'Deal done' - Benazir agrees to Musharraf’s re-election in uniform

[Flame_of_Life]

Re: ‘Deal done’ - Benazir agrees to Musharraf’s re-election in uniform

@Sa1eem

Brother, did I write anywhere that Supreme Court does not have vast jurisdiction power?

Here:

@Sa1eem

How can Supreme Court decide anything that they have no right to decide?

@Sa1eem

Am I wrong?

Yes.

@Sa1eem

Please point out, where it says in article 184 that Supreme Court can decide constitutional matter?

It’s a given. Please point out where in the constitution it says the President has to be a human and not monkey.

@Sa1eem

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.

What happens after they interpret? Do they form a judgment over it or not?

@Sa1eem

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.

Good. U cleared it up. Ur earlier post was missing the bit I have highlighted.

@Sa1eem

Parliament can change any constitution to comply with their wishes anytime.

Not if it changes the basic framework of the constitution or is in conflict with the spirit of the constitution. It’s not such a free for all as u r led to believe.

@Sa1eem

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.

then what were they doing deciding whether the Reference was constitutional or not?

@Sa1eem

Yea, pretty self explanatory. Supreme Court cannot decide who can be President or even who cannot be President.

@Sa1eem

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.

Contradiction.

@Sa1eem

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].

Repeat.

@Sa1eem

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.

Supreme Court can strike down constitutional changes.

@Sa1eem

[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]

Whatever rocks your boat man. mein toh kehta hoon, President sahib itnay popular hain, he doesn’t even need the Unifrom. If he stands a poll in Pakistan, he polls so much vote, it chokes the border at Khyber.

@Sa1eem

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?

Yes. Because all those institutions u mentioned r covered under the executive authority.

@Sa1eem

Because, according to constitution all institutional authorities (including judiciary) are under the authority of executives.

Wrong. Judiciary is an independent organ of the state.

@Sa1eem

I wrote this as contiguous issue because in country like Pakistan, executives are corrupts and immoral,

True story. Truer today than ever before.

@Sa1eem

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.

Military is the executive today. And if what u said were true, why did the military not refuse to obey SC’s order on the reference?

There is a limit to the military’s power. Like they say the strongest of armies can’t stop an idea whose time has come.

@Sa1eem

Why I wrote lunatic?

Not interested in knowing. All I know is it killed all pretensions of an intelligent debate.

@Sa1eem

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).

Something doesn’t add up in that para. going around in circles, self-contradictory.

@Sa1eem

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 :).

Irrelevant.

@Sa1eem

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).

U can write two more pages justifying your use of the term, doesn’t change the fact that you betrayed your own level of intelligence by calling names to the CJP. Cool with me. Keep it up. Only degrades your argument to the street level. I no care

@Sa1eem

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.

Guess what? The Supreme Court can strike down the Emergency orders. So it appears, all roads lead up to the CJP. Par gayee na mushkil.

@Sa1eem

Two: Impose martial law.

Fantastic.

@Sa1eem

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.

Fantastic x 2