And what does the charter say

[Gabbal]

Originally posted by Naxar Nugaaleed:

^ you can't be serious horn? One that really does mean the broken the law, just that the parliament can do so but what you ignored was this:

ARTICLE 44

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PRESIDENT

 

2) The President shall appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister and/or dismiss the government

[/b]

if it fails to obtain the required vote of confidence from Parliament.

 

3) The President shall dismiss Ministers and Assistant Ministers on the proposal of the Prime minister.

The president has the power to dismiss the prime minister if the parliament votes him out.

 

Clearly Abdullahi Yusuf broke the charter because he announced he "dismissed" the prime minister before the parliament even voted on the issue.

 

 

Also, the president can dismiss ministers on the proposal of the prime minister, meaning the president's power is symbolic and it is the prime minister who controls the naming and dismissing of ministers.

 

It is similar to the Commonwealth realm countries where prime ministers "propose" the candidate of governor-general to Queen. What it really means is that the prime minister's word is final and the Queen is symbolic. It is art form, a decoration to legitimize the existence of "head of state" even though there is a functioning government.

 

The Queen has no power over the governments of Australia and Canadia at all, in the same way, from the charter itself, the president of Somalia has no power over the naming and dismissing of ministers which is controlled by the prime minister who is himself named by the president but beholden to the parliament, who votes him in and votes him out.

 

 

Are you dyslexic young man or am I wasting my time?

[money]

ARTICLE 44

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PRESIDENT

 

2) The President shall appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister and/or dismiss the government if it fails to obtain the required vote of confidence from Parliament. waa hadeey weeyso kalsoonida barlamaanka- waxaa horeeysa in marka hore PM uu hortago Barlamaanka bacdeen weydiisto QALSOONI - or Kalsooni - hadoow helo waa shaqeeynaa - hadoow waayo kalsooni - ninka madaxaweyn aa raacdeeynaayo - capisce? Sheekadaan maaha philosophical puzzle: which one comes first - the egg or the chicken - waa cadahay madaxweyne waxoow magacaabaa ra'iisal wasaare oo sameeysanaayo golaha wasiirada - ka dibna hortagaayo barlamaanka - barlamaanka is the BIG WORD here so underline it. if B does K, then R gets L, if not, M fires R - easy logic!

 

3) The President shall dismiss Ministers and Assistant Ministers on the proposal of the Prime minister. tan sheekada shuqulba kuma leh ra'iisal wasaare raacdeeyntiisa iyo magaacibidiisa... waxaa waaye hadii wasiir ama wasiiro ka tirsan golaha wasiiradda oow rabo inoow ra'iisal wasaare raacdeeyo perche` xilkiisoow qaban waayay - ma shaqeeyste oo kale, Madaxa golaha wasiiradda (PM) aa, madaxweynaha u soo gudbinaa warqadda shaqa ka raacdeeynta - ama xil ka qaadista wasiirkaas seegseega ah madaxweynahana waa saxiixaa ileeyn waa qalin haaye oo kaliya - hadoow saxiixi waayo xaa dhacaa waaye - madaxweynaha aa gudan waayay waajibkiisa - xeerka ku tuntay - ka dibna impeachment aa imaaneey -capisce BOOWE?

[Xaq]

everybody take a deep breath and look at the situation. Nuur Cade broke the rules of the charter because you cannot have a cabinet that is not signed by the president. Cabdulahi Yusuf WILL break the charter if he decides to continue on naming a new prime minister.

 

the TFG charter is designed so that the president can make decisions concerning the PM only if he gets parliamentary approval. The PM can make decisions only if he gets the signatures of the parliament and the president.

[Gabbal]

^Actually the charter says the president only confers "state honours" to the named council of ministers.

 

So you are right, the president has to "sign off" but the charter does not give the president the powers to refuse it. He has no options at all, it is a fixed circumstance.

 

Now Abdullahi Yusuf HAS refused Nuur Cadde's list which means the president is using powers which are not given to him by the charter. He has to sign yes, but he does not have the ability to refuse.

 

The only real power he has, as written in the charter, is the fact he can dismiss the government IF the parliament gives a vote of no confidence.

 

It is amazing how Abdullahi Yusuf has been allowed to function the way he has when the charter renders the president a symbolic head of state.

 

Another effect of the bunch of illiterates who call themselves parliamentarians in the TFG.

[Gabbal]

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTERS AND MINISTERS

 

3. The Prime Minister shall propose to the President 3 names of persons to be appointed Deputy Prime Ministers;

 

4. The Prime Minister shall propose to the President names of persons to be appointed Ministers and Assistant Ministers;

And the president's role

 

h. The President shall confer state honours on the proposal of the Council of Ministers.

 

2) The President shall appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister and/or dismiss the government

if it fails to obtain the required vote of confidence from Parliament.

 

3) The President shall dismiss Ministers and Assistant Ministers

on the proposal of the Prime minister.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

"The President shall appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister and/or dismiss the government [/b]if it fails to obtain the required vote of confidence from Parliament."

Let me do some translation:

 

The president can appoint and dismiss

 

(and/or) dismiss the entire government if it fails to obtain the required vote of confidence from parliament

 

We see that this clause speaks about what the Pres can do about two things , the prime minister and the government. As for the pm, his appointment and dismissal needs no parliamentary vote of confidence. If we are to assume what you are assuming horn, as for as getting a vote confidence from parliament, we would have to also say that the PM needs to go before the parliament to get a vote confidence before the President can appoint him. Clearly that is not so, i hope that much is clear.

[Xaq]

NN, if what you are saying is correct then there would have been 2 seperate clauses in the charter. one would be about the dismissal of the government and the other would be about the dismissal of the PM.

 

FOR EXAMPLE:

a. the president has the power to appoint or dismiss a PM

 

b.the president has the power to dismiss a government if it fails to obtain the required vote of confidence from Parliament

[Gabbal]

^There are two separate clauses.

 

 

As for the pm, his appoint and dismissal needs no parliamentary vote of confidence.

Naxar, you are wrong because there are two separate clauses in the charter.

 

That clause you put forward talks just about the event of confidence vote on the government. It says the president can choose to dismiss the prime minister and his government altogether or choose to dismiss just the government and keep the prime minister letting him take another stab at creating a government.

 

Essentially once the vote of no confidence has been passed on the government, it is up to the president to dismiss the prime minister and his government altogether or just the government and keep the prime minister.

 

But on a president's wish to dismiss the prime minister at a time other then the passing of confidence on the government, the president has to still put the matter before parliament:

 

In fact there is a whole article devoted to this.

 

ARTICLE 51

DISMISSAL OF THE PRIME/DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (s).

 

1. If Parliament, by a vote supported by more than fifty per cent (50%) of its members, passes a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister, the President shall dismiss the Prime Minister, and other Members of the Council of Ministers.

Do you get it now? In both cases, parliament has the power to dismiss the prime minister. The president only has options if the parliament votes on the government as opposed to the prime minister himself, which is what has occurred in this current episode.

[Poker]

Naxar Nugaaleed needs to get hook on phonics or better yet find the SOMALI version of the so-called chartered since his comprehension of the English language is limited.

 

I think HORN is correct, the way the constitution is written, the president can ONLY dismiss the PM after the house vote of no confidence takes place.

 

Now we know why Yey is making these fundamental mistakes. He has people like Duke and Naxar translating the constitution for him.

[The Zack]

^Lol.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

you know, at first it was a joke but you guys are proofing this theory of mine. Now, phonics aside, i will reduce the the structure of the sentence the simplest way i know.

 

Guy one can do to guy two a, b, (and or) c if d happens. Now you are free to assume, wrongly (because we know that is not the case), that d applies to a,b and c where it is clear that it only applies to c. What is a flagrant misreading, however, is that d applies only to b and c which is what your trying to say horn.

 

Xaq, no. two clauses are not necessary, its speaking about a single issue in three different states, only gives a qualification to one of the three. not the best writers on earth but understandable.

 

Horn, the other clause you speak of is speaking about what the president (Has) to do if c happens and has nothing to with a or b which the president can do and not has to do. Far from supporting what you think it is supporting, your revisionist interpretation, it supports what i have been saying by treating c altogether different then the other two cases of a and b.

 

This attempt to redefine the role of the president at this last minute is really pathetic if you ask me. We do not and never have had a ceremonial presidency. It has always been that the president is in charge of the long term policies of his government where the Prime minister is in charge of the day to day affairs of the government he is part of. we should have seen this coming though when that idi*t of PM kept saying my government.

 

Poker, in reading the constitution, comprehension is far better then phonics, so that with readers like me and duke, Somalia would never get into the squabbles it seems to always get in because of people like you. Understanding is the key, work on that and do all of us a favor.

[LayZie G.]

Also, the president can dismiss ministers on the proposal of the prime minister, meaning the president's power is symbolic and it is the prime minister who controls the naming and dismissing of ministers.

Mr dear Horn, in terms of the so called transitional federal government of somalia's charter, yes, you are right on the mark. No one can argue the fact that A. Yusuf DOES NOT HAVE the power to oust the PM. It is the sole responsibility of parliament to push a vote of no confidence and approve atleast by a 50% or so it reads in the posted charter that I just finished reading and upon approval of the president that the PM can be dismissed, not before.

 

On the part about your other comment regarding a parliamentary or semi-presidential system as noted by you in reference to Canada:

 

It is similar to the Commonwealth realm countries where prime ministers "propose" the candidate of governor-general to Queen. What it really means is that the prime minister's word is final and the Queen is symbolic. It is art form, a decoration to legitimize the existence of "head of state" even though there is a functioning government.

 

The Queen has no power over the governments of Australia and Canadia at all, in the same way, from the charter itself, the president of Somalia has no power over the naming and dismissing of ministers which is controlled by the prime minister who is himself named by the president but beholden to the parliament, who votes him in and votes him out.

You are wrong my dear. If you have ever taken Canadian law courses or political science you would know that the queen and her representative, that being the GG, Governor General for you has what is called, "RESERVED POWER" also known as "Prerogative" power dear.

 

What that means for you and others who are not familiar with this term is that the GG, in the case of of the sitting GG of canada her Excellency Michaelle Jean has the following reserved power on behalf of the monarch....

 

1) The right to dismiss our cow of a PM(S. Harper) if she wanted to and appoint the coalition government formed by the NDP and the fake liberals with the assistance of the Block quebecois for a term not less than 2 yrs, as the Liberal leader becoming the acting PM of canada, if her excellency had sense in her, instead of listening to our crybaby of a PM.(as proposed by the coalition government)

 

2) Her excellency Michaelle Jean has the right to refuse to dissolve the Parliament upon the request of the acting PM(which probably is what he would ask if he is defeated, yet again)

 

3) The most important, she has the right to delay her approval on bills passed by parliament, if she wanted to....

 

4) THE GG has the right to reject the executive branch appointments, especially the judiacary candidates but convention allows her to consent to such appointments after careful examination.

 

All in all, those are reserved powers, rarely exercised but available upon request.

 

 

If I recall, australia you speak off had their GG refuse to dissolve its parliamentary upon the advise of the PM atleast more than once and so did Canada. I think the australian GG some years ago dismissed a majority party's leader serving as the PM.

 

Here in canada, our own history was made with Lord Byng's refusal to dismiss parliament on the recommendation of a minority governement of mackenzie king due to corruption and having support from a different party that at the time did not have a seat in parliament and therefore his scam of a majority was rejected by lord byng at the time the GG of Canada.(please read some of the famous KIng-BYNG Affair)

 

Just because it has not happened in our live time does not mean that it can not happen.

 

Matter of fact, this can happen as early as January 26 of 2009 if Harper does not come up with another scheme, provided that the NDP and the fake liberal party did not mean what they said when they threatened to form a coalition government few weeks ago.(already the fake liberal leader is backbiting the promise his party made to the public to stand firm and form a coalition government and oust harper)

 

 

PS: Horn, stay in the minor league discussions with the warlord talks but please do not try to misinform the public again. Try inaad ku dadaasho sida aad u masruufi laheyd your favourite warlord aka Barre Hiraale.

[Gabbal]

No I have never taken a Canadian law or political science course nor had reason to, but still you completely misunderstood what I meant.

 

Actually that is an understatement; you missed my point by a mile and half.

 

My analogy there did not specifically address the "governor general" or his/her functions per se, but rather the naming of the individuals chosen to fill that post. I said it is the prime minister that "purposes" the GG and the Queen then bestows legitimacy on that choice with the Queen having no options but to accept the prime minister's choice. Ironically enough the governor general is the Queens official representative and does retain "royal prerogatives" but the Queen has no official say on who is chosen to fill that position.

 

With regards to naming ministers in the Somali government, the powers of the Somali president and the Queen are similar. The Somali prime minister names the minsiters and the president signs of on them while having no choice other then to sign off. He is not given the option of refusing the prime minister's pick for minister positions in the same case the Queen also serves a ceremonial role that has no options to refuse the Canadian prime minister's choice for governor general.

 

You overreacted as usual; read more critically in the future young lady.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

no the queen and the president are not the same because they both have the title "Head of state". the Queens PM or PMs are elected. here in Somalia, the president is the only one who is elected and he appoints the prime minister and then has to get a parliamentary vote of confidence for his "government".

 

 

Also, it makes no sense to say ministers need the consent of the president but he his no say. Do you hear what you are writing? If something needs your signature, its a safe bet that you have a say in it. Mind you, you also hire the guy asking for the signature in order to hire others.

[Gabbal]

Naxar nugaaleed clearly you do not seem to comprehend much and while maybe it is a language barrier, I have learned my lesson. I do not think even if I clarified your misunderstanding that you would be able to comprehend.