Guest dada_rocks Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 There is enormous excitement about who our next president will be. TV channels have elected several candidates. Each has obtained many, many votes. Unfortunately, none can be sworn in. The voters lacked the right to vote. TV viewers cast their votes through SMS messages. But if people don’t have votes, who does? MPs and MLAs, of course. So who will they choose as president? It’s hard to tell. Of the 800-odd MPs, about 800-odd MPs could be candidates for President. For the public, of course, President Kalam remains the frontrunner. He is so decent and gentlemanly! The middle class adores him. "But he signed the Bihar assembly dissolution bill!" "What could the poor man do? The cabinet asked him to." "He also signed the Office of Profit Bill which he considered unconstitutional!" "Ahh! But he returned it once. The second time he had no choice. That’s the Constitution." "What about his oath to protect and preserve the Constitution?" "He returned the Bill once, didn’t he? Second time he had to sign it. That’s the Constitution!" Perhaps it is. The Constitution forbids presidents to quit, does it? Actually, the oath of office taken by presidents and governors needs to be changed. They should swear to protect and preserve prime ministers and chief ministers, not some confusing old Constitution. That’s the oath the governor of UP should have taken. He too is a very decent and honourable gent. When Mayawati’s government opened the new UP assembly session, the governor gave his address. He said: "An atmosphere of anarchy prevailed in Uttar Pradesh during the last four years. The people’s verdict was ridiculed by forming an unconstitutional government after splitting political parties." Holy cow! We had an unconstitutional government in India’s largest state for four years, and we didn’t even know! We didn’t know because the governor forgot to tell us, of course. Wait a minute though—isn’t it the governor’s job to point out if the state government violates the law? Perhaps the Constitution prevented the governor from saying that Mulayam Singh’s government was unconstitutional. If it didn’t, then maybe the Constitution compelled the governor to read out what Mayawati’s government told him to—even if that made him look silly. Or does the Constitution insist that presidents and governors be mindless dummies? Perhaps that is why so many hopefuls aspire for the job? In addition to aspiring for a large residence and garden? Are u convinced now? Should we shaft this meaningless post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 how can you have such a prominent post (if it is) in a democracy where the guy/gal didn't have to get any of the people's votes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 how can you have such a prominent post (if it is) in a democracy where the guy/gal didn't have to get any of the people's votes? precisely and moreover this time one of the governor himself is virtually telling he is dummy.. I say why have such dummies.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts