C.K Faisal, Deputy Law Secretary to Government of Kerala writes in Scroll.in
In its 74th year, India’s Constitution has been emptied of its soul
Clearly, Faisal is not a Muslim. He does not know that only that which God created has a soul. Man has a soul because God created man. Constitutions don't have a soul because they were created by men. It is sad that the atheistic government of Kerala is forcing Muslims in embrace shirk & taghut. What God has not created has no rabbani. But of what has been given a soul by God, man's knowledge is small indeed- وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ ۖ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي وَمَا أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا
A constitution grants a government power and authority
No. Either the government has power or it does not. The Constitution can't change this. Constitutionalism entails restricting the power of the Government so as to secure the highest possible protection for private property. Why is the Deputy Law Secretary to a Communist administration saying Constitutionalism is a good thing?
– in flouting its principles, the Indian government has undermined its own legitimacy.
In India, only the Bench can say whether or not constitutional principles have been flouted. Legitimacy is another matter. It may subsist whether or not the constitution in its entirety has been disregarded and violated. Failure to understand such basic notions of constitutional law is a defect in a lawyer or Law Secretary.
In one of the biggest tests for global democracy, 40 countries, including India, will hold elections this year.
A routine matter. It is not a test.
The predictions are grim.
If made by cretins- sure.
In India, general elections will follow the consecration of the Ram temple on January 22 and Republic Day celebrations on January 26.
Faisal understands that Time has an arrow. Things which will happen follow things which have happened. We should congratulate Kerala on having so perspicacious a Deputy Law Secretary.
The Constitution of India was adopted on January 26, 1950, which means that the country will complete 74 years as a republic this year.
Faisal can count! More good news!
But what is the soul of the Constitution?
Nothing. It does not have a soul.
It is constitutionalism,
Nope. India rejected the Lockean 'limited government' though initially there was a 'fundamental right to property'. Shanti Bhushan got rid of it.
the idea that a government can and should be legally limited in its powers and that its authority or legitimacy depends on observing these limitations.
Nonsense! The Indian constitution does not set any legal limits on the power, authority or legitimacy of Parliament. It can be abrogated or amended any which way. The Bench could choose, as a Pakistani CJI chose, to endorse a 'doctrine of necessity'. The sovereignty of the Republic is unlimited in every respect. Unlike the US, there is no 'dual sovereignty' because India is unitary, not Federal.
The second aspect of constitutionalism is to declare and safeguard the natural or fundamental rights of the citizen.
India could have chosen Lockean Constitutionalism. It chose not to. It is a different matter that the Bench may interpret the Constitution as Lockean. But a future Bench may interpret it as Stalinist.
The apparatus of the state and the government is carefully designed to safeguard the natural rights of the individual.
Not in India- nor the US for that matter. This man is utterly mad.
But as American political scientist Charles Howard McIlwain
whose doctrine is that any non-arbitrary process of governance is constitutional if that's the custom
pointed out decades ago in his Constitutionalism: Ancient and Modern, perhaps never before in its long history has the principle of constitutionalism been as questioned as it is today, never has the attack upon it been as determined or threatening as it now is.
This cretin thinks a guy who died almost 50 years ago could point out that there is some grave threat which has just arisen now. Perhaps Faisal is thinking of Nostradamus.
From the liberal perspective, upholding the rights and dignity of individuals is the ultimate aim of a constitution and the government is merely a means to achieve this.
to uphold a right means to ensure a remedy to a right's violation is provided. Thus, the ultimate aim has to be to ensure that the remedy is incentive compatible.
Thus, a constitution devoid of the spirit of constitutionalism is reduced to a shell – empty, hollow.
No. If the people have no 'constitutional morality' (as Ambedkar put it) then one might say that the though the letter of the constitution may be upheld, nevertheless the spirit is violated. But no Constitution can itself have that morality or spirit. The uncreated Scriptures, however, may do so.
In Constitutional and Administrative Law, legal academic Hilaire Barnett writes that constitutionalism
understood as the doctrine by which legitimacy of government action is determined in the UK context
has four major components.
No. Barnett says the doctrine of 'constitutionalism' (in the UK context (which has changed post-Brexit)) as opposed to 'legality' suggests
The first is the doctrine of intra vires, according to which those who exercise governmental power are accountable to law.
No. Public officials must stay within the limits of the powers granted them by the law. Everybody may be accountable to the law.
The second principle stipulates that the exercise of power – irrespective of legal authority – must respect the rights of the individual and citizens.
Unfortunately, rights are a bundle of defeasible Hohfeldian incidents. We don't always know which immunities trump which obligations. All we can say is that some matters are justiciable. Others may not be by the doctrine of political question.
The third principle provides that the powers conferred upon state institutions – whether legislative, executive, or judicial – are sufficiently dispersed to avoid the abuse of power.
This is separation of powers but it may not be required by a given constitution. Again the matter is defeasible though it may not be justiciable.
The final principle is that the government in formulating policy, and the legislature in legitimating that policy, are accountable to the electorate on whose trust power is held.
There is no such principle. Barnett says it is a notion suggested by the doctrine that constitutionalism is different from legality. Ministers are accountable to Parliament. The Electorate may kick out a particular administration. But this is not the same thing as 'accountability'.
These cardinal principles of constitutionalism are being and systematically undermined in India.
In Kerala- sure. A bunch of Commie thugs are running things. They think 'constitutionalism' is bourgeois eye-wash.
The rule of law has been selectively ignored, the power structure has become increasingly oligarchic and individual freedoms are muzzled.
By Vijayan- sure. Dr. Tharoor keeps whining about this.
What is touted by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party
Kerala is ruled by Communists
as India’s “amrit kaal”, or an era of nectar, has sounded the death knell for constitutionalism.
says a guy sucking up to his Commie bosses
Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of the United States, said in the Rights of Man that a constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government. “A government without a constitution is power without right,” he wrote.
He was wrong. Faisal doesn't seem to get that America's founding fathers killed 'Indians' and whipped slaves. The American government had power but it did not have right on its side.
The constitution is antecedent to a government – meaning, that it has existed before the government, he said.
He was as stupid as shit.
“A government is only the creature of a constitution,” wrote Paine. By undermining the spirit of constitutionalism, as has been happening in India,
but not in Kerala? Are Commies really in thrall to bourgeois idealists?
the government is diluting its legitimacy.
says a guy sucking up to a bunch of Commie crooks
The system of government was established to protect the citizen from the harms of the state of nature – and the constitution was framed to safeguard the citizen from possible governmental overreach. Constitutionalism serves as a protective shell for the ordinary citizen from a power-hungry state.
Which is why Commies will have nothing to do with it.
A fragile balance exists today between the procedure of law and the process of force.
Not where the Communist party rules. Only its power matters.
Constitutionalism is a universal heritage that belongs to all humanity.
Communists rejected and still reject it.
But in today’s India, brute majoritarian power is suffocating the spirit of constitutionalism.
In Kerala, Communist brutes are beating those who prate of constitutionalism. It is not the case that Vijayan is trying with might and main to implement the Directive Principle on cow protection.
The writer of India’s Constitution, BR Ambedkar, had said that there was nothing to be ashamed of in borrowing the principles of the constitution from the West. “It involves no plagiarism,” said Ambedkar. “Nobody holds any patent rights in the fundamental ideas of a Constitution”.
He was not ashamed to reject Communism and embrace Buddhism.
Of the many violations of constitutionalism in India, “bulldozer justice” is perhaps the most egregious of all.
No. Failure to implement a clear Directive Principle- viz. Cow Protection- is more egregious. Bulldozers are not mentioned in the Constitution. Unauthorized structures are razed to the ground in every country. In Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal, it was established that even a malicious but legal demolition of property did not give rise to a claim for damages. Damnum sine injuria.
Since 2022, BJP-ruled state governments have resorted to the selective and vindictive demolition of the homes of those branded as guilty – without trial – often on falsified charges.
Says a guy sucking up to a bunch of Commie gangsters. Killing and looting people is against the Constitution. But it is the stock in trade of the Party Faisal serves.
For instance, an 18-year-old Muslim man in Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh was granted bail on January 18, five months after he was arrested for allegedly “spitting” on a Hindu procession. The complainant and witness in the case refuted their statements before the court. But his father’s home had already been demolished in July 2023, two days after the accusations were made.
Lots of apartments were demolished in Kerala by order of the Court. What the Court can order can also be done by the municipal authority. It is a different matter that both the Court and the local authority may act mistakenly.
The Indian Supreme Court has reiterated that the human right to shelter is a fundamental right emanating from the right to life, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. In the 1996 case of Chameli Singh and Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, which pertained to land acquisition, the Supreme Court declared that shelter for a human being is not a mere protection of his life and limb. “It is home where he has opportunities to grow physically, intellectually, and spiritually.”
But the Bench has ordered the destruction of plenty of posh apartments in Kerala giving only paltry compensation to those who lost their dwellings. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
In a 1604 ruling, English jurist Edward Coke had declared in a ruling known as Semayne’s Case
which has nothing to do with demolition
that a person’s house is their castle and fortress as well as defence from injury and violence. But this most vital natural right is being brazenly violated in India.
By the Supreme Court.
The homes of the accused, hours after of communal flare-ups,
Communists don't understand that killing people is wrong even when it is done by those of the peaceful community
are deemed “illegal” or “unauthorised” constructions by municipal authorities and then demolished with little to no warning or chance to appeal such orders. This kangaroo court procedure is a gross violation of fundamental rights.
Whereas when Communists kill people Faisal smiles with joy.
It has resulted in an unconstitutional state of affairs
such as that which obtains in Kerala according to Dr. Tharoor and which involves police atrocities against Opposition members of Parliament
that would, in ordinary circumstances, have prompted a response from the judiciary or other institutions that serve as the fourth pillar of democracy – such as the media.
But there has only been silence.
Kerala Commies kill people and grab their property. Why bulldoze when you can massacre?
Similarly, federalism, a vital aspect of constitutionalism to prevent the concentration of power, has been nullified in India. Other powerful state institutions, such as the Election Commission and the Central Information Commission, have been hollowed out while Parliament has been reduced to an ornamental institution for mechanical law-making.
Meanwhile the Communists in Kerala have buggered to death over 14 billion God fearing Muslims named CK Faisal just because he dared to raise the question of the constitutionality of bulldozers being shoved up his rectum. The Deputy Law Secretary to the Government of Kerala has been hollowed out by incessant sodomization and is now merely an ornamental institution for mechanical buggery.
American founding father Thomas Jefferson has said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
America has killed lots of Communists. Faisal is mentioning Jefferson and Paine because his rectum is in great pain due to incessant Bolshevik buggery which has left him hollowed out.
Preserving constitutionalism and liberty in India, too, will demand the blood, sweat and tears of the ordinary citizen.
What about the jizz of ordinary citizens? Why not also demand their urine and phlegm? Is it because Jefferson was sodomized by Paine? No. It is because Kerala refuses to do cow protection.
No comments:
Post a Comment