What if Chebu drops dead like now now?

[vooke]

• Tweet

Article 138(10)
(10) Within seven days after the presidential election, the chairperson

[bryan275]

Duales rigging laws will sort that out.  Any Kamau can pronounce uhuru president.

[Omollo]

U huru wants to amend the constitution with a simple parliamentary majority. Good luck to him

Article 138(10)
(10) Within seven days after the presidential election, the chairperson

[Kichwa]

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

Article 138(10)
(10) Within seven days after the presidential election, the chairperson

[vooke]

Vague perambulations

What of Chebu drops dead?

[vooke]

[Kichwa]

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.

[vooke]

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?

[GeeMail]

Why should anybody in Nipate.org do the spadework for persons inclined to EJK?

[Kichwa]

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?

[vooke]

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?

[Kichwa]

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.

[vooke]

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.

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?

[Kichwa]

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.

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?

[bryan275]

To answer the original question, he just does.  The living will sort themselves out osteoporosis mortem.

[vooke]

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.

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

[Omollo]

Veritas please reduce the number of posts one can quote to three so I can follow posts by vooke and KM.

[vooke]

Veritas please reduce the number of posts one can quote to three so I can follow posts by vooke and KM.

[Kichwa]

Veritas please reduce the number of posts one can quote to three so I can follow posts by vooke and KM.

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

[Globalcitizen12]

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 ]