to the principles of our Founding Fathers, by which we prefer to live.

Veterans are any country’s truest patriots, their hearts forged in the furnace of combat and sacrifice, and we stand firmly on the side of our country’s proud past, on the shoulders of those Heroes of the Revolution who so courageously took a stand against the tyranny of their time. Now, we must answer the call to stand against the tyranny of our time. We trust that our beloved military will stand with us, for they share their solemn oath of service and love of the country for which they still fight and bleed, prepared to give ‘the last full measure of devotion’ in order to protect and preserve our core beliefs and the principles of our Founding Fathers.

We must use the tools entrusted to us by the creators of this venerable Republic – the advice so carefully scripted for us as a legal means to remove these traitors from office.

It is an imperative to register all who wish to be members of The Militia of The Several States, so as to be ready to respond to any emergency – defined as ‘a serious, unexpected, and potentially dangerous situation requiring immediate action’.

An emergency can manifest itself in many forms or occasions, thus it is prudent to be prepared and willing to serve in whatever capacity the situation requires. We are all under oath to do no less. Each of us, at some point in our lives; have taken an oath to protect our flag, our county and our people, and our integrity demands that we live up to that promise.

It is time to fulfill our obligation to protect this Republic from its enemies, both foreign and domestic. It is time to reinvigorate the tenets of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We have no stomach for confrontation for the sake of a difference of opinion. However, we do have a responsibility to invest whatever is necessary into removing from office all who perpetrate through the Congress’ unlawful practices, and make it answerable to the accusation of tyranny.

You are a militia – all able-bodied American over the age of seventeen years are. The only way a single voice can be heard is through a respectable membership who are all of one mind, and when they speak, it is with one, mighty voice.

Therefore, we must register our names in the same way that we would sign a petition expressing a strong opinion urging legislative redress, and when we achieve sufficient numbers we must ROAR our discontent – demanding that Congress either cease and desist its unlawful practices forthwith, or face physical removal from office by a lawful militia.

Please pursue this further by going to www.voluntarymilitia.com discover your commitment to a constitutional lawful government.

David Brown is the Publisher and Editor in Chief of The Veterans Journal, a ‘free’ on line weekly advocate for the veteran community. The veterans journal selects pertinent information that will educate and inform the veteran community in the support of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Veterans Journal originated in 1999, first as a printed news journal which evolved into an on line publication in 2002.

By David Brown

AD 890 The Anglo Saxon Chronicles.

Originally compiled on the orders of King Alfred the Great, approximately A.D. 890, and subsequently maintained and added to by generations of anonymous scribes until the middle of the 12th Century. The original language is Anglo-Saxon (Old English), but later entries are essentially Middle English in tone.

AD 1086: The Domesday Book

Domesday is Englands most famous and earliest surviving public record. It is a highly detailed survey and valuation of all the land held by the King and his chief tenants, along with all the resources that went with the land in late 11th century England. The survey was a massive enterprise, and the record of that survey, Domesday Book, was a remarkable achievement. There is nothing like it in England until the censuses of the 19th century.

1215: Magna Carta

The ‘great charter’ is most famous for consolidating judicial rights, notably habeas corpus, the right not to be unlawfully imprisoned. However, it was also an important first step in removing power from the central authority – King John – and spreading it wider.

Its 61st clause, known as the Security Clause, declared that a council of 25 barons be created with the power to overrule the will of the King, by force if necessary.

This was repealed angrily by the King shortly afterwards, and mediaeval rulers largely ignored the document altogether, but it became an early foundation of England’s – and later the United Kingdom’s – unwritten constitution.Please click here for the full translated edition of the Magna Carta:

1376: The first Speaker of the House of Commons is appointed
An English Parliament had existed since late in the 13th century, and had been divided into two houses since 1341, with knights and burgesses sitting in what became known as the House of Commons while clergy and nobility sat in the House of Lords. However, its duties largely consisted of ratifying taxes for the Crown. In 1376, Thomas de la Mare was appointed to go to the King with complaints about taxation, and the Commons for the first time impeached some of the King’s ministers. While de la Mare was imprisoned for his actions, the House created the position of Speaker to represent the Commons permanently. Above is Betty Boothroyd, the Speaker from 1992 to 2000.

English Petition of Right in 1628 Parliament passed the Petition of Right in 1628 in response to a number of perceived violations of the law by Charles I in the first years of his reign. In 1626, Charles had convened Parliament in an effort to obtain desperately needed funds for the continuation of his unsuccessful war with Spain. Unhappy with the prosecution of the war, however, Parliament swiftly began impeachment proceedings against Charles’ favorite and principal counselor, the Duke of Buckingham. In order to protect Buckingham, Charles was forced to dissolve Parliament before it had voted any subsidies. Left without recourse to parliamentary taxation, Charles resorted to two forms of extra-parliamentary taxation to raise the funds he needed – a benevolence and a Forced Loan – that were of doubtful legality at best. He also began to billet soldiers in civilian homes, both as a cost-saving measure and as a means of punishing his political opponents.

Citing the Forced Loan’s illegality, a number of gentlemen refused to pay, and many of them were imprisoned as a result. Ultimately, five of the imprisoned gentlemen – the so-called “Five Knights” (since they were all knights) petitioned the Court of Kings Bench for writs of habeas corpus to force the government to specify the reason for their imprisonment. Seeking to avoid a direct challenge of the legality of the Loan, Charles refused to charge the prisoners with a specific crime, instead declaring on the return to the writs that the knights were detained “per speciale mandatum domini regis” (“by special command of our lord the king”). In the resulting hearings before the King’s Bench – the famous Five Knights case – counsel for the Knights argued that imprisonment by “special command” amounted to a fundamental violation of the principle of due process established by chapter twenty-nine of Magna Carta, which declared that imprisonment could only occur in accordance with the law of the land. The Five Knights’ counsel claimed, therefore, that the king, upon receipt of a writ of habeas corpus, must return a specific cause of detention, the legality of which could be assessed by the courts. In contrast,Robert heath, the Attorney General, claimed that the king had a prerogative right to imprison by royal command for reasons of state, and these detentions could not be challenged by habeas corpus.

Faced with conflicting precedents, and, undoubtedly, political pressure, the Court decided to remit the Knights to prison while taking the case under advisement. Although equivocal, this decision was taken as a major victory for the king, and a significant blow to the opponents of his extra-legal policies. It was largely a desire to overturn immediately this ruling that would provide the primary impetus for the House of Commons decision to create the Petition of Right in the subsequent Parliament.

The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 is an Act of the Parliament of England passed during the reign of King Charles 11 to define and strengthen the ancient prerogative writ of habeas corpus, whereby persons unlawfully detained cannot be ordered to be prosecuted before a court of law.

The Act is often wrongly described as the origin of the writ of habeas corpus, which had existed for at least three centuries before. The Act of 1679 followed an earlier act of 1640 which established that the command of the King or the Privvy Council was no answer to a petition of habeas corpus. Further Habeas Corpus Acts were passed by the British Parliament in 1803, 1804, 1816 and 1862, but it is the Act of 1679 which is remembered as one of the most important statutes in English constitutional history. Though amended, it remains on the statute book to this day.

The Act came about because the Earl of Shaftsbury encouraged his friends in the Commons to introduce the Bill where it passed and was then sent up the Lords. Shaftesbury was the leading Exclusionist—those who wanted to exclude Charles II’s brother James, Duke of York from the succession—and the Bill was a part of that struggle as they believed James would rule arbitrarily. The Lords decided to add many wrecking amendments to the Bill in an attempt to kill it; the Commons had no choice but to pass the Bill with the Lords’ amendments because they learned that the King would soon end the current parliamentary session.

The Bill went back and forth between the two house, and then the Lords voted on whether to set up a conference on the Bill. If this motion was defeated the Bill would stay in the Commons and therefore have no chance of being passed. Each side—those voting for and against—appointed a teller who stood on each side of the door through which those Lords who had voted “aye” re-entered the House (the “nays” remained seated). One teller would count them aloud whilst the other teller listened and kept watch in order to know if the other teller was telling the truth. Shaftesbury’s faction had voted for the motion, so they went out and re-entered the House. Gilbert Burnet, one of Shaftesbury’s friends, recorded what then happened:

Lord Grey and Lord Norris were named to be the tellers: Lord Norris, being a man subject to vapours, was not at all times attentive to what he was doing: so, a very fat lord coming in, Lord Grey counted him as ten, as a jest at first: but seeing Lord Norris had not observed it, he went on with this misreckoning of ten: so it was reported that they that were for the Bill were in the majority, though indeed it went for the other side: and by this means the Bill passed.

The clerk recorded in the minutes of the Lords that the “ayes” had fifty-seven and the “nays” had fifty-five, a total of 112, but the same minutes also state that only 107 Lords had attended that sitting.

The King arrived shortly thereafter and gave Royal Assent before proroguing Parliament. The Act is now stored in the Parliamentary Archives.

1688: The Great Revolution
The Civil War a few years before had removed the monarchy, and then reinstated it in a weakened form, setting the stage for the attenuated ‘constitutional monarchy’ that we have today. But it was the arrival of William of Orange from Holland to take the throne from James II which led to the creation of the Bill of Rights, constitutionally preventing absolute rule by the Kings and Queens of Great Britain to this day, and leaving Parliament as the true seat of power in the country.

The English Bill of Rights 1689 The Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament in December 1689. It was a re-statement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1688, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It enumerates certain rights to which subjects and permanent residents of a constitutional monarchy were thought to be entitled in the late 17th century, asserting subjects’ right to petition the monarch, as well as to have arms in defence. It also sets out—or, in the view of its drafters, restates—certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in parliament.

Along with the 1701 Act of Settlement the Bill of Rights is still in effect, one of the main constitutional laws governing the succession to the throne of the United kingdom and—followingBritish Colonialism, the resultant doctrine of reception, and independence—to the thrones of those other Commonwealth realms, by willing deference to the act as a British statute or as a patriated part of the particular realm’s constitution. Since the implementation of the statute of Statute of westminister in each of the Commonwealth realms (on successive dates from 1931 onwards) the Bill of Rights cannot be altered in any realm except by that realm’s own parliament, and then, by convention and as it touches on the succession to the shared throne, only with the consent of all the other realms.

In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British Constitution. A separate but similar document, the Claim of Right Act applies in Scotland. The English Bill of Rights 1689 inspired in large part the United States Bill of Rights.

4 July 1776 American Declaration of Independence The American Congress formally declares the separation of the thirteen colonies from Great Britain through the Declaration of Independence.
17 September 1787 Constitution of the United States The Constitution of the United States is signed and then ratified the following year. It establishes the system of federal government that begins to operate from 1789.
15 December 1791 American Bill of Rights Based on the English Bill of Rights – The American Bill of Rights is added to the U.S. Constitution as the first ten amendments.

1832: The Reform Act
Democracy of sorts had existed in England for centuries – as far back as 1432, Henry VI passed statues declaring who was eligible to vote (male owners of land worth at least 40 shillings, or a freehold property – perhaps half a million people nationwide). However, the counties and boroughs that sent Members to Parliament were of wildly differing size. The county of Yorkshire had more than 20,000 people, and the borough of Westminster had around 12,000, but they only sent one representative to the Commons – as did, for example, Dunwich, which had 32 voters, or Gatton, which had seven.

The Reform Act increased enfranchisement to over a million, or about one in six of all adult males, by allowing men who rented property above a certain value to vote too. It also tore up the mediaeval boundaries of counties and boroughs, giving more equitable representation for the cities that had sprung up since the Industrial Revolution. A second Act, in 1837, enfranchised all male householders, regardless of value.

1913: Emily Davison’s death
Campaigns for women’s suffrage go as far back as 1817, when the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote Plan of Parliamentary Reform in the form of a Catechism. William Thompson and Anna Wheeler also published a pamphlet in 1825 on the subject. However, despite these green shoots of support, the 1832 Act for the first time explicitly limited suffrage to “male persons”. It was not until 1861, when John Stuart Mill published The Subjection of Women, that the movement began to gain momentum.

In 1893, New Zealand became the first self-governing country to allow women to vote. In Britain, progress was slower, and in the early 20th century women took to direct and sometimes violent action; chaining themselves to railings, arson attacks, and even bombings. Many were imprisoned, and some went on hunger strike. Emily Davison died at the Epsom Derby in 1913, when she ran out in front of the King’s horse, Anmer, clutching the banner of the Women’s Social and Political Union. It was around this time that the originally derogatory word ‘suffragette’ was coined, in a Daily Mail article.

1918: The Representation of the People Act
World War I could not be said to have had many silver linings, but it gave British women – who had spent the last four years, in a country shorn of young men, keeping the war effort running in munition factories and farms – a newfound political confidence. The 1918 Act recognised that not only these women, but many soldiers who had supposedly fought for British democracy, were still unable to vote. It removed all property restrictions from male voters, and allowed women to vote for the first time – although not those under 30, and with property restrictions – and to stand for election. The first woman, Nancy Astor, was elected to Parliament just 18 months later, in Plymouth Sutton. Ten years later, the restrictions on women were lifted, allowing them to vote at 21 whether or not they held property.

10 December 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United Nations adopts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

1969: The Representation of the People Act
After one final loophole was closed in 1948 – weirdly, up until that point, some seven per cent of the electorate had two votes per person – voting in the United Kingdom reached essentially its modern state in 1969, when Harold Wilson’s government dropped the voting age for all citizens from 21 to 18. Further acts in 1983, 1985 and 2000 changed the laws on prisoners and overseas voters (essentially, convicted criminals may not vote while in prison; expatriates can still vote in their last constituency for 15 years after they left the country, and holidaymakers can vote by postal ballot or proxy). In 2000, a hoary constitutional prejudice against “lunatics” was weakened when psychiatric hospitals were allowed to be designated as registration addresses.

2 October 2000 British Human Rights Act  The British Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. This makes the European Convention on Human Rights enforceable in UK courts. ( As an Englishman this is one of the worst drafted Acts in the history of the British Constitution.)

The Thirteenth Amendment:

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, from 1865, abolished and continues to prohibit slavery in the United States. The African-American received legal freedom, but nothing more. The true revolution for them was only after 1954. The congress did not propose any decision for equal rights for blacks and whites

The Fourteenth Amendment:

The Fourteenth Amendment is an example for a radical republican legislation. The first section formally defines citizenship and requires the states to provide civil rights.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The amendment includes a section that prevents the election of any person to the Congress who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or treason. Another section confirmed that the United States would not pay “damages” for the loss of slaves, nor debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. Most of the south states, except Tennessee,  rejected the amendment, and they paid dearly later.

The Fifteenth Amendment:

The Fifteenth Amendment provides that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”.

This amendment was also intended against the south, that tried to prevent political rights from the blacks.

Thanks to jammer and broadcast monitoring and car rental in israel

Incoming search terms:

Why quest for a new constitution
may yet prove exercise in futility

By John Nyaosi

The seismic and nightmarish convulsions Kenya went through in January and February this year may probably have been avoided had Kenyans collectively a couple of years earlier acceded to the enactment of a new constitution. The post-election chaos that killed over 1,000 Kenyans and displaced 300,000 besides the setting aflame property with billions would never have happened if the country had a foolproof, time tested , solid mechanism for resolving the disputed presidential election.
Remember the explanation given by the aggrieved parties for not seeking recourse in the courts was that the wheels of justice were pitifully slow, and their impartiality ,rightly or wrongly, perceived as not being as beyond reproach as Ceasar’s wife. What with lawsuits and petitions contesting disputed constituency elections often lasting a whole parliamentary term thereby defeating the reason for petitioning poll results!

The conflagration came as a shock to many and when it lasted, it put Kenya on the same league as ‘failed states’ like Somalia and others where the general rule is survival of the fittest, ‘might is righ’ and law and order an alien thing. As we dithered on the brink even as the political protagonists Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga stood their grounds, the world watched with consternation, the orgy of violence flashed on the screens of world television networks including CNN. It was the intervention of the Africa’s eminent personalities led by former United Nation’s secretary-general Kofi Annan that managed to save the country from total annihilation by brokering a peace deal that saw the crafting of a Grand Coalition Government.

A darling of the west at Independence and at par with the so called tiger economies like Hong Kong and the rest, Kenya under Mzee Jomo Kenyatta was particulary in good books for choosing the mixed ecomomy model as opposed to Tanzania’s Socialism or Vijiji vya Ujamaa under Julius Kambarage Nyerere. Kenya which had set off well with high expectations on it development path was nevertheless sadly later to be beset by political rivalry that led to problems of governance, graft and accountability in running of state. affairs. From the Kenyatta era, through Daniel arap Moi’s autocratic era during which the one-party de facto state morphed into a de jure one party veritable dictatorship,and Kibaki’s first one term, the Independence constitution fared badly. Through amendments the Independence document was rendered a pale shadow of that bequeathed to us at independence.
To perpetuate themselves a leader will do anything. Despots like Marcia Nguema of Equitoral Geania, Jean Bedel Bokassa of Central African Republic , Mobutu Sese Seko wa Ngibendu of Zaire, Sani Abacha and the like just to mention, a few, trampled underfoot their countries’ constitutions and rode roughshod on largely docile citizens. Multiparty euphoria later emboldened citizens enough to challenge the tin gods. with demands for constitutional reforms.
As Niccol Machaivelli points out for any politician to guarantee success he or she must live by the dictum: The end justifies the means. You use any means-lies, cajoling , repression, blackmail , demagoguery, doublespeak and obfuscation, to achieve the end. Our politicians have at one time or the other been guilty of all or some of these vices. Machiavelli further counsels that the politician must besides have three important qualities viz: (a)Selfishness, (b) selfishness, and (c) selfishness. For them selfishness takes precedent over the common or national good. If destroying the Mau Catchment will endear a few voters to them , then so be it.
Ideally , a country’s constitution be one able to the see it overcome any crisis however shattering even including the demise of a leader in office. It should spell out to the finest detail how to handle a regime change , at it were , it has a list of dos and donts that safeguard the nation or national good. It should preferably be fail safe.
Even as far back as the monolithic Kenya African National Union .(Kanu ) days, now with hindsight the seeds of what befell Kenya early in the year are discernible.

Reintroduction of multipartyism through repeal of Section 2a of the constitution to allow for competitive politics, saw a proliferation of political parties make a vain bid to unseat Moi since 1992. It was only in 2002 after the opposition big guns united under National Rainbow Coaliiton (Narc) that they vanquished Moi’s Kanu.
It will be recalled that in the run-up to 2002 gereral election, the main contending parties had each promised a new constitution after 100 days in office. But when Narc took power although under its watch there was a spirited attempt to give the country a new constitution, the whole process was stillborn largely due to protracted wrangles on various issues including power Devolution at Bomas. .Then there were the Bomas Draft and Wako draft and even other quasi-official drafts. The most shocking thing was that although the opposing interest groups guzzled close to Shs 4 billion on debates, arguments and counter arguments they couldn’t agree on various issues. Even when it emerged that they were in agreement on 80 per cent of the constitution, vested interests , selfishness, bigotry, sheer greed denied the country a new constitution fours years down the line even when the matter was subjected to a referendum that the government side lost miserably. Disgruntled elements ensured they threw a spanner into the works every time the nation appeared closer to a breakthrough.
It is often said that a people get the type of government they deserve. In other words the pathetic plight of Kenya’s hoi polloi, the poorest of the poor who make up a majority of the 36 million Kenyans-and who live on less than one dollar a day and sometimes nothing- are culpable in some way for the cadre of leaders running the country at any given time as they chose them. So as they groan under the weight of a 26.5 inflation rate, food scarcity and unemployment , they should know they are as much are responsible for the status quo. Through the ballot they picked the pampered Members of Parliament who can afford Shs 3.3 m loans for Prados, and other sleek limousines even as large sections of the country’s citizenry sleep on empty stomachs, have no health insurance, and no tap water and other fairly basic needs like schools and good motorable tracks to transport farm produce. During the Bomas meetings, delegates most of them sitting MPs conspired to shoot down the recall clause that would have ensured that MPs are kept on their toes by the electorate. Granted, the recall clause may be misused by mischievous busy bodies to unnecessarily harass an elected representative, but by and large it is a useful recourse tool for a neglected constituency and can be used to eject those politicians who only go to their constituencies on election day and return their only after the five-year term.
Currently there is worrying talk to the effect that the one year timeframe for the Grand Coalition Government to deliver a new constitution is not enough. One hopes that perusal of the Waki and Kriegler reports will sober up our politicians to see the need for a new constitution before the 2012 general election. Let all patriotic leaders eschew parochial and narrow considerations to fast-track the quest for a new constitution

For as long as we are blinded by bigotry, chauvinistic tendencies to sacrifice the motherland’s national interest in favour of the selfish narrow considerations of clan , tribe or region , so long will we grope in the dark in search of a panacea that will heal the tattered and wounded national fabric.

Incoming search terms:

                                       Indian Constitution – A Bold Experiment

 Our constitution is not a novel formation of the constituent assembly, the various parts of the constitution has been derived from the working constitutions of other nations. As we know the fundamental rights enshrined in Part 3 and our federal structure of governance with a strong centralizing tendency has been taken from the American Constitution. The fundamental duties from the Irish Constitution and the parliamentary system of democracy with an independent judiciary from the England. We have been fortunate enough that our founding fathers took the initiative to inculcate such essential freedoms and form of governance in the most sacred law of the land, without which perhaps we would have resorted to an autocratic form of government akin to the British rule in India. Our forefathers had given us the tools that were essential for building a nation that had been ravished by the scourge of multi-ethnic wars and colonialism for decades, but in my respectful submission the moot question which they possibly did not envisage was whether our diverse cultures coupled with the burden of illiteracy would be able to handle these tools effectively. Sixty years down the line we might say that our democracy is the largest in the world and has been a grand success, but if we look minutely we can find that it is working mechanically. When we look into the majority flooding our constituent assembly we can see power hungry ministers who hardly have any concern for the masses.

If we go back to history we can find a possible answer as to why we have such a gloomy situation in our country. The ideologies of democracy, federalism and fundamental rights have been taken from the Western world, where people have attained there rights through struggle. The French Revolution of 1789 resulted in the: La Déclaration des droits de l’Homme et du citoyen) which is one of the fundamental documents of the French Revolution, defining a set of individual rights and collective rights of all of the estates as one. Influenced by the doctrine of natural rights, these rights are universal: they are supposed to be valid in all times and places, pertaining to human nature itself. We can also draw inspiration from the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 which came after 8 long years of war and it declared that “…..We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” These monumental documents arose out of an unprecedented social and political struggle.

We did recognize these rights in our constitution but our illiterate masses remained oblivious to its true meaning as they were far away from these ideologies as they struggled for their basic necessities; which were further enhanced in the aftermath to the creation of two separate countries after independence when millions were left homeless and thousands were massacred. We still have people who are unaware of their own basic rights. Our founding fathers had borrowed these principles from the Western society and had imported and transplanted them on our backward, semi-feudal society. Consequently our constitution and our society do not correspond with each other the former being modern while the later being backward. The belief that by merely importing and transplanting a modern Constitution on a backward society will result in our society quickly becoming modern has proved to be a mistake. We have still today a lot of casteism and communalism in our society.

At the same time it cannot be said that the Indian constitution is merely a paper document, by setting up modern ideals the Constitution is pulling society forward the goals of creating a modern society. No doubt that it has not done so automatically merely by its promulgation but it has reduced the pain, agony and duration which Western societies had to go through during the period of their transition from feudal agricultural society to modern industrial society. This transitional period is a very painful period and its is only after going through this fire that a transformation can be brought about

India is presently passing through this fire. We need to first bring our society and its attitude at par with the modern world, free from all the bias and inequality; after all the constitution is for the people, of the people and by the people of this nation .Our constitution makers had indeed made a bold experiment when they created the constitution in the backdrop of the society which prevails in our country.  However the Constitution if implemented in its true spirit, will be a boon to us, it is up to us to give it teeth and make the dream of our founding fathers a reality.

Baseball may be America’s favorite pastime, but liberals have a favorite pastime of their own; stretching and warping the Constitution. They’ve been at it so long that it has become a sport which they excel at and one at which daily practice is strongly encouraged, if not already mandated, for any aspiring leftist.

Of course, they only succeed in this pursuit when discussing the Constitution amongst themselves. When they journey out into the real world they run into people like myself who have spent a lot of time discussing how they distort and down right lie about what is in the document that established our current government. When they try to engage in their favorite sport with normal Americans who are not willfully blind as to what the Constitution says and have a grasp of the English language beyond that of a first grader, they fail miserably with their spin which always leads to interesting, if not ignorant, slogans, rants and shout-fests.

Rep. John “Cut and Run” Murtha may just be finding out that he and his liberal brethren have stretched the Constitution as far as the Constitution is willing to stretch even with a healthy suspension of logic, history and basic English however. Last week, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ordered Rep. Murtha to give a sworn deposition in the case brought against him by Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich relating to his unwise, ignorant and self-serving comments about the marines in Haditha participating in “cold-blooded murder and war crimes”. It is important to note that the case against these Marines has fallen apart.

Murtha’s defense, which was rejected so far by the judge, was that Murtha was immune from prosecution and even questioning about the incident because those comments were made while acting in his official role as a United States Representative. This is an apparent reference to Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution and his “interpretation” of what it says which might get by people unable to actually read the Constitution. But since I actually can, it isn’t going to fly with me and apparently not with the judge either.

For the record, Article I, Section 6 states in it’s entirety: “The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

The long and the short of this section is that if you are an elected representative of the United States in either house of Congress you cannot be arrested while the Congress is in session, nor can you be arrested while traveling to or from said session. It also grants immunity from prosecution for any “speech” or “debate” that takes place on the floor by saying that they “shall not be questioned in any other Place”. Which would include a court of law. The exceptions to this are of course given as when the Representative or Senator commits a Felony, Treason or “Breach of the Peace”.

Notice there is no exemption for acting in your “official role” beyond these limited descriptions. It is important to note at this time that John “Our Troops Are Murderers” Murtha made the statements with regards to our soldiers and promulgated his charges at places other than during a “speech” or “debate” in the House such as at press conferences and on Chris Matthew’s television program.

So is he immune? Should he not be questioned? Should he just be free to continue to make these assertions? Not unless you really, really stretch the meaning of the Constitution and read between the lines by inserting language that isn’t there. Making such statements during Speeches and Debates in the House may be deplorable and anti-American in as much that they were made without evidence and to prejudice the case against the Marines to promote John Murtha’s delusions, but his despicable acts would be protected. However once he steps out of the Halls of Congress he has no more protection.

He is not being arrested either. This is a civil suit, not a criminal matter. So again, Article I, Section 6 does not apply. Now, if he refuses the order to comply he could be faced with an arrestable offense such as contempt of court. In such a case, he had better convince the House to remain in permanent session and always be in a constant state of travel to and from the Capitol when it is to avoid arrest.

You could also make a strong case that his words provided aid and comfort to the enemy since the Haditha incident was used by our enemies against America and freedom seeking Iraqis. And since Treason is a clear exemption to this clause as well as the first amendment I certainly would be looking over my shoulder if I were Mr. Murtha.

But it’s just the Constitution. Right? And since when do liberals actually care about what the Constitution actually says? Since when do Congressmen care that their power is not unlimited? So I am sure that John “Where’s My White Flag?” Murtha will continue to whine and twist and squirm in an attempt to avoid the truth.

All the while his fellow members of Congress can continue to their smoke screen to cover their own failures. They can run cover for him and promulgate abuses of their power by waging a dog and pony show over things Rush Limbaugh didn’t even say with regards to our troops who are serving bravely over in Iraq and slamming General Patraeus and calling our troops NAZIs, stupid and anything else that they can think of. All for what? In order to try and further convince moonbats who naively believe that the troops really do agree with their stance on the war? Despite the fact that they are continually signing up and even re-upping to serve in a time of war for a mission the liberals detest so much?

Perhaps we are finally getting to a point where the Constitution has been stretched as far as it can be by the left to support their ideas and goals. But even if it has, I doubt they will stop trying to stretch it even further. At which point it is only a matter of whether it will snap back like a rubber band and leave a massive welt or completely break.

God help us if it is that latter

We should have a review of our Constitution.

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate,

Formerly employment Officer P.E.S. II.

E.Mail. dalipsinghwassan @ Yahoo Co.In.

We must accept that our Constitution had accepted all good items available in Constitutions of other countries and therefore, it is a comperhensive document and shall be guiding us for all the times to come. We have been conducting review and there had been some amendments in this Constitution. Still we need more amendments because uptil now we could not provide that only competent people should come forward in the houses. We could not provide maximum age uptil which they shall be in the houses. It would have been better if people who are more than 70 years age should not be present in the house and we should have abolished all the state level legislative assemblies because one Parliament is enough to represnt us. We are one country and we have got one types of our problems and the situations and conditions are also the same. We have got one nation and when we have a deep look, all the provinces have created so many problems for us. These units have given birth to religious and regional political parties and now these parties are taking more than due place in the centre too. Had there been one Parliament in this country, there were chances that there could have been two to three political parties there were chances that these parties would have taken competent people in them. All and sundary would not have been allowed to enter these two to three parties and there were chances that these parties would have adopted the path of giving us shadow cabinets and we, the people of India would have been given a chance to elect ministers direct. The present system of appointing ministers by the Prime Minister is not healthy because here we are obliged to appoint ministers as their share in the government and merit is no consideration. That is the reason there is no unity in the cabinet and they just work. Since ministers are not appointed on the basis of merits, they are not in a position to hold charge of people working under them. Rather they work under the bureaucracy and in most of the cases orders are passed by the bureaucracy and signed by the ministers. Such government cannot be called a

democracy.

We should think of establishing one Public Service Commission for the whole country and similarly there should be Subordinate Services Selection Board for whole of the country. We should see that the Employment Exchanges are also allowed to function and if candidates appointed through these agencies are found fit their services should be regularised without rooting them thrrough the Subordinate Service Selection Boards. Recruitment to all offices should be made through these agencies and even establishments in private sectors be invited to utilise the services of these organisations. We should not disturb and put into difficulties our unemployed people and they should be tested once and given job as per their performance in the competitive test.

We should abolish all schools and colleges which are estrablished on religious basis and there should be educational institutions as national institutions and none should be allowed to preach his own religion through these institutions. We should limit the religious institutions in the country their numbers be fixed by the state and the state must have an eye on these institution so that they may not be giving birth to fundamentalists who can cause danger to our unity and integrity.

We should have one law for the whole of India so that the people must be in a position to understand law and they also start believing that people of one part are not better placed. Whole of India must be open to all of us and none of the state be allowed to see that people of its own area are getting jobs under the state and people from other states are not allowed to participate in competitions.

We should ensure that each one of us has got proper education, proper training and proper adjustment at work from where each one is carrying adequate income with which he is able to run his family administration. We are more than 100 crore in number and therefore, we need a working force of about 40,00,00,000 and if such an assessment is carried out, we shall be short of workers. There had been some defect in our plannings that we could not develop such a structure in which each one of us should have been at work and none should have been dependant upon others.

We may allow to the people religious libirty, but time has come when we shall have to see that people who are living on charity should not be allowed to increase in number. even to day this number is on higher side and we must try to see that no one is allowed to live on charity alone and everyone should be at work because when a nation has got a large number of people living on charity, more and more people shall be joining this line and thus burdon on working people is increased and this is not a healthy sign. We should have an introspection and must see that this number is decreased.

We should see that people of one religion should not be allowed to concentrate on one place. They must be asked to disperse and locate themselves amongst people of other religions because people of one religion are located at one place, they start demanding something which our Constitution dies notallow. We should have one common civil code in which system of marriage and divorce should be one and similarly we should be having one succession law with us. We should see that the family should be bound to look after the infirm and old people and every child must get proper education and proper training. The nation must look after the child through his or her parents, but none of them should be allowed to go astray.

Till we have one spirit, we shall never become a nation and till we attain the status of a nation all these terrorism and riots shall be hampering our progress and we shall remain a backward country. Therefore, we should see that each one of us must get all these fundamental rightws automatically and is not is compelled to fight for these rights in Courts.

—————————-

We should have a review of our Constitution.

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate,

Formerly employment Officer P.E.S. II.

E.Mail. dalipsinghwassan @ Yahoo Co.In.

We must accept that our Constitution had accepted all good items available in Constitutions of other countries and therefore, it is a comperhensive document and shall be guiding us for all the times to come. We have been conducting review and there had been some amendments in this Constitution. Still we need more amendments because uptil now we could not provide that only competent people should come forward in the houses. We could not provide maximum age uptil which they shall be in the houses. It would have been better if people who are more than 70 years age should not be present in the house and we should have abolished all the state level legislative assemblies because one Parliament is enough to represnt us. We are one country and we have got one types of our problems and the situations and conditions are also the same. We have got one nation and when we have a deep look, all the provinces have created so many problems for us. These units have given birth to religious and regional political parties and now these parties are taking more than due place in the centre too. Had there been one Parliament in this country, there were chances that there could have been two to three political parties there were chances that these parties would have taken competent people in them. All and sundary would not have been allowed to enter these two to three parties and there were chances that these parties would have adopted the path of giving us shadow cabinets and we, the people of India would have been given a chance to elect ministers direct. The present system of appointing ministers by the Prime Minister is not healthy because here we are obliged to appoint ministers as their share in the government and merit is no consideration. That is the reason there is no unity in the cabinet and they just work. Since ministers are not appointed on the basis of merits, they are not in a position to hold charge of people working under them. Rather they work under the bureaucracy and in most of the cases orders are passed by the bureaucracy and signed by the ministers. Such government cannot be called a

democracy.

We should think of establishing one Public Service Commission for the whole country and similarly there should be Subordinate Services Selection Board for whole of the country. We should see that the Employment Exchanges are also allowed to function and if candidates appointed through these agencies are found fit their services should be regularised without rooting them thrrough the Subordinate Service Selection Boards. Recruitment to all offices should be made through these agencies and even establishments in private sectors be invited to utilise the services of these organisations. We should not disturb and put into difficulties our unemployed people and they should be tested once and given job as per their performance in the competitive test.

We should abolish all schools and colleges which are estrablished on religious basis and there should be educational institutions as national institutions and none should be allowed to preach his own religion through these institutions. We should limit the religious institutions in the country their numbers be fixed by the state and the state must have an eye on these institution so that they may not be giving birth to fundamentalists who can cause danger to our unity and integrity.

We should have one law for the whole of India so that the people must be in a position to understand law and they also start believing that people of one part are not better placed. Whole of India must be open to all of us and none of the state be allowed to see that people of its own area are getting jobs under the state and people from other states are not allowed to participate in competitions.

We should ensure that each one of us has got proper education, proper training and proper adjustment at work from where each one is carrying adequate income with which he is able to run his family administration. We are more than 100 crore in number and therefore, we need a working force of about 40,00,00,000 and if such an assessment is carried out, we shall be short of workers. There had been some defect in our plannings that we could not develop such a structure in which each one of us should have been at work and none should have been dependant upon others.

We may allow to the people religious libirty, but time has come when we shall have to see that people who are living on charity should not be allowed to increase in number. even to day this number is on higher side and we must try to see that no one is allowed to live on charity alone and everyone should be at work because when a nation has got a large number of people living on charity, more and more people shall be joining this line and thus burdon on working people is increased and this is not a healthy sign. We should have an introspection and must see that this number is decreased.

We should see that people of one religion should not be allowed to concentrate on one place. They must be asked to disperse and locate themselves amongst people of other religions because people of one religion are located at one place, they start demanding something which our Constitution dies notallow. We should have one common civil code in which system of marriage and divorce should be one and similarly we should be having one succession law with us. We should see that the family should be bound to look after the infirm and old people and every child must get proper education and proper training. The nation must look after the child through his or her parents, but none of them should be allowed to go astray.

Till we have one spirit, we shall never become a nation and till we attain the status of a nation all these terrorism and riots shall be hampering our progress and we shall remain a backward country. Therefore, we should see that each one of us must get all these fundamental rightws automatically and is not is compelled to fight for these rights in Courts.