<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Shazam! at Supreme Court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.quezon.ph/2006/09/27/shazam-at-supreme-court/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.quezon.ph/2006/09/27/shazam-at-supreme-court/</link>
	<description>Punditry. Politics. History. Commentary.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:35:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: justice league</title>
		<link>http://www.quezon.ph/2006/09/27/shazam-at-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-101700</link>
		<dc:creator>justice league</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:17:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quezon.ph/?p=1055#comment-101700</guid>
		<description>TBL,
Thank you

CVJ,
I agree with your ideas at the upper half though I have misgivings about the rest.

Well, the Senate has to turn to someone for the question, we all know which House Of Congress the Executive will support if they are asked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TBL,<br />
Thank you</p>
<p>CVJ,<br />
I agree with your ideas at the upper half though I have misgivings about the rest.</p>
<p>Well, the Senate has to turn to someone for the question, we all know which House Of Congress the Executive will support if they are asked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tbl</title>
		<link>http://www.quezon.ph/2006/09/27/shazam-at-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-98534</link>
		<dc:creator>tbl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:51:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quezon.ph/?p=1055#comment-98534</guid>
		<description>justice,

about the flip-flop companero, i can&#039;t verify it with dad, he met the man at the pearly gates years ago.

if it was recto, he was one of the best sidekicks of mlq, nini may still remember this. manolo may want to ask nini about the story.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>justice,</p>
<p>about the flip-flop companero, i can&#8217;t verify it with dad, he met the man at the pearly gates years ago.</p>
<p>if it was recto, he was one of the best sidekicks of mlq, nini may still remember this. manolo may want to ask nini about the story.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cvj</title>
		<link>http://www.quezon.ph/2006/09/27/shazam-at-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-98214</link>
		<dc:creator>cvj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:05:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quezon.ph/?p=1055#comment-98214</guid>
		<description>DJB, If during the Con-Ass deliberation, the Supreme Court does decide that the matter of two Houses of Congress voting jointly or separately is a &#039;political question&#039;, then it is the SC&#039;s responsibility to frame the question properly.   Since the question pits two equal Houses of Congress (i.e., the House of Representatives and the Senate) against each other, the SC cannot allow the House to proceed with voting jointly because that would mean implicitly ruling in favor of the House of Representatives (and against the Senate), which then violates their own determination that this is a political question.  Therefore, the proper recourse would be a plebiscite to let the people determine the precise meaning of  &#039;The Congress, upon a vote of three fourths of its members&#039;.  Only after the results of the plebiscite are known, can Congress proceed to propose ammendments or revisions.  Throwing the question to the people in this matter is fine by me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DJB, If during the Con-Ass deliberation, the Supreme Court does decide that the matter of two Houses of Congress voting jointly or separately is a &#8216;political question&#8217;, then it is the SC&#8217;s responsibility to frame the question properly.   Since the question pits two equal Houses of Congress (i.e., the House of Representatives and the Senate) against each other, the SC cannot allow the House to proceed with voting jointly because that would mean implicitly ruling in favor of the House of Representatives (and against the Senate), which then violates their own determination that this is a political question.  Therefore, the proper recourse would be a plebiscite to let the people determine the precise meaning of  &#8216;The Congress, upon a vote of three fourths of its members&#8217;.  Only after the results of the plebiscite are known, can Congress proceed to propose ammendments or revisions.  Throwing the question to the people in this matter is fine by me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeg</title>
		<link>http://www.quezon.ph/2006/09/27/shazam-at-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-98204</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2006 04:41:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quezon.ph/?p=1055#comment-98204</guid>
		<description>The abolition of a Senate and the abolition of the people&#039;s right to directly vote for their leaders is such a regime change, DJB. The power to elect its head of state passes from the people to the &#039;assemblymen&#039;. Therefore, what the People&#039;s Initiative is proposing is a revision even by your astute definition.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The abolition of a Senate and the abolition of the people&#8217;s right to directly vote for their leaders is such a regime change, DJB. The power to elect its head of state passes from the people to the &#8216;assemblymen&#8217;. Therefore, what the People&#8217;s Initiative is proposing is a revision even by your astute definition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DJB</title>
		<link>http://www.quezon.ph/2006/09/27/shazam-at-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-97958</link>
		<dc:creator>DJB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:49:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quezon.ph/?p=1055#comment-97958</guid>
		<description>FootNote to Gutierrez-Saguisag interpellation:

In &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_v._Borden&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Luther v. Borden (US)&lt;/a&gt; the &quot;republican form of Government&quot; clause of the Constitution was deemed to be a POLITICAL QUESTION that the Supreme Court was not competent to decide because it was a matter for people themselves, or a coordinate branch of govt to decide and enforce.

In other words, if a Constitution were ratified containing the single word change from democratic to communist, the Court could not overrule such ratification. Or even consider the case, for their existence will have ceased even if they are replaced by a new Kangaroo Court.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FootNote to Gutierrez-Saguisag interpellation:</p>
<p>In <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_v._Borden" rel="nofollow">Luther v. Borden (US)</a> the &#8220;republican form of Government&#8221; clause of the Constitution was deemed to be a POLITICAL QUESTION that the Supreme Court was not competent to decide because it was a matter for people themselves, or a coordinate branch of govt to decide and enforce.</p>
<p>In other words, if a Constitution were ratified containing the single word change from democratic to communist, the Court could not overrule such ratification. Or even consider the case, for their existence will have ceased even if they are replaced by a new Kangaroo Court.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: justice league</title>
		<link>http://www.quezon.ph/2006/09/27/shazam-at-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-97946</link>
		<dc:creator>justice league</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:31:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quezon.ph/?p=1055#comment-97946</guid>
		<description>tbl,

Do fill in the gaps with what you know about the story. I don&#039;t know the rest.

elinca,
I&#039;d have to say no with regards to being scared perse of PGMA. We have to consider that the Constitution that PGMA is moving for might outlive her political life and be used by the next. Some of the arguments posted are point for point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>tbl,</p>
<p>Do fill in the gaps with what you know about the story. I don&#8217;t know the rest.</p>
<p>elinca,<br />
I&#8217;d have to say no with regards to being scared perse of PGMA. We have to consider that the Constitution that PGMA is moving for might outlive her political life and be used by the next. Some of the arguments posted are point for point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anna de brux</title>
		<link>http://www.quezon.ph/2006/09/27/shazam-at-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-97937</link>
		<dc:creator>anna de brux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:59:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quezon.ph/?p=1055#comment-97937</guid>
		<description>Elinca, am with you all the way!

As you say, at least RP has a female president even if she sneaked through the back door - gosh, she&#039;s proven to be one goddamn, great sneak in that sense. 

US is typically mysoginous in that respect (no woman prez in history)!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Elinca, am with you all the way!</p>
<p>As you say, at least RP has a female president even if she sneaked through the back door &#8211; gosh, she&#8217;s proven to be one goddamn, great sneak in that sense. </p>
<p>US is typically mysoginous in that respect (no woman prez in history)!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: elinca</title>
		<link>http://www.quezon.ph/2006/09/27/shazam-at-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-97921</link>
		<dc:creator>elinca</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:12:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quezon.ph/?p=1055#comment-97921</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t you think so, Anna?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t you think so, Anna?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: elinca</title>
		<link>http://www.quezon.ph/2006/09/27/shazam-at-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-97920</link>
		<dc:creator>elinca</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:09:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quezon.ph/?p=1055#comment-97920</guid>
		<description>Reading all these lengthy discourses about cha-cha, amendments and revisions, etc., I would conclude that jurisprudence (or whatever you call it) is the realm of the male of the species.

 Are all these arguments because we&#039;re scared of Gloria ?  I do not like her myself, but I salute her!  She has proven to be formidable, how unlike a woman!!! and in a country known to be a bastion of machismo-ism!  Her predecessor, Cory, had proven her pluck too--she held on to power inspite of all those nasty attempted coups.  The only difference is when it&#039; time for an exit, Coty did so gracefully. 

I don&#039;t care one way or another what happened to GMA--if she held on to power long enough, maybe she could redeem herself.(I anticipate your denouncements for saying this, guys, hahahaha!)

I&#039;m glad that the Filipinos had become receptive to the idea of a female president (even if Gloria just sneaked through ) Hey, you even bested the U.S.--never had a lady president here.

As that ad with a woman posed holding a cigarette says:

&quot;WE&#039;VE  COME  A  LONG  WAY,  BABY!&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reading all these lengthy discourses about cha-cha, amendments and revisions, etc., I would conclude that jurisprudence (or whatever you call it) is the realm of the male of the species.</p>
<p> Are all these arguments because we&#8217;re scared of Gloria ?  I do not like her myself, but I salute her!  She has proven to be formidable, how unlike a woman!!! and in a country known to be a bastion of machismo-ism!  Her predecessor, Cory, had proven her pluck too&#8211;she held on to power inspite of all those nasty attempted coups.  The only difference is when it&#8217; time for an exit, Coty did so gracefully. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t care one way or another what happened to GMA&#8211;if she held on to power long enough, maybe she could redeem herself.(I anticipate your denouncements for saying this, guys, hahahaha!)</p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad that the Filipinos had become receptive to the idea of a female president (even if Gloria just sneaked through ) Hey, you even bested the U.S.&#8211;never had a lady president here.</p>
<p>As that ad with a woman posed holding a cigarette says:</p>
<p>&#8220;WE&#8217;VE  COME  A  LONG  WAY,  BABY!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tbl</title>
		<link>http://www.quezon.ph/2006/09/27/shazam-at-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-97656</link>
		<dc:creator>tbl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:48:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quezon.ph/?p=1055#comment-97656</guid>
		<description>per justice....

&quot;There is an old story/rumor about CM Recto or Dakila Castro ( I just canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t remember who of the 2). The story goes that the lawyer concerned won 2 cases using one argument in one and countering it in the other before the same judge.

It was said that the judge was surprised to hear him counter the same argument he used in the other case before.

He supposedly remarked that Ã¢â‚¬Å“Your honor I am now most certain as could ever be that I WAS WRONG IN THE PREVIOUS CASEÃ¢â‚¬Â

If this story proves to be true; I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think we can be that lucky to get away with it.&quot;

maybe this was the incident my dad was telling me!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>per justice&#8230;.</p>
<p>&#8220;There is an old story/rumor about CM Recto or Dakila Castro ( I just canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t remember who of the 2). The story goes that the lawyer concerned won 2 cases using one argument in one and countering it in the other before the same judge.</p>
<p>It was said that the judge was surprised to hear him counter the same argument he used in the other case before.</p>
<p>He supposedly remarked that Ã¢â‚¬Å“Your honor I am now most certain as could ever be that I WAS WRONG IN THE PREVIOUS CASEÃ¢â‚¬Â</p>
<p>If this story proves to be true; I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think we can be that lucky to get away with it.&#8221;</p>
<p>maybe this was the incident my dad was telling me!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

