Re: ‘Deal done’ - Benazir agrees to Musharraf’s re-election in uniform
Brother, did I write anywhere that Supreme Court does not have vast jurisdiction power? Sure there is no debate regarding declaring legality or illegality of any matter by Supreme Court (as long as it is from constitution), that President Musharraf can be candidate of Presidency or not.
You wrote that ‘Supreme Court would be deciding on constitutional matter over a constitutional office’ and on that I wrote that ‘How can Supreme Court decide anything that they have no right to decide’. Am I wrong? You quoted article 184.
184. Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court.
(1) The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of every other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between any two or more Governments.
Explanation.-In this clause, “Governments” means the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments.
(2) In the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it by clause (1), the Supreme Court shall pronounce declaratory judgments only.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 199, the Supreme Court shall, if it considers that a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II is involved have the power to make an order of the nature mentioned in the said Article.
Please point out, where it says in article 184 that Supreme Court can decide constitutional matter? What I understand is that Supreme Court can only interpret what is written in constitution, but could not decide anything other than interpret (if they decide, they decide what to interpret). Supreme Court does not have any jurisdiction that they could decide anything regarding constitutional matter (though they can decide what to interpret from the wordings in the constitution). The only jurisdiction they have is of interpreting constitutional matters, from what is written in the constitution.
I meant what I wrote, that it is jurisdiction of Parliament to decide who should be President, or that if President can be in uniform or not. Parliament can change any constitution to comply with their wishes anytime. Sitting parliament when enact constitution or changes existing constitution, their interpretation is final.
As for Supreme Court, they can only interpret constitution on basis of wordings and if different meaning can be concluded from wording, Supreme Court could even assume intentions (if people that enacted constitution are not there in parliament). Hence, it is not jurisdiction of Supreme Court to decide anything. There jurisdiction is interpret (or explain) the constitution, that is all.
Yea, pretty self explanatory. Supreme Court cannot decide who can be President or even who cannot be President. For you to put some wording of constitution does not change that. Because that wording is wording that came from parliament and Parliament can decide to change wordings in the constitution anytime (ofcourse with 2/3 majority). Hence showing the wordings of constitution does not change the fact that Supreme Court cannot decide but that, they can only interpret what is there in the constitution already. [Just like a translator when translates Quran, they cannot decide what is there in Quran but translate what he understands from the wrodings in Quran].
Every thing that you showed being wording of constitution does not take away the jurisdiction right of parliament to keep or change those wordings. Supreme Court has no right to decide to keep or change the wordings and nevertheless, even to give judgment on old or new wordings. Supreme Court can only interpret the wording what would be there at the time of Supreme Court decisions.
[And the reason President met BB is obvious, that is to adjust the wordings according to desired requirements 
Else with 56 percent vote, President does not even needed to see BB]
Now that is very contiguous part of the constitution (article 190), right? Does it say that all institutions should aid Supreme Court? It only talks about executive and judicial authorities. Armed forces, police, agencies, intelligence … well, there are many institutional authorities, none are mentioned there. You know why? Because, according to constitution all institutional authorities (including judiciary) are under the authority of executives. It is expected that executives aids all other institutional authorities in what they need and in thus judiciary too. Executives use (or direct) other institutional authorities to aid Supreme Court.
I wrote this as contiguous issue because in country like Pakistan, executives are corrupts and immoral, hence their authority over other institutions is very weak. So weak that they do not even have absolute authority on institution that they can force institutions to aid anyone. Just imagine, Nawaz Shareef (or even Z A Bhutto) though that as head of executives (Prime Minister) he has authority over institutions as constitution demands, but what happened? Army kicked their ass. Now to think that judiciary can expect similar executives (rather weaker than Bhutto or Nawaz) to aid Supreme Court against military, I believe is living in fools paradise.
Why I wrote lunatic? Because only a lunatic person would think that executives would aid Chief justice if Chief justice would try to show that he is powerful enough to challenge armed forces. As it is obvious that if President would have support of armed forces than nothing would matter (that is different matter that President has lost support of armed forces, though I do not think he has).
Jazbatiaat … not really. CJ is not political leader and should not behave as one. Courts are institution that government forms to provide justice to people as it is duty of government to provide justice to people, not court. Judiciary is not there to dictate to the government but provide justice to the people (on behalf of government) and to facilitate government when interpretation of constitution is needed. Government could do whatever they like so that people get justice and that means, start as many courts as they want or even finish certain types of courts if government wants. CJ has got nothing to do regarding how government is run (just like in theory army generals got nothing to do). If CJ interfere they can if they have any force (as army generals do using armed forces under them). Anyhow, CJ as employee of the government could decide to start protest on grievances if they have, like if they want couple of days more holiday or pay rise :).
You know what? It seems that you commented without understanding the depth of the matter. Have you realized why I called Chief Justice ‘Monkey’? Do you think that I was calling name without any reason … a mere rhetoric and trying to degrade CJ? That is what is expected but I am sure you did not go into more relevant explanation, I wish you had :). Have you ever read me calling CJ a monkey before? Why I wrote that CJ is a monkey … and yea, monkey … not anything else? Have you ever thought about that? 
*Read what I wrote: *‘And yea, who is this monkey Justice that can say these craps?’ ‘Where did this monkey of a judge said all these craps’,
Well, since you missed the point, let me tell you. What monkey is considered good at? Trying to imitate others, right?
If CJ has started saying all the craps that politician do, who CJ is imitating? … have a wild guess. …. Errrrrrrr politician … and thus what CJ becomes, some one that imitate, right … or Monkey, right? :), So, you can see that what I was calling, it was not rhetoric or show of frustration, but it had some meaning (at least to me).
Writing all this, in one aspect you are right. Supreme Court can take up task of interpretation constitution if any politician would appeal, asking Supreme Court to interpret. Under present constitution, President Musharraf may not be illegible to run for President Election and keep the uniform too. Supreme Court may also interpret constitution (present constitution) that President is not even eligible to run for Presidency.
I think that is the reason President met BB so that constitution can be changed if required. But then, in my opinion, if there would be problem, President has two other options other than getting constitution changed.
One: Forget election, postpone President Election indefinitely. If required, postpone General election indefinitely too. To start with, one year emergency would do and next year, he can suspend the assembly.
Two: Impose martial law.
Well, President has let media become independent but than that is not a big thing that cannot be changed. I think that future of independence of Pakistani media is bleak anyhow. Whenever there would be no Musharraf (as that has to happen someday), I do not think that any politician would allow such independent media, and unfortunately heavy curb would be imposed. I believe that media knows that too and are ready for that. They have taken this opportunity of independence to earn some money from past corrupts. Else we can see that when dealing with past corrupts, even now media show a meek entity, scared to ask any pinching questions.