Guest dada_rocks Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Our forefathers in their infinite wisdom had given President a lot of power. Constitution said President will act on suggestion and advice of central cabinet. It nowhere said those advice will be binding on president. Nehrujee in all these years despite being in absloute majority all the time never felt the need of stripping the constitutional head off this power. Come her megalomaniac daughter Indira during emergency of all time when whole opposition was in jail she castrates president for eternity through t constitutional amendment 42 which made decisison of cabinet binding on president. Morarjee desai partially restored president's power by allowing him one instance of descent but second time with or without regard to his recommendations advice remained binding on him. This is why u see today despite cabinet president all party fully knowing that office of profit bill is naked display of cronyism which doesn;t belong in any paper even looslely termed as constitution but president was helpless. He had to sing that piece of paper yet another fraud on our constitution.By coincidence even this round of fraud came when yet another megalomanic woman with gandhi surname this time imported one rules the roost. Just wanted to get off my chest God knows what else is in store with a puppet in place on raisina Hills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 The Indian President is without any real power- and it is a very good thing that the position is so- the President-Prime Minister model of governance makes far more sense than US's President-is-so-powerful model. Our model is nothing different- most British colonies follow this mode of governance- Canada ( Gov. General of Canada = President of India, Canadian PM= Indian PM), Australia, UK ( Queen = President of India, British PM=Indian PM), NZ are all examples of such governance principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Our forefathers in their infinite wisdom had given President a lot of power. Constitution said President will act on suggestion and advice of central cabinet. It nowhere said those advice will be binding on president. Nehrujee in all these years despite being in absloute majority all the time never felt the need of stripping the constitutional head off this power. Come her megalomaniac daughter Indira during emergency of all time when whole opposition was in jail she castrates president for eternity through t constitutional amendment 42 which made decisison of cabinet binding on president. Morarjee desai partially restored president's power by allowing him one instance of descent but second time with or without regard to his recommendations advice remained binding on him. This is why u see today despite cabinet president all party fully knowing that office of profit bill is naked display of cronyism which doesn;t belong in any paper even looslely termed as constitution but president was helpless. He had to sing that piece of paper yet another fraud on our constitution.By coincidence even this round of fraud came when yet another megalomanic woman with gandhi surname this time imported one rules the roost. Just wanted to get off my chest God knows what else is in store with a puppet in place on raisina Hills. Looks like it is relatively easy to amend Indian constitution. I remember Shah Bano case wherein Rajiv Gandhi actually overturned supreme court decision. To me that's a joke. Indira Gandhi was a disgrace to democracy. In US , it's next to impossible to amend constitution. You need 75 % of house and senate of all 50 states to approve of it., Otherwise right wingers would have codified gay marriage ban by now. Incidentally DR, what is your views on gay marriage. I fully support it and am with the left on this. What about you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I dont see the point in giving anything more than ceremonial powers to the Preseident. Besides , the President is a political apointee, he/she would toe the govt's line anyway on most issues. We cant have two centers of power. It will create havoc , like it has done in Ukraine. And our democracy has enough checks and balances anyway to stop some ricdiculously law from being passed anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I remember Shah Bano case wherein Rajiv Gandhi actually overturned supreme court decision. To me that's a joke. Indira Gandhi was a disgrace to democracy. In US , it's next to impossible to amend constitution. What bollocks- US President too has power to overrule the US supreme court in such matters. Bush just overruled the court and commuted Scooter Libby's verdict. How is that different from what Rajiv did in Shah Bano case ? In US , it's next to impossible to amend constitution. Aye. And this will come to bite US in the ar$e someday. The fact that your country's constitution is literally impossible to change is NOT a good thing- no bunch of 'consitutional writers' are that enlightened to factor in every single contigency plan and scenario faced by the country in the next 500 years. You never know what you are gonna face in future- sometime the only way out of it is to literally change the constitution and get it inserted/taken out. This inflexibility in their constitution is simply a ticking timebomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I dont see the point in giving anything more than ceremonial powers to the Preseident. Besides , the President is a political apointee, he/she would toe the govt's line anyway on most issues. We cant have two centers of power. It will create havoc , like it has done in Ukraine. And our democracy has enough checks and balances anyway to stop some ricdiculously law from being passed anyway. Good example, Maris. The same polarity of President-Prime Minster power struggle also tore apart Palestinian government just a few weeks ago. The American model of government is an oligarchic corporate model - a two-party state. India will never be a two-party state and without being a two-party state, we cannot just copy the Americans. Our government structure is quite well to do - the problem with India is corruption is a cultural evil running deep in Indian psyche- no political system or framework will cure that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Good example' date=' Maris. The same polarity of President-Prime Minster power struggle also tore apart Palestinian government just a few weeks ago. The American model of government is an oligarchic corporate model - a two-party state. India will never be a two-party state and without being a two-party state, we cannot just copy the Americans. Our government structure is quite well to do - the problem with India is corruption is a cultural evil running deep in Indian psyche- no political system or framework will cure that.[/quote'] Yes, the same holds for the Palestinians too. If we have two serious centers of power , each would have their constituency to appease to , resulting in a protracted power struggle. But What i would like the President/Governor to have more control over is the ridiculous horse-trading that goes on for MPs/MLAs when the election results are announced. That makes a total mockery of the people's verdict ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 The Indian President is without any real power- and it is a very good thing that the position is so- the President-Prime Minister model of governance makes far more sense than US's President-is-so-powerful model. Our model is nothing different- most British colonies follow this mode of governance- Canada ( Gov. General of Canada = President of India' date= Canadian PM= Indian PM), Australia, UK ( Queen = President of India, British PM=Indian PM), NZ are all examples of such governance principle. It was not like that it has been fudged through emergency-era amendments.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 What bollocks- US President too has power to overrule the US supreme court in such matters. Bush just overruled the court and commuted Scooter Libby's verdict. How is that different from what Rajiv did in Shah Bano case ? What are you talking about ?Don't argue just to for some kicks. Presidential Pardon to convicted felons is a part of the constitutional powers . You have no idea how US constitution if you think that executive branch or the Congress can overturn supreme court decision. If that was the case , Roe V Wade would have been overturned long ago by the Senate. Why do you think Bush wants to ban gay marriage through constitutional amendments. He could do NOTHING when the Mass Supreme court allowed for gay marriage. Only Federal courts can overturn this decision because US supreme court rarely gets into cases involving state courts decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Looks like it is relatively easy to amend Indian constitution. I remember Shah Bano case wherein Rajiv Gandhi actually overturned supreme court decision. To me that's a joke. Indira Gandhi was a disgrace to democracy. In US , it's next to impossible to amend constitution. You need 75 % of house and senate of all 50 states to approve of it., Otherwise right wingers would have codified gay marriage ban by now. Incidentally DR, what is your views on gay marriage. I fully support it and am with the left on this. What about you ? No problem whatsoever.. Rajeev gandhi had 415 seats out of 545 he cud have done anything.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 You have no idea how US constitution if you think that executive branch or the Congress can overturn supreme court decision. If that was the case , Roe V Wade would have been overturned long ago by the Senate. The Senate is not the executive in US civics- the President is the executive. Senate is a consultant to the executive. You gave an example of Rajiv pardoning someone and overruling the Supereme court as an example of 'Indias aweful system' while praising the US- funny thing is, it comes just a DAY after the US President overruled their judiciary and commuted Scooter Libby's sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 The Senate is not the executive in US civics- the President is the executive. Senate is a consultant to the executive. You gave an example of Rajiv pardoning someone and overruling the Supereme court as an example of 'Indias aweful system' while praising the US- funny thing is' date=' it comes just a DAY after the US President overruled their judiciary and commuted Scooter Libby's sentence.[/quote'] I know that the Senate is part of the Legislative and not Executive branch. You still haven't answered my question. From 1996 , Republican senate where in majority and from 2000 they had Republican president who was against abortion and so was the senate. Yet they could NOT touch Roe v Wade. Give me an instance of US supreme court decision being overruled by the Congress or the President in USA. And why do you think republican congress and president could not pass law banning gay marriage. Anyways Man , I am getting bored with these length debates . It serves no purpose in my opinion. You will not change your stance , neither will DR or Bheem or Lurker or myself. So why waste time debating useless things which are time consuming endeavor. My motto is just state my viewpoint once or twice and I could care less if others accept it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Look- i know little about governance and you may very well be right in regards to the differences in terms of this judiciary thing - but from my perspective, what you said makes little sense because you quoted Rajiv Gandhi- our CEO- overruling the judiciary as a bad point and stated this kinda skullduggery doesnt happen in the US- when just YESTERDAY Bush- their CEO- overruled the judiciary. I dont see your point even if you may have one- so please-tell me how these two examples are different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Look- i know little about governance and you may very well be right in regards to the differences in terms of this judiciary thing - but from my perspective' date=' what you said makes little sense because you quoted Rajiv Gandhi- our CEO- overruling the judiciary as a bad point and stated this kinda skullduggery doesnt happen in the US- when just YESTERDAY Bush- their CEO- overruled the judiciary. I dont see your point even if you may have one- so please-tell me how these two examples are different.[/quote'] Aare bhaiya ! Let it go man . I am off for some golf. BTW , Do you play golf ? I don't have the patience for these debates anymore. You need some heavyweights like Bheem or DR . :wink_smile: I am lightweight debater , yaar.:regular_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 (1) Apple orange comparison: The way Libby was pardoned even indian president without givng any exlanation can pardon anyone. Difference in cases like this and shah-bano is the fact that later becomes legal precedent which can be called upon even for future verdicts whereas presidential pardon is an island-verdict which has no bearing on constitutional framework in future. To be more precise Scooter liby's pardon doesn't have any bearing on future conviction of people with similar crime whereas Shah-bano verdict has bearing on every case's of similar nature in future, hence shah-bano verdict becomes a landmark one in legal terms whereas presidential pardon is meaningless as far as constitution is concerned. (2) our presidency even before 42nd amendment was different. Different in the sene it was no executive body meaning didn't decide which legislation to put forth or how to govern country that remained and still remains parliaments's prerogative. But it did have power to block bills like office of profit if it deemd fit. IN USA president and ihis cabient is executive body and it very well decides on polcies of day today affairs and which legislation to put forward to senate or congress for approval. My beef is with the complete castration of president after that 42nd amendment. How convenient that it came when emergency was in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Aare bhaiya ! Let it go man . I am off for some golf. BTW , Do you play golf ? I don't have the patience for these debates anymore. You need some heavyweights like Bheem or DR . :wink_smile: I am lightweight debater , yaar.:regular_smile: Yaar, i just asked for some clarification coz i didnt see the difference- already conceded that i could be wrong-so educate me a bit more..but ok-your choice. As for golf- no i dont play golf. Would never play golf- its boring (you whack a ball and then walk for 15 min! thats a sport ?!?!) and its way too expensive ( equipment costs my soul, range-fee costs an arm & a leg). :haha: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 btw watch what our future president has been found guilty of http://www.moneycontrol.com/india/video/stockmarket/03/30/newsvideo/289566 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 The way Libby was pardoned even indian president without givng any exlanation can pardon anyone. Difference in cases like this and shah-bano is the fact that later becomes legal precedent which can be called upon even for future verdicts whereas presidential pardon is an island-verdict which has no bearing on constitutional framework in future. The Indian PM is analogous to the US President- NOT US president analogous to Indian President. So if the US President can overrule court, what is the difference with the Indian PM overruling the court ? They are both the SAME precident set by the SAME ceo of the government! To be more precise Scooter liby's pardon doesn't have any bearing on future conviction of people with similar crime whereas Shah-bano verdict has bearing on every case's of similar nature in future, hence shah-bano verdict becomes a landmark one in legal terms whereas presidential pardon is meaningless as far as constitution is concerned. False- Scooter Libby's pardon has just as much bearing to future convictions as Shah Bano's stuff has in India. Both were the case of the executive overruling the judiciary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 The Indian PM is analogous to the US President- NOT US president analogous to Indian President. So if the US President can overrule court, what is the difference with the Indian PM overruling the court ? They are both the SAME precident set by the SAME ceo of the government! False- Scooter Libby's pardon has just as much bearing to future convictions as Shah Bano's stuff has in India. Both were the case of the executive overruling the judiciary. Are you telling me from here on anyone can disclose identity of CIA operative with impunity.. if yes I would like to see some reference.. to me it sounds ridiculous to say the least. But Shah-bano case remains legal precedent any muslim can do exactly what shah bano's husband did with impunity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 The Indian PM is analogous to the US President- NOT US president analogous to Indian President. So if the US President can overrule court, what is the difference with the Indian PM overruling the court ? They are both the SAME precident set by the SAME ceo of the government! Presidential pardon is completely different from what happened in the Shah Bano case as others have tried to point out. Supreme Court gave its verdict and a constitutional amendment was made to overturn the verdict, not a one off pardon on a case by case basis. Its pretty simple to see the difference in the two cases. And no, the Indian PM does not have the authority to issue pardons, only the President does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts