CJ confrontational on 18th Amendment?

[Decent_6Chora]

Re: CJ confrontational on 18th Amendment?

@CM

You aren’t very smart on the uptake are you? Reread the article it refers to clauses that state that the Parliament is the supreme body for constitutional amendments. Legally incorrect. The supreme court is the legal body which has the final say on any constitutional amendments.

It is not referring to local laws. But actual amendments to the constitution and that is where the example of the 1st amendment comes into place.

Next time you mouth off read the article will ya?

If you want to pick n choose and discuss some deeds of Iffti and ignore other not-so-legal deeds, u r very welcome to live in fool’s paradise.

Just to provide you with some basic information on how it work.

Supreme Court can only interpret the Constitution, or decide how the framers intended for the Articles and Amendments to be applied. It can not TAKEUP/STRUCK-DOWN UNLESS its against the basic human rights and If CJ is thinking to take up 18th amendment down (as this article suggests), he is just showing his true colors. There is nothing in 18th amendment that violates basic human rights.

PS: I see where you are coming from. Its easy to taunt others but hard to come up with valid argument