“SARS” in our society today represents all the inefficiencies, corruption, structural imbalances, faults and All the shenanigans of the Political class
#endsars #endpolicebrutality
Dear Friends,
On a rather deeper look at things, Police brutality is the topmost of the agitation but the anger and fury is deeper, bottled up for many years. An oppression our fathers have endured and the children now say No More, Enough is Enough!
“SARS” in our society today represents all the inefficiencies, corruption, structural imbalances, faults and All the shenanigans of the Political class
It’s a good time to negotiate the fixing of this great Nation.
If we must tell our selves the bitter truth as a people we urgently need to fix these;
* A drastic cut in cost of governance
* Federal Ministers shouldn’t be more than 10
* Reduce the powers of the centre and decentralize reasonably
* Fix our defective constitution
* Reset the civil service
* Create regional economic/developmental competition
* Allow states to explore their resources/endowment
* No state should have more than 6 Commissioners and 5aides to the Governor’s office
* It’s either Local council works or we forget about grass-root governance
* Very stern and severe punishment for stealing public funds
More from World
1/10 With respect, multiple straw men here:
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...
2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see
3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result
4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...
5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...
Some argue that if the Senate declines to hold a legally questionable, resource-sucking trial, Trump would be getting a free pass. That assumes criminal authorities do nothing and citizens can't be trusted to evaluate. Censure and focus important work?
— Ross Garber (@rossgarber) January 22, 2021
2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see
3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result
4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...
5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...
