My question is this as well. The FNM knew from last year - December at least - that this would happen when it did if the government did not negotiate resolution before yesterday. This was not a secret thing. Their own member and candidate Halson Moultrie is one of the attorneys in this matter and he has been speaking publicly on it since last year in his capacity as attorney. Why wait until the 60-extension on access expires and then - only after the people take a stand - do you show up afterward to try to get fame from this issue? This is one of the reasons this country cannot advance. The Constitutional Opposition could have been on this issue in a productive manner before it even came to this. Instead, it tries to hop on the bandwagon of others' initiative trying to put themselves forward as the cause for any resolution that may develop; seeking to take credit that does not belong to them while not serving a productive purpose in their Constitutional capacity to actually see to a lasting resolution.
If the overall knowledge base of the citizenry was stronger and higher, and if referendums in this country were not primarily politicized - hence further dumbing down the populace and setting back the nation's development - Bahamians by and large wouldn't respond the way Rollins is correctly saying they will. Both major parties have the legacy of holding referendums for personal and political objectives instead of what they ought to be held for in functioning democracies. Hence in this specific area, both major parties have a significant role to play in why this country is not likely to see any meaningful and necessary Constitutional amendments anytime soon.
And as an aside, why didn't Rollins remain an independent if he wanted to put forward his own positions not constrained by a Party's positions?
And what's the other side of this tragedy of governance? Not one member of the Opposition has or was going to raise a word about Constitutionality or otherwise.
What do you mean? Do you think that whatever the Parliament passes becomes automatically Constitutional? You realize that is not the case, right? The Constitution is the Supreme Law, not the subordinate law, meaning Parliament is under it, not it under the Parliament. Parliament can absolutely pass an unconstitutional law though it ought not. It would then be struck down by the Courts on challenge, which would ordinarily push Parliament to change the law in order to make it Constitutional.
> “It is shocking that parliamentarians do not understand this
While I dont imagine that Smith is truly shocked, many in the country might indeed be shocked by just how much parliamentarians do not know - even about the very fundamentals of their nation.
Is Turnquest drunk? He nor anyone else on his side has even seen the PowerSecure Agreement since it has never been tabled and hence made public, yet he is asking questions as if even this fundamental part of this issue has been addressed.
This is not a decision to hold a convention, this is what their Constitution says- that their conventions must be held no longer than 2 years apart, which makes the next one due by November 2016. All Minnis' people did was put the Constitutional requirement into the form of a resolution, which means they did not come up with a plan to hold a convention, they simply announced that they will not break their time limit as set out in their Constitution.
In other words - nothing at all has changed, just as nothing at all will change in the PLP.
Well since he has also invited the Bahamian people to meet him outside (since remember, these MPs represent us, not themselves and the seats they occupy are ours, not theirs) then shall we, while there, bet on just how badly Rollins would beat this crook's posterior? Betting is legal now, yes? Or can we only do so with Sebass, Flowers or the other guy?
Moving on from race itself, since Scott believes that Minnis' ad-hoc so-called plan for inner cities in Nassau is nonsense, then why not tell the nation what qualifies as a sensible, comprehensive stimulus policy?
Publius says...
My question is this as well. The FNM knew from last year - December at least - that this would happen when it did if the government did not negotiate resolution before yesterday. This was not a secret thing. Their own member and candidate Halson Moultrie is one of the attorneys in this matter and he has been speaking publicly on it since last year in his capacity as attorney. Why wait until the 60-extension on access expires and then - only after the people take a stand - do you show up afterward to try to get fame from this issue? This is one of the reasons this country cannot advance. The Constitutional Opposition could have been on this issue in a productive manner before it even came to this. Instead, it tries to hop on the bandwagon of others' initiative trying to put themselves forward as the cause for any resolution that may develop; seeking to take credit that does not belong to them while not serving a productive purpose in their Constitutional capacity to actually see to a lasting resolution.
On Minnis blames protest on govt handling of beach access row
Posted 1 March 2016, 1:42 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
If the overall knowledge base of the citizenry was stronger and higher, and if referendums in this country were not primarily politicized - hence further dumbing down the populace and setting back the nation's development - Bahamians by and large wouldn't respond the way Rollins is correctly saying they will. Both major parties have the legacy of holding referendums for personal and political objectives instead of what they ought to be held for in functioning democracies. Hence in this specific area, both major parties have a significant role to play in why this country is not likely to see any meaningful and necessary Constitutional amendments anytime soon.
And as an aside, why didn't Rollins remain an independent if he wanted to put forward his own positions not constrained by a Party's positions?
On Rollins: Gender vote will fail
Posted 29 February 2016, 2:10 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
And what's the other side of this tragedy of governance? Not one member of the Opposition has or was going to raise a word about Constitutionality or otherwise.
On Fred Smith: Jail or fine for violating bail 'completely unconstitutional'
Posted 27 February 2016, 6:47 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
What do you mean? Do you think that whatever the Parliament passes becomes automatically Constitutional? You realize that is not the case, right? The Constitution is the Supreme Law, not the subordinate law, meaning Parliament is under it, not it under the Parliament. Parliament can absolutely pass an unconstitutional law though it ought not. It would then be struck down by the Courts on challenge, which would ordinarily push Parliament to change the law in order to make it Constitutional.
On Fred Smith: Jail or fine for violating bail 'completely unconstitutional'
Posted 26 February 2016, 9:06 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
> “It is shocking that parliamentarians do not understand this
While I dont imagine that Smith is truly shocked, many in the country might indeed be shocked by just how much parliamentarians do not know - even about the very fundamentals of their nation.
On Fred Smith: Jail or fine for violating bail 'completely unconstitutional'
Posted 26 February 2016, 7:41 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
Is Turnquest drunk? He nor anyone else on his side has even seen the PowerSecure Agreement since it has never been tabled and hence made public, yet he is asking questions as if even this fundamental part of this issue has been addressed.
On Opposition queries BEC manager’s sale
Posted 26 February 2016, 4:15 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
This is not a decision to hold a convention, this is what their Constitution says- that their conventions must be held no longer than 2 years apart, which makes the next one due by November 2016. All Minnis' people did was put the Constitutional requirement into the form of a resolution, which means they did not come up with a plan to hold a convention, they simply announced that they will not break their time limit as set out in their Constitution.
In other words - nothing at all has changed, just as nothing at all will change in the PLP.
On FNM to hold convention by end of November
Posted 26 February 2016, 2:57 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
Well since he has also invited the Bahamian people to meet him outside (since remember, these MPs represent us, not themselves and the seats they occupy are ours, not theirs) then shall we, while there, bet on just how badly Rollins would beat this crook's posterior? Betting is legal now, yes? Or can we only do so with Sebass, Flowers or the other guy?
On Gray invites Rollins to meet him 'in the right place'
Posted 25 February 2016, 2:32 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
Moving on from race itself, since Scott believes that Minnis' ad-hoc so-called plan for inner cities in Nassau is nonsense, then why not tell the nation what qualifies as a sensible, comprehensive stimulus policy?
On Minnis ‘lacks support of white Bahamians’
Posted 24 February 2016, 7:51 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
Agreed
On Minnis ‘lacks support of white Bahamians’
Posted 24 February 2016, 6:31 p.m. Suggest removal