Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: vooke on October 01, 2017, 10:18:29 PM
-
There’d be no Elections for the next foreseeable and unforeseable future seeing nobody else can declare the results ama?
Article 138(10)
(10) Within seven days after the presidential election, the chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall—
(a) declare the result of the election; and
(b) deliver a written notification of the result to the Chief Justice and the incumbent President.
-
Duales rigging laws will sort that out. Any Kamau can pronounce uhuru president.
-
U huru wants to amend the constitution with a simple parliamentary majority. Good luck to him
There’d be no Elections for the next foreseeable and unforeseable future seeing nobody else can declare the results ama?
Article 138(10)
(10) Within seven days after the presidential election, the chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall—
(a) declare the result of the election; and
(b) deliver a written notification of the result to the Chief Justice and the incumbent President.
-
Uhuruto think they have all the grounds/angles/bases covered with this computer generated legislative majority. In Bukina Faso the people burned the parliament. Africans are now thinking outside the box to find more ways to deal with arrogant dictators like Ruto. In Kenya we still have a few options before we get to that point but it is good for the people to know that they have several options.
U huru wants to amend the constitution with a simple parliamentary majority. Good luck to him
There’d be no Elections for the next foreseeable and unforeseable future seeing nobody else can declare the results ama?
Article 138(10)
(10) Within seven days after the presidential election, the chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall—
(a) declare the result of the election; and
(b) deliver a written notification of the result to the Chief Justice and the incumbent President.
-
Vague perambulations
What of Chebu drops dead?
-
Shollei is a certified bimbo, no idea how she was SCOK registrar. Kaluma is my boy, but he can’t explain what to do if Chebu checks out. He’s wisdom is,let’s cross the bridge when we get there. I’m disappointed
-
It's simple. If the chairman of IEBC is not available to announce a presidential election result then you go court. The job of the court is to interpret the constitution. The court is equipped with the tools to interpret the constitution and that is why the framers made it deliberately difficult to change the IEBC chair in the middle of an election. This is to make the replacement of the chairman of the commission in the middle an election fact specific and only by the court and therefore not subject to mischief. It's not as if the framers of the constitution never contemplated the absence of an IEBC chair. They did and decided that it was best to leave it to the courts. Any law trying to plug that hole must be consistent with the intent of the framers otherwise it should be found unconstitutional.
-
It's simple. If the chairman of IEBC is not available to announce a presidential election result then you go court. The job of the court is to interpret the constitution. The court is equipped with the tools to interpret the constitution and that is why the framers made it deliberately difficult to change the IEBC chair in the middle of an election. This is to make the replacement of the chairman of the commission in the middle an election fact specific and only by the court and therefore not subject to mischief. It's not as if the framers of the constitution never contemplated the absence of an IEBC chair. They did and decided that it was best to leave it to the courts. Any law trying to plug that hole must be consistent with the intent of the framers otherwise it should be found unconstitutional.
The 'framers of the constitution' wants you to go to court should Chebu check out?
-
Why should anybody in Nipate.org do the spadework for persons inclined to EJK?
-
Exactly. Whenever the constitution is silent, you go to court for an interpretation. However, if you decide to plug the hole, it still has to meet constitutional requirements. Either way, you go to court if a certain section of the citizenry believe the "plug in" is not consistent with what the framers intended with the "silence". The court has to decide whether the "silence" meant something. You do not go around plugging holes not even bothering to ask why the hole was left there in the first place or what kind of material you need to plug that hole so that it is consistent with the environment its in.
My interpretation is that the framers actually wanted to make it absolutely necessary for the parties to go to court in the very rare situation that the Chairman of IEBC suddenly becomes "unavailable" just before a declaration of presidential elections which is done every five years.
It's simple. If the chairman of IEBC is not available to announce a presidential election result then you go court. The job of the court is to interpret the constitution. The court is equipped with the tools to interpret the constitution and that is why the framers made it deliberately difficult to change the IEBC chair in the middle of an election. This is to make the replacement of the chairman of the commission in the middle an election fact specific and only by the court and therefore not subject to mischief. It's not as if the framers of the constitution never contemplated the absence of an IEBC chair. They did and decided that it was best to leave it to the courts. Any law trying to plug that hole must be consistent with the intent of the framers otherwise it should be found unconstitutional.
The 'framers of the constitution' wants you to go to court should Chebu check out?
-
Exactly. Whenever the constitution is silent, you go to court for an interpretation. However, if you decide to plug the hole, it still has to meet constitutional requirements. Either way, you go to court if a certain section of the citizenry believe the "plug in" is not consistent with what the framers intended with the "silence". The court has to decide whether the "silence" meant something. You do not go around plugging holes not even bothering to ask why the hole was left there in the first place or what kind of material you need to plug that hole so that it is consistent with the environment its in.
My interpretation is that the framers actually wanted to make it absolutely necessary for the parties to go to court in the very rare situation that the Chairman of IEBC suddenly becomes "unavailable" just before a declaration of presidential elections which is done every five years.
It's simple. If the chairman of IEBC is not available to announce a presidential election result then you go court. The job of the court is to interpret the constitution. The court is equipped with the tools to interpret the constitution and that is why the framers made it deliberately difficult to change the IEBC chair in the middle of an election. This is to make the replacement of the chairman of the commission in the middle an election fact specific and only by the court and therefore not subject to mischief. It's not as if the framers of the constitution never contemplated the absence of an IEBC chair. They did and decided that it was best to leave it to the courts. Any law trying to plug that hole must be consistent with the intent of the framers otherwise it should be found unconstitutional.
The 'framers of the constitution' wants you to go to court should Chebu check out?
Try and separate Jubilee silly attempts from the actual problem.
You mean the ‘farmers of constitution’ intentionally left this open so it can be settled in court?
-
Exactly: Constitutions do that many times. This is a very rare occurrence and very vulnerable for mischief so the framers did not want to leave any room for mischief and we now know that they were correct. They therefore only left the door leading to the courts open. This allows the court the opportunity to review the whole circumstances that led to the vacancy by inviting both parties to present their case and recommendations on who should do the announcement instead of leaving it to one party with nefarious intentions like Ruto.
Exactly. Whenever the constitution is silent, you go to court for an interpretation. However, if you decide to plug the hole, it still has to meet constitutional requirements. Either way, you go to court if a certain section of the citizenry believe the "plug in" is not consistent with what the framers intended with the "silence". The court has to decide whether the "silence" meant something. You do not go around plugging holes not even bothering to ask why the hole was left there in the first place or what kind of material you need to plug that hole so that it is consistent with the environment its in.
My interpretation is that the framers actually wanted to make it absolutely necessary for the parties to go to court in the very rare situation that the Chairman of IEBC suddenly becomes "unavailable" just before a declaration of presidential elections which is done every five years.
It's simple. If the chairman of IEBC is not available to announce a presidential election result then you go court. The job of the court is to interpret the constitution. The court is equipped with the tools to interpret the constitution and that is why the framers made it deliberately difficult to change the IEBC chair in the middle of an election. This is to make the replacement of the chairman of the commission in the middle an election fact specific and only by the court and therefore not subject to mischief. It's not as if the framers of the constitution never contemplated the absence of an IEBC chair. They did and decided that it was best to leave it to the courts. Any law trying to plug that hole must be consistent with the intent of the framers otherwise it should be found unconstitutional.
The 'framers of the constitution' wants you to go to court should Chebu check out?
Try and separate Jubilee silly attempts from the actual problem.
You mean the ‘farmers of constitution’ intentionally left this open so it can be settled in court?
-
Exactly: Constitutions do that many times. This is a very rare occurrence and very vulnerable for mischief so the framers did not want to leave any room for mischief and we now know that they were correct. They therefore only left the door leading to the courts open. This allows the court the opportunity to review the whole circumstances that led to the vacancy by inviting both parties to present their case and recommendations on who should do the announcement instead of leaving it to one party with nefarious intentions like Ruto.
Exactly. Whenever the constitution is silent, you go to court for an interpretation. However, if you decide to plug the hole, it still has to meet constitutional requirements. Either way, you go to court if a certain section of the citizenry believe the "plug in" is not consistent with what the framers intended with the "silence". The court has to decide whether the "silence" meant something. You do not go around plugging holes not even bothering to ask why the hole was left there in the first place or what kind of material you need to plug that hole so that it is consistent with the environment its in.
My interpretation is that the framers actually wanted to make it absolutely necessary for the parties to go to court in the very rare situation that the Chairman of IEBC suddenly becomes "unavailable" just before a declaration of presidential elections which is done every five years.
It's simple. If the chairman of IEBC is not available to announce a presidential election result then you go court. The job of the court is to interpret the constitution. The court is equipped with the tools to interpret the constitution and that is why the framers made it deliberately difficult to change the IEBC chair in the middle of an election. This is to make the replacement of the chairman of the commission in the middle an election fact specific and only by the court and therefore not subject to mischief. It's not as if the framers of the constitution never contemplated the absence of an IEBC chair. They did and decided that it was best to leave it to the courts. Any law trying to plug that hole must be consistent with the intent of the framers otherwise it should be found unconstitutional.
The 'framers of the constitution' wants you to go to court should Chebu check out?
Try and separate Jubilee silly attempts from the actual problem.
You mean the ‘farmers of constitution’ intentionally left this open so it can be settled in court?
The 'framers of the Constitution' assumed the courts would be impartial and better off left guessing what to do instead of decisively settling in the matter?
Negro you got jokes.
Can you name any other instance where the 'framers of Constitution' shied away from guidance and deferred the same to the courts?
-
Its inferred in their silence. The matter will end up in court anyway.
Exactly: Constitutions do that many times. This is a very rare occurrence and very vulnerable for mischief so the framers did not want to leave any room for mischief and we now know that they were correct. They therefore only left the door leading to the courts open. This allows the court the opportunity to review the whole circumstances that led to the vacancy by inviting both parties to present their case and recommendations on who should do the announcement instead of leaving it to one party with nefarious intentions like Ruto.
Exactly. Whenever the constitution is silent, you go to court for an interpretation. However, if you decide to plug the hole, it still has to meet constitutional requirements. Either way, you go to court if a certain section of the citizenry believe the "plug in" is not consistent with what the framers intended with the "silence". The court has to decide whether the "silence" meant something. You do not go around plugging holes not even bothering to ask why the hole was left there in the first place or what kind of material you need to plug that hole so that it is consistent with the environment its in.
My interpretation is that the framers actually wanted to make it absolutely necessary for the parties to go to court in the very rare situation that the Chairman of IEBC suddenly becomes "unavailable" just before a declaration of presidential elections which is done every five years.
It's simple. If the chairman of IEBC is not available to announce a presidential election result then you go court. The job of the court is to interpret the constitution. The court is equipped with the tools to interpret the constitution and that is why the framers made it deliberately difficult to change the IEBC chair in the middle of an election. This is to make the replacement of the chairman of the commission in the middle an election fact specific and only by the court and therefore not subject to mischief. It's not as if the framers of the constitution never contemplated the absence of an IEBC chair. They did and decided that it was best to leave it to the courts. Any law trying to plug that hole must be consistent with the intent of the framers otherwise it should be found unconstitutional.
The 'framers of the constitution' wants you to go to court should Chebu check out?
Try and separate Jubilee silly attempts from the actual problem.
You mean the ‘farmers of constitution’ intentionally left this open so it can be settled in court?
The 'framers of the Constitution' assumed the courts would be impartial and better off left guessing what to do instead of decisively settling in the matter?
Negro you got jokes.
Can you name any other instance where the 'framers of Constitution' shied away from guidance and deferred the same to the courts?
-
To answer the original question, he just does. The living will sort themselves out osteoporosis mortem.
-
Its inferred in their silence. The matter will end up in court anyway.
Exactly: Constitutions do that many times. This is a very rare occurrence and very vulnerable for mischief so the framers did not want to leave any room for mischief and we now know that they were correct. They therefore only left the door leading to the courts open. This allows the court the opportunity to review the whole circumstances that led to the vacancy by inviting both parties to present their case and recommendations on who should do the announcement instead of leaving it to one party with nefarious intentions like Ruto.
Exactly. Whenever the constitution is silent, you go to court for an interpretation. However, if you decide to plug the hole, it still has to meet constitutional requirements. Either way, you go to court if a certain section of the citizenry believe the "plug in" is not consistent with what the framers intended with the "silence". The court has to decide whether the "silence" meant something. You do not go around plugging holes not even bothering to ask why the hole was left there in the first place or what kind of material you need to plug that hole so that it is consistent with the environment its in.
My interpretation is that the framers actually wanted to make it absolutely necessary for the parties to go to court in the very rare situation that the Chairman of IEBC suddenly becomes "unavailable" just before a declaration of presidential elections which is done every five years.
It's simple. If the chairman of IEBC is not available to announce a presidential election result then you go court. The job of the court is to interpret the constitution. The court is equipped with the tools to interpret the constitution and that is why the framers made it deliberately difficult to change the IEBC chair in the middle of an election. This is to make the replacement of the chairman of the commission in the middle an election fact specific and only by the court and therefore not subject to mischief. It's not as if the framers of the constitution never contemplated the absence of an IEBC chair. They did and decided that it was best to leave it to the courts. Any law trying to plug that hole must be consistent with the intent of the framers otherwise it should be found unconstitutional.
The 'framers of the constitution' wants you to go to court should Chebu check out?
Try and separate Jubilee silly attempts from the actual problem.
You mean the ‘farmers of constitution’ intentionally left this open so it can be settled in court?
The 'framers of the Constitution' assumed the courts would be impartial and better off left guessing what to do instead of decisively settling in the matter?
Negro you got jokes.
Can you name any other instance where the 'framers of Constitution' shied away from guidance and deferred the same to the courts?
I infer ignorance/oversight...anything but intentional uncovered manholes
-
Veritas please reduce the number of posts one can quote to three so I can follow posts by vooke and KM.
-
Veritas please reduce the number of posts one can quote to three so I can follow posts by vooke and KM.
I’m sorry.
It’s trouble for me quoting others posts on my mobile devices yet I find the real need to do it. My suggestion is,when quoting,the full editor should come up. It doesn’t,and I have to hit preview to bring it up before I begin selecting relevant texts to delete. Sometimes I delete what I’m not supposed to. Sometimes selection is messy and you can’t highlight text ‘below’ the text box. It takes so much trouble for me that I usually don’t bother
Also,as courtesy, when quoting another post,comment below it so anyone can follow the thought process. KM quotes on top which is pathetic.
-
Veritas please reduce the number of posts one can quote to three so I can follow posts by vooke and KM.
I’m sorry.
It’s trouble for me quoting others posts on my mobile devices yet I find the real need to do it. My suggestion is,when quoting,the full editor should come up. It doesn’t,and I have to hit preview to bring it up before I begin selecting relevant texts to delete. Sometimes I delete what I’m not supposed to. Sometimes selection is messy and you can’t highlight text ‘below’ the text box. It takes so much trouble for me that I usually don’t bother
Also,as courtesy, when quoting another post,comment below it so anyone can follow the thought process. KM quotes on top which is pathetic.
noted
-
Veritas please reduce the number of posts one can quote to three so I can follow posts by vooke and KM.
[/quote
Veritas is not your wife to take orders ]
-
Chebukati attempt to ran one man show is responsible for the proposed amendments.laws are not made in vacuum but to solve real problems
-
Chebukati attempt to ran one man show is responsible for the proposed amendments.laws are not made in vacuum but to solve real problems
Oh God! These lies you tell... are you ever ashamed? Ruto will be cut to size in time. Kenya is greater than one man. The use of State power and resources to limit democracy has limitations.
The sad thing is that you are so ignorant about history for me to refer you to people who tried to do what he is doing.
In 1965 - 66 Tom Mboya became Kenyatta's chief rigging agent. less than two years after he rigged defecting MPs out of office, he was dead. Eaten by the same people he worked for. They would later invade his wealth and everything they gave him and share it between themselves. They took over the Tom Mboya Bus service and merged it with the tiny OTC Bus. Houses in nairobi he bought were seized and given to Kikuyu MPs.
Now Ruto is not even an eighth of the man Mboya was! To illustrate to you (and please read the Hansard which is free on google books) Moi could not speak in front of Mboya. The likes of Kibaki etc trembled in his presence and above all, he tamed Charles Njonjo by usurping the powers of the AG with Njonjo even denied access to parliament (which he only accessed much later!)
Ruto is just tolerated because they need RV votes to reduce the urge to rig Kibaki style.
-
You and kichwa are now seeing Ruto everywhere. Poleni. The man just got started!
Now let get back to this law targetting Chebukati. I think Chebukati conduct after supreme court when he lost his cool and tried to pass the buck everywhere - only for full judgement to indict him - sack people and try to usurp the secretariat - is responsible for this attempt to clip his powers.
The intention is clear..target Chebukati.
Oh God! These lies you tell... are you ever ashamed? Ruto will be cut to size in time. Kenya is greater than one man. The use of State power and resources to limit democracy has limitations.
The sad thing is that you are so ignorant about history for me to refer you to people who tried to do what he is doing.
In 1965 - 66 Tom Mboya became Kenyatta's chief rigging agent. less than two years after he rigged defecting MPs out of office, he was dead. Eaten by the same people he worked for. They would later invade his wealth and everything they gave him and share it between themselves. They took over the Tom Mboya Bus service and merged it with the tiny OTC Bus. Houses in nairobi he bought were seized and given to Kikuyu MPs.
Now Ruto is not even an eighth of the man Mboya was! To illustrate to you (and please read the Hansard which is free on google books) Moi could not speak in front of Mboya. The likes of Kibaki etc trembled in his presence and above all, he tamed Charles Njonjo by usurping the powers of the AG with Njonjo even denied access to parliament (which he only accessed much later!)
Ruto is just tolerated because they need RV votes to reduce the urge to rig Kibaki style.
-
Do not underestimate our intelligence bro.
You and kichwa are now seeing Ruto everywhere. Poleni. The man just got started!
Now let get back to this law targetting Chebukati. I think Chebukati conduct after supreme court when he lost his cool and tried to pass the buck everywhere - only for full judgement to indict him - sack people and try to usurp the secretariat - is responsible for this attempt to clip his powers.
The intention is clear..target Chebukati.
-
I agree with you that Ruto's woes are just starting. We are not the only ones concerned about Ruto's mission to take this country back to Moi era with him at the helm. The Gema Mafia is also concerned about him but they need him for now to deliver the votes. The sloppiness and the arrogant raw kifuaness with which this legislation is being pursued is very Rutesque. Ruto never supported this Katiba and he is intent on destroying it. Ruto is peaking too soon for the 2022 presidential campaign. The campaign to cut him down will begin by the GEMA around Ouru and they will find a lot of allies outside Gema. We are in this for the long haul and we will get our Kitaba back the way it was. Ruto may have the money and the temporary state power he now enjoys to believe he is in cloud 9 but he cannot sustain it for the long haul.
Do not underestimate our intelligence bro.
You and kichwa are now seeing Ruto everywhere. Poleni. The man just got started!
Now let get back to this law targetting Chebukati. I think Chebukati conduct after supreme court when he lost his cool and tried to pass the buck everywhere - only for full judgement to indict him - sack people and try to usurp the secretariat - is responsible for this attempt to clip his powers.
The intention is clear..target Chebukati.
-
Only death can stop Ruto unstoppable march to statehouse. After we are done with Raila in two weeks time - Ruto will truly be the political colossus we've never seen before in this country - Ruto will deploy BILLIONS & BRUTE force to bury any resistance. Ruto knows the deal he need to cut is with Kenyatta family. There is nothing like GEMA mafia. We have Kenyatta family firmly in control of GEMA. You guys have real problem reading our politics. Ruto as brilliant strategist with lots of raw power experience gained in Moi regime understands that...that is why Ruto is grovelling before Kenyatta family. The deal to be made is simple...Kenyatta family versus Ruto. The rest are already handled. The unfinished business is who Kenyatta will pick as their proxy for DPORK. Of course he'll be figure head but real power will continue to be wield by Uhuru Kenyatta. That is the proposal Uhuru cannot refuse. He'll be made Jubilee SUPREME LEADER in the mould of Iran Khameini. And Ruto like Moi will swear to follow Uhuru's Nyayo.
You guys in 10 yrs have been unable to handle GEMA machinery - Ruto has managed to squeeze 50% in 2013-2017 and now he is looking at 70% - all the key powerful folks right now are Ruto men. That is why you're talking about Ruto 24-7 because for first time you've DP with REAL POWERs. All it took was for Ruto to convince Uhuru to quit hawking milk - and make 30B from SGR :) :) that was going to Wanjigi is "Consultancy fee" andboy he has now tasted what real power is...not selling packet of milk.
I agree with you that Ruto's woes are just starting. We are not the only ones concerned about Ruto's mission to take this country back to Moi era with him at the helm. The Gema Mafia is also concerned about him but they need him for now to deliver the votes. The sloppiness and the arrogant raw kifuaness with which this legislation is being pursued is very Rutesque. Ruto never supported this Katiba and he is intent on destroying it. Ruto is peaking too soon for the 2022 presidential campaign. The campaign to cut him down will begin by the GEMA around Ouru and they will find a lot of allies outside Gema. We are in this for the long haul and we will get our Kitaba back the way it was. Ruto may have the money and the temporary state power he now enjoys to believe he is in cloud 9 but he cannot sustain it for the long haul.