正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
Any suggestion that article 66(2) can be interpreted to make it possible for any president to seek a 3rd term is nonsense. Why do NPP people believe judges can say anything at all as the meaning of provisions in the constitution? It's only them who see spirits we can't... show more
22,108 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)
9 条评论

I see chairman trying to make a legal case for H.E. JDM. Does the constitution explicitly state the "form" of the 2 terms ? OK, for now, let's aggressively champion the reset agenda. The good people of Ghana will speak at the right time.......

He's not making any legal argument. He's only expressing his political preference for unlimited terms.

He has been smart here, the so-called journalist is trying to event an artificial disaster but Blay chides him by saying who leads this country is determined by the people of Ghana.

I think the journalist is unable to fathom Freddie Blay's SUBSTANTIVE dfn of utilitarian "democracy":the socioeconomic, political, moral etc, aspirations of the pple. He is stuck to the FORM/ LITERATURE of democracy: the RESTRAINT, TETHERED allegiance to EXPLOITATIVE DEMOCRACY

Did you know the U.S. Constitution is a brief document? The original text was only 4,200 words with the additional amendments adding another 3,000 words. Although brief, it packs a lot of punch! Get the 100-page graphic novel from U.S. Comics.

I think the journalist is unable to fathom Freddie Blay's SUBSTANTIVE dfn of utilitarian "democracy":the socioeconomic, political, moral etc, aspirations of the pple. He is stuck to the FORM/ LITERATURE of democracy: the RESTRAINT, TETHERED allegiance to EXPLOITATIVE DEMOCRACY.

I think that it is not inconceivable to interpret Art 66 to mean that a person can become a president for more than 2 terms in Gh for the ffing reasons: 1.The people's political aspirations are DYNAMIC 2.Each parliament is DISTINCT 3.From a DEMOCRATIC & TELEOLOGICAL approach

President Trump is doing his second term and same as President Mahama and I’ve not heard that argument come up in the US because everyone is settled on what the constitution says. But here di3 we always have to make issues out of nothing

In fact, a restatement of Freddie Blay's argument is that the taken-for-granted conclusion arrived at by the provisions of Art 66 is rendered VULNERABLE by Art 64(3). This is Thomas Jefferson's "laws & institutions must go hand in hand with the PROGRESS of the human mind" view.

