Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 must be withdrawn in its entirety. Any future attempt to amend the Constitution within the same confines, must strictly adhere to its own safeguards, through genuine, inclusive public hearings and a binding national referendum. We are escalating this fight with clarity and resolve to... show more

Constitution Defenders Forum

5,106 subscribers

12,827 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 16

Фото профиля Zim2025 Free Zimbabwe Movement

Zim2025 Free Zimbabwe Movement5 месяцев назад

Wrong futile mission by the regime, touch not our constitution. After stopping this nonsense we need to engage in a process of future-proofing the constitution from such misguided elements who do not respect the nation. #NoTo2030

Фото профиля Cde Mabhunu (nigelsigauke)

Cde Mabhunu (nigelsigauke)5 месяцев назад

@ChingindiVa You were a spectator wakatadza kusimudza ruoko kuti upihwe mic, waida kusumwa kuti utaure here. Anyway Zimbabweans have spoken kuti Let the Bill pass for continuity of Development projects and to boost investor confidence. @dereckgoto @ChinamasaPA

Фото профиля Paddy Pardon

Paddy Pardon5 месяцев назад

Dununu

Фото профиля WANGA BHAGA

WANGA BHAGA5 месяцев назад

@MakomboreroH 100%!!!

Фото профиля Lalela Hydrova

Lalela Hydrova5 месяцев назад

A bill of shit*** NO TO 2030

Фото профиля BIG 5

BIG 55 месяцев назад

Atongopera oga Biti

Фото профиля Juma Mwakalobo

Juma Mwakalobo5 месяцев назад

According the same constitution you are fighting so hard for that constitution states for this bill NO REFERENDUM is needed

Фото профиля ZIMBABWE🇿🇼 (OFFICIAL)

ZIMBABWE🇿🇼 (OFFICIAL)5 месяцев назад

If changing the constitution becomes normal, where do we draw the line? That’s the real question Zimbabweans should be asking. #Zimbabwe #Bill3 #Accountability #ZimPolitics

Фото профиля Goromigo

Goromigo5 месяцев назад

@nitrozane 😎☝️👇😎❓

Фото профиля Daddy marshy

Daddy marshy5 месяцев назад

No to CAB3 bt citizens taifanira kugara taka mobilise zvakasimba especially kuma strongholds e opposition vaifanira kuzouya ne buses avo vosvika makatozara

Фото профиля Tawanda_Mupungu

Tawanda_Mupungu5 месяцев назад

Withdrawn? Yet the people of Zimbabwe of said yes to #CA3 The public hearings were inclusive. It's not surprising when you fail to mobilise for your causes and things don't go your way the only solution you have defaulted to is to throw your toys out of the cot and run to foreign bodies. In the famous words of @BitiTendai, "anga achazo pera ega". CDF ichazongo pera yega futi. 😂🤣😂 #CA3 is a done deal.

Фото профиля Chiheraaa_

Chiheraaa_5 месяцев назад

According to the Constitution, it is illegal to hold a referendum for #CA3

Фото профиля The Governor

The Governor5 месяцев назад

In today's politics we have seen that threats without guns does not work, those with police and guns will have their way at last,

Фото профиля Cde Mabhunu (nigelsigauke)

Cde Mabhunu (nigelsigauke)5 месяцев назад

@ChingindiVa Wakapinda muInclusive Government without any Referendum wani .

Фото профиля InformingAfrica

InformingAfrica5 месяцев назад

Adv @BitiTendai spoke of a return to the Gukurahundi & 2008 days! This has always been @ZANUPF_Official’s modus operandi since 1980! The people of Zimbabwe must brace themselves for a fight against the unconstitutional #CAB3

Фото профиля Master 'Bad Apple'.

Master 'Bad Apple'.5 месяцев назад

#NoTo2030

Похожие видео

Zimbabweans in Chiredzi are standing tall against all odds and are saying NO TO 2030. These public hearings are not enough for the millions of us to air our opinions against CAB3! CAB3 is the single most contemporary existential threat to the present and future of Zimbabwe and must be resisted by any means constitutionally necessary. This is exactly is why we must resist Agenda 2030 and are DEMANDING A REFERENDUM for the proposed constitutional amendments aimed to extend the term of office for elected officials! Join Constitution Defenders Forum via to defend the constitution #NoToCAB3 #NoTo2030 #PeoplePower #ReferendumOrNothing

Zimbabweans in Chiredzi are standing tall against all odds and are saying NO TO 2030. These public hearings are not enough for the millions of us to air our opinions against CAB3! CAB3 is the single most contemporary existential threat to the present and future of Zimbabwe and must be resisted by any means constitutionally necessary. This is exactly is why we must resist Agenda 2030 and are DEMANDING A REFERENDUM for the proposed constitutional amendments aimed to extend the term of office for elected officials! Join Constitution Defenders Forum via to defend the constitution #NoToCAB3 #NoTo2030 #PeoplePower #ReferendumOrNothing

Makomborero Haruzivishe

17,078 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

As Zimbabwe approaches a critical stage in the consideration of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, the Convener of the Constitution Defenders Forum, TENDAI BITI, presents a detailed analysis of the Bill, its constitutional implications, and the dangers it poses to democratic governance, constitutionalism, and the sovereignty of the people. At this crucial juncture, as Parliament prepares to deliberate on this far-reaching constitutional amendment, we encourage all citizens to engage with the issues, understand what is at stake, and participate in the defence of the Constitution. Watch the full video here: #RejectAmendmentNo3 #DefendTheConstitution

As Zimbabwe approaches a critical stage in the consideration of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, the Convener of the Constitution Defenders Forum, TENDAI BITI, presents a detailed analysis of the Bill, its constitutional implications, and the dangers it poses to democratic governance, constitutionalism, and the sovereignty of the people. At this crucial juncture, as Parliament prepares to deliberate on this far-reaching constitutional amendment, we encourage all citizens to engage with the issues, understand what is at stake, and participate in the defence of the Constitution. Watch the full video here: #RejectAmendmentNo3 #DefendTheConstitution

Constitution Defenders Forum

15,189 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

📹 The Constitutional Defenders Forum, National Constitutional Assembly and Defend the Constitution Platform call on Zimbabweans to “disengage” from Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill public hearings calling them “fundamentally flawed.” They call for a “citizen-driven response”

📹 The Constitutional Defenders Forum, National Constitutional Assembly and Defend the Constitution Platform call on Zimbabweans to “disengage” from Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill public hearings calling them “fundamentally flawed.” They call for a “citizen-driven response”

ZimLive

87,394 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

WATCH | Zimbabwean Civic and Opposition Political leaders have withdrawn from public hearings into the proposed Constitution Amendment Bill. Constitutional lawyer Adv Fadzayi Mahere says the process is being rushed and that ZANU-PF is scared, as it does not want people to speak out.

WATCH | Zimbabwean Civic and Opposition Political leaders have withdrawn from public hearings into the proposed Constitution Amendment Bill. Constitutional lawyer Adv Fadzayi Mahere says the process is being rushed and that ZANU-PF is scared, as it does not want people to speak out.

SABC News

58,810 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.

Hopewell Chin’ono

62,456 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

SANYATI — THE MESSAGE WAS REINSTATED At the burial of Cde Geza in Sanyati, CDF Convener Hon Tendai Biti reaffirmed what we have consistently said, the defence of the Constitution is not optional, it is a national duty. The message is clear and it was powerfully restated in Sanyati 'Muchato Wenyika Haupfachurwe', Zimbabwe must resist any attempt to mutilate the 2013 Constitution or extend power beyond the people’s mandate. CDF is engaging. CDF is listening. CDF is building bridges. We remain open to all genuine democratic forces, across divides, who are committed to stopping the 2030 Agenda and protecting constitutional order. We also acknowledge the efforts and contribution of Cde Bombshell Geza in the broader struggle for accountability and democratic governance. The struggle continues. The Constitution must be defended. Hopewell Chin’ono African Dhara Blessed Mhlanga #NoTo2030 #MuchatoWenyikaHaupfachurwe #ZviganandaMiswai #DefendTheConstitution

SANYATI — THE MESSAGE WAS REINSTATED At the burial of Cde Geza in Sanyati, CDF Convener Hon Tendai Biti reaffirmed what we have consistently said, the defence of the Constitution is not optional, it is a national duty. The message is clear and it was powerfully restated in Sanyati 'Muchato Wenyika Haupfachurwe', Zimbabwe must resist any attempt to mutilate the 2013 Constitution or extend power beyond the people’s mandate. CDF is engaging. CDF is listening. CDF is building bridges. We remain open to all genuine democratic forces, across divides, who are committed to stopping the 2030 Agenda and protecting constitutional order. We also acknowledge the efforts and contribution of Cde Bombshell Geza in the broader struggle for accountability and democratic governance. The struggle continues. The Constitution must be defended. Hopewell Chin’ono African Dhara Blessed Mhlanga #NoTo2030 #MuchatoWenyikaHaupfachurwe #ZviganandaMiswai #DefendTheConstitution

Constitution Defenders Forum

18,284 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

“The People Did Not Ask for This Bill" - Hon. Karenyi Kore Rejects CAB 3 in Parliament Hon. Karenyi Kore's contribution to the parliamentary debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3). During the debate, Hon. Karenyi argued that the people of Zimbabwe did not ask for the Bill and called for it to be subjected to a referendum. She also raised concerns about electoral reforms, political violence, corruption, and the need for an electoral system that citizens can trust. "The people did not ask for this Bill. CAB 3 does not create a single job and should be subjected to a referendum to avoid a conflict of interest. We want an electoral system citizens can trust. People want opportunities, not an extension of political power. The problem is not the Constitution; it is political violence and corruption. The voice of the people must remain the voice of our democracy. I stand with unemployed youth, farmers, vendors, workers, mothers and pensioners." — Hon. Karenyi Kore during debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.

“The People Did Not Ask for This Bill" - Hon. Karenyi Kore Rejects CAB 3 in Parliament Hon. Karenyi Kore's contribution to the parliamentary debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3). During the debate, Hon. Karenyi argued that the people of Zimbabwe did not ask for the Bill and called for it to be subjected to a referendum. She also raised concerns about electoral reforms, political violence, corruption, and the need for an electoral system that citizens can trust. "The people did not ask for this Bill. CAB 3 does not create a single job and should be subjected to a referendum to avoid a conflict of interest. We want an electoral system citizens can trust. People want opportunities, not an extension of political power. The problem is not the Constitution; it is political violence and corruption. The voice of the people must remain the voice of our democracy. I stand with unemployed youth, farmers, vendors, workers, mothers and pensioners." — Hon. Karenyi Kore during debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3.

Change Radio

32,611 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Veteran lawyer, Cde Paul Mangwana, with nearly 40 years of experience in the legal profession, who also serves as the ZANU PF Secretary for Mines and Energy, shed more light on the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 today. He made it clear that there is no need for a referendum because this bill does not seek to amend the Bill of Rights, Chapter 16, and Section 328 of the Constitution. This implies that conducting a referendum would actually transgress the intrinsic provisions of the Constitution. As such, this bill must simply be adopted by a 2/3 majority by Parliament. When fine, intellectual heavyweights and outstanding lawyers like Cde Paul Mangwana speak, we must listen attentively. 2030 Baba Va Mnangagwa vanenge vachitonga!!!!! #ED2030 #Bill3BHOOO

Veteran lawyer, Cde Paul Mangwana, with nearly 40 years of experience in the legal profession, who also serves as the ZANU PF Secretary for Mines and Energy, shed more light on the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 today. He made it clear that there is no need for a referendum because this bill does not seek to amend the Bill of Rights, Chapter 16, and Section 328 of the Constitution. This implies that conducting a referendum would actually transgress the intrinsic provisions of the Constitution. As such, this bill must simply be adopted by a 2/3 majority by Parliament. When fine, intellectual heavyweights and outstanding lawyers like Cde Paul Mangwana speak, we must listen attentively. 2030 Baba Va Mnangagwa vanenge vachitonga!!!!! #ED2030 #Bill3BHOOO

hazel

10,742 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

FORMER OPPOSITION MEMBERS BACK CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 3 Former opposition members have backed the Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill, citing its potential to enhance national stability and accelerate infrastructure development. Paddington Japajapa says the proposed changes are key to achieving Zimbabwe’s upper-middle-income economy target by 2030. #ZBCNews #Zimbabwe #Policy #Constitution #Development #Vision2030

FORMER OPPOSITION MEMBERS BACK CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 3 Former opposition members have backed the Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill, citing its potential to enhance national stability and accelerate infrastructure development. Paddington Japajapa says the proposed changes are key to achieving Zimbabwe’s upper-middle-income economy target by 2030. #ZBCNews #Zimbabwe #Policy #Constitution #Development #Vision2030

ZBC News

31,412 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

In the second matter before the Constitutional Court, filed by former opposition Member of Parliament Prince Dubeko Sibanda, the argument was that Parliament could not lawfully debate Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 because the bill itself is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court ruled that the application was not yet ripe for determination, meaning that the parliamentary process must first run its course before the applicant can return to court to challenge the outcome. Once again, many lawyers have described the Court’s approach as an example of constitutional avoidance. In their view, the Court is declining to engage with the substantive constitutional questions now and is instead postponing their determination. However, the issues will not disappear. Even if the matter proceeds through the High Court first, it is almost inevitable that it will eventually return to the Constitutional Court on appeal for a final determination on the merits. In short, the Constitutional Court has not resolved the constitutional questions surrounding CAB 3; it has merely deferred them.

In the second matter before the Constitutional Court, filed by former opposition Member of Parliament Prince Dubeko Sibanda, the argument was that Parliament could not lawfully debate Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 because the bill itself is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court ruled that the application was not yet ripe for determination, meaning that the parliamentary process must first run its course before the applicant can return to court to challenge the outcome. Once again, many lawyers have described the Court’s approach as an example of constitutional avoidance. In their view, the Court is declining to engage with the substantive constitutional questions now and is instead postponing their determination. However, the issues will not disappear. Even if the matter proceeds through the High Court first, it is almost inevitable that it will eventually return to the Constitutional Court on appeal for a final determination on the merits. In short, the Constitutional Court has not resolved the constitutional questions surrounding CAB 3; it has merely deferred them.

Hopewell Chin’ono

39,069 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Yesterday, our Judiciary Committee passed HR 38, National Reciprocity. I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry. 29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states? Under HR 38 (Reciprocity), a resident of one of the Constitutional Carry states can carry in any state that allows their citizens to obtain a permit. The recent “Bruen” Supreme Court decision requires all states that aren’t Constitutional Carry to issue carry permits to their citizens. This means that when HR 38 passes, any resident of those 29 Constitutional Carry states will be able to carry in any of the 50 states without a permit. Ironically, however, residents of the 21 states (like New York or California) that aren’t Constitutional Carry will need a permit to carry in their own state, while visitors from states that are Constitutional Carry (like Kentucky or Ohio) won’t need a permit to carry in states like New York or California. If Congress, relying on the Second Amendment, can force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Kentuckians who visit California, why would we not force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Californians who are in California? In other words, why not pass National Constitutional Carry and afford everyone in the United States the right to “bear arms” which is enshrined in the Constitution? The other quirk of HR 38 is that (I believe) it would allow a person from Kentucky to carry an AR-15 pistol with a 20-round magazine in California, while Californians would not be allowed to carry, or even own, the same equipment. The Supreme Court decision in “D.C. v. Heller,” whether you agree with it or not, allows states to have some regulations on firearm equipment and eligibility to possess, but HR 38 seems to contradict that framework. Contrast this with my National Constitutional Carry bill which basically says if a state allows people to possess (KEEP) a particular firearm, that state must also allow people to carry (BEAR) that firearm. I introduced my National Constitutional Carry bill in committee yesterday as a substitute amendment to HR 38, National Reciprocity. After introducing the amendment for the record and describing it, I withdrew the amendment instead of putting my Judiciary Committee colleagues in the position of deciding whether to replace National Reciprocity with National Constitutional Carry. The dilemma is that not enough Republicans in the whole House understand the difference, and the prevailing opinion is that Reciprocity can pass the whole House, but Constitutional Carry cannot. Perhaps when more of my colleagues who are not on the Judiciary Committee understand why we should pass National Constitutional Carry instead of (or in addition to) National Reciprocity, we can make a strong push to report National Constitutional Carry out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote in the full House of Representatives. In the meantime, I’m glad HR 38 is going to the House floor for a vote.

Yesterday, our Judiciary Committee passed HR 38, National Reciprocity. I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry. 29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states? Under HR 38 (Reciprocity), a resident of one of the Constitutional Carry states can carry in any state that allows their citizens to obtain a permit. The recent “Bruen” Supreme Court decision requires all states that aren’t Constitutional Carry to issue carry permits to their citizens. This means that when HR 38 passes, any resident of those 29 Constitutional Carry states will be able to carry in any of the 50 states without a permit. Ironically, however, residents of the 21 states (like New York or California) that aren’t Constitutional Carry will need a permit to carry in their own state, while visitors from states that are Constitutional Carry (like Kentucky or Ohio) won’t need a permit to carry in states like New York or California. If Congress, relying on the Second Amendment, can force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Kentuckians who visit California, why would we not force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Californians who are in California? In other words, why not pass National Constitutional Carry and afford everyone in the United States the right to “bear arms” which is enshrined in the Constitution? The other quirk of HR 38 is that (I believe) it would allow a person from Kentucky to carry an AR-15 pistol with a 20-round magazine in California, while Californians would not be allowed to carry, or even own, the same equipment. The Supreme Court decision in “D.C. v. Heller,” whether you agree with it or not, allows states to have some regulations on firearm equipment and eligibility to possess, but HR 38 seems to contradict that framework. Contrast this with my National Constitutional Carry bill which basically says if a state allows people to possess (KEEP) a particular firearm, that state must also allow people to carry (BEAR) that firearm. I introduced my National Constitutional Carry bill in committee yesterday as a substitute amendment to HR 38, National Reciprocity. After introducing the amendment for the record and describing it, I withdrew the amendment instead of putting my Judiciary Committee colleagues in the position of deciding whether to replace National Reciprocity with National Constitutional Carry. The dilemma is that not enough Republicans in the whole House understand the difference, and the prevailing opinion is that Reciprocity can pass the whole House, but Constitutional Carry cannot. Perhaps when more of my colleagues who are not on the Judiciary Committee understand why we should pass National Constitutional Carry instead of (or in addition to) National Reciprocity, we can make a strong push to report National Constitutional Carry out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote in the full House of Representatives. In the meantime, I’m glad HR 38 is going to the House floor for a vote.

Thomas Massie

229,372 просмотров • 1 год назад

The Scottish Parliament has spoken. A significant majority of MSPs has voted to affirm the right of people in Scotland to decide their constitutional future. This is democracy and it must be respected. Scotland’s future must be in Scotland’s hands. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

The Scottish Parliament has spoken. A significant majority of MSPs has voted to affirm the right of people in Scotland to decide their constitutional future. This is democracy and it must be respected. Scotland’s future must be in Scotland’s hands. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

John Swinney

106,834 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

PRIYANK KHARGE : "RSS must disclose its registration details, pay taxes, comply with the law and Constitution" "If RSS has to continue its activities in Karnataka they have to work within legal and constitutional framework" "I am an optimist; sure that RSS has nothing to hide. It should put national duty above everything"

PRIYANK KHARGE : "RSS must disclose its registration details, pay taxes, comply with the law and Constitution" "If RSS has to continue its activities in Karnataka they have to work within legal and constitutional framework" "I am an optimist; sure that RSS has nothing to hide. It should put national duty above everything"

News Algebra

130,970 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

I request the Government of India 👇 ⦿ Immediately stop the census process. ⦿ Ensure that the IDPs are made to return to their homes. ⦿ Law and order must be established. ⦿ These armed groups who are loitering around must be stopped so that a proper census can be conducted. ⦿ The unresolved issues of the earlier census must be looked into afresh, with a genuine and judicious process. ⦿ NRC and other foreigners’ tribunals must be instituted in order to delineate who is a citizen and who is not in the state of Manipur. : A. Bimol Akoijam ji

I request the Government of India 👇 ⦿ Immediately stop the census process. ⦿ Ensure that the IDPs are made to return to their homes. ⦿ Law and order must be established. ⦿ These armed groups who are loitering around must be stopped so that a proper census can be conducted. ⦿ The unresolved issues of the earlier census must be looked into afresh, with a genuine and judicious process. ⦿ NRC and other foreigners’ tribunals must be instituted in order to delineate who is a citizen and who is not in the state of Manipur. : A. Bimol Akoijam ji

Congress

31,878 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

We have one foundation of law in America: the United States Constitution. Everything else—from the federal government to state and local governments—must adhere to our constitutional system and the rule of law. Any effort to establish Sharia law as governing is completely incompatible with this fundamental principle.

We have one foundation of law in America: the United States Constitution. Everything else—from the federal government to state and local governments—must adhere to our constitutional system and the rule of law. Any effort to establish Sharia law as governing is completely incompatible with this fundamental principle.

Rep. Keith Self

13,828 просмотров • 22 дней назад

Hatcliffe MP Agency Gumbo said Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3) is attempting to turn the Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA) into "ana mahobho," arguing that the proposed changes could undermine the military's constitutional role and effectiveness.

Hatcliffe MP Agency Gumbo said Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3) is attempting to turn the Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA) into "ana mahobho," arguing that the proposed changes could undermine the military's constitutional role and effectiveness.

263Chat.com 🇿🇼

27,459 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад