Mereja Forum

[Horus]

[DefendTheTruth]

ልሙጡ ባንዲራ፣ is a sign of disdainful disregard for the constitution of the country, if you don't have a regard for the constitution of a country then you are also signaling that you care less about the country itself.

Ethiopia is not a country without a constitution, be it good or bad.

A country without a constitution would have been not worth of defending it and Ethiopia is not one of them, fortunately.

[Horus]

ዲዲቲ
ያ የቆሻሻው ዎያኔ ቅራቅምቦ ልክ እንደ አመሪካው ፎንፌዴሬት ፈለግ በቀኑ የታሪክ ቆሻሻ መጣያ ይወረወራል !

[Abere]

ዲዲቲ
ያ የቆሻሻው ዎያኔ ቅራቅምቦ ልክ እንደ አመሪካው ፎንፌዴሬት ፈለግ በቀኑ የታሪክ ቆሻሻ መጣያ ይወረወራል !

ሆረስ፣
እግዜር ይስጥልን የዜግነት ፍቅር ማህተም የሆነቺውን የቅድስት አገር ኢትዮጵያ አረንጓዴ፣ቀይ፣ባጫ ሰንደቅ ዓላማ ያጀበቺውን የድል ሆታ ስለጋበዝከን። ይህቺ ሰንዴቅ ዓላማ ደም እና ልብ ስር ገብታ የምትማርክ የአገር ፍቅር ስሜት ግለት የምትሰጥ ናት። ይህች ሰንዴቅ ዓላማ ቀለሟ እጅግ ማራኪ ብቻ ሳይሆን ወኔ፣መንፈስ፣ በሰቂለ ህሌና ሙሉ ኢትዮጵያን የምታሳይ ናት።

[Naga Tuma]

ልሙጡ ባንዲራ፣ is a sign of disdainful disregard for the constitution of the country, if you don't have a regard for the constitution of a country then you are also signaling that you care less about the country itself.

Ethiopia is not a country without a constitution, be it good or bad.

A country without a constitution would have been not worth of defending it and Ethiopia is not one of them, fortunately.

DefendTheTruth,

Without listening to the folklore, can you rationally define and characterize a constitution? If you can't define a constitution, what makes you feel you are a soldier to defend the country? Moreover, if you can't define a constitution, what makes you feel entitled to threaten a country?

[Noble Amhara]

Kkkkkkkkk constitution made by weyane papa tigre DDT? You fool get lost slave of Tigray hater of Amhara lover of evil and confused of everything you cursed bantu ambomogassa don’t consider yourself shewan or Ethiopian you are a angry Borana invader hater of Ethiopia Gurage Amhara.... Menelik should have deported each and every of you ambo bandas back to arsi

[Naga Tuma]

Kkkkkkkkk constitution made by weyane papa tigre DDT? You fool get lost slave of Tigray hater of Amhara lover of evil and confused of everything you cursed bantu ambomogassa don’t consider yourself shewan or Ethiopian you are a angry Borana invader hater of Ethiopia Gurage Amhara

You have been bitter for long and staying there for how long?

[Noble Amhara]

Kkkkkkkkk constitution made by weyane papa tigre DDT? You fool get lost slave of Tigray hater of Amhara lover of evil and confused of everything you cursed bantu ambomogassa don’t consider yourself shewan or Ethiopian you are a angry Borana invader hater of Ethiopia Gurage Amhara

You have been bitter for long and staying there for how long?

Qqqqqkkkk 99% of your Oromo gada practicians are bitter like dog even your moderates like DDT are barking day an day out I am here to get you biter hateful gallas what you show to us

[Naga Tuma]

Kkkkkkkkk constitution made by weyane papa tigre DDT? You fool get lost slave of Tigray hater of Amhara lover of evil and confused of everything you cursed bantu ambomogassa don’t consider yourself shewan or Ethiopian you are a angry Borana invader hater of Ethiopia Gurage Amhara

You have been bitter for long and staying there for how long?

Qqqqqkkkk 99% of your Oromo gada practicians are bitter like dog even your moderates like DDT are barking day an day out I am here to get you biter hateful gallas what you show to us

You are suggesting that you have a biter horde that can't read and understand your writing on the wall but you are able to unleash. Is that what you are trying to say?

[DefendTheTruth]

ልሙጡ ባንዲራ፣ is a sign of disdainful disregard for the constitution of the country, if you don't have a regard for the constitution of a country then you are also signaling that you care less about the country itself.

Ethiopia is not a country without a constitution, be it good or bad.

A country without a constitution would have been not worth of defending it and Ethiopia is not one of them, fortunately.

DefendTheTruth,

Without listening to the folklore, can you rationally define and characterize a constitution? If you can't define a constitution, what makes you feel you are a soldier to defend the country? Moreover, if you can't define a constitution, what makes you feel entitled to threaten a country?

I am not sure about which country I might have threatened or implied to threaten, you can remind me of my short memory.

I am not a constitutional scientist and didn't try to imply to be one either.

As a layman I consider a constitution as the basic document of a deal (an agreement, a contract, a declaration, a convention or a document created to govern similar intention) between the parties to the issue at hand. The issue at hand in this case is how a country is to be governed and how to govern it. This could be wrong but it is how I understand it.

I am also the opinion that even those who can't "rationally define and characterize" a constitution like a layperson but a citizen like me have the responsibility and duty to safegaurd the constitutional order of the country they claim to have its citizenship.

The reason is, in my understanding again, in the absence of a constitutional order there will be a chaotic and lawlessness that will overtake and that is not the wish of many ordinary citizens, including me.

Now I am ready to be lectured about how and where I threatened a country and which country that was/is.

[Naga Tuma]

ልሙጡ ባንዲራ፣ is a sign of disdainful disregard for the constitution of the country, if you don't have a regard for the constitution of a country then you are also signaling that you care less about the country itself.

Ethiopia is not a country without a constitution, be it good or bad.

A country without a constitution would have been not worth of defending it and Ethiopia is not one of them, fortunately.

DefendTheTruth,

Without listening to the folklore, can you rationally define and characterize a constitution? If you can't define a constitution, what makes you feel you are a soldier to defend the country? Moreover, if you can't define a constitution, what makes you feel entitled to threaten a country?

I am not sure about which country I might have threatened or implied to threaten, you can remind me of my short memory.

I am not a constitutional scientist and didn't try to imply to be one either.

As a layman I consider a constitution as the basic document of a deal (an agreement, a contract, a declaration, a convention or a document created to govern similar intention) between the parties to the issue at hand. The issue at hand in this case is how a country is to be governed and how to govern it. This could be wrong but it is how I understand it.

I am also the opinion that even those who can't "rationally define and characterize" a constitution like a layperson but a citizen like me have the responsibility and duty to safegaurd the constitutional order of the country they claim to have its citizenship.

The reason is, in my understanding again, in the absence of a constitutional order there will be a chaotic and lawlessness that will overtake and that is not the wish of many ordinary citizens, including me.

Now I am ready to be lectured about how and where I threatened a country and which country that was/is.

Maybe a little lecture will go a long way to help you here. Read your previous comments again. "Not worth defending it" is explicit enough to be read as a threat. That said, I rest my case about your understanding of the characteristics of a constitution. In my model, people are always above the constitution. That is why there are amendments. Your explanation has not convinced me that that is also your model.

[DefendTheTruth]

ልሙጡ ባንዲራ፣ is a sign of disdainful disregard for the constitution of the country, if you don't have a regard for the constitution of a country then you are also signaling that you care less about the country itself.

Ethiopia is not a country without a constitution, be it good or bad.

A country without a constitution would have been not worth of defending it and Ethiopia is not one of them, fortunately.

DefendTheTruth,

Without listening to the folklore, can you rationally define and characterize a constitution? If you can't define a constitution, what makes you feel you are a soldier to defend the country? Moreover, if you can't define a constitution, what makes you feel entitled to threaten a country?

I am not sure about which country I might have threatened or implied to threaten, you can remind me of my short memory.

I am not a constitutional scientist and didn't try to imply to be one either.

As a layman I consider a constitution as the basic document of a deal (an agreement, a contract, a declaration, a convention or a document created to govern similar intention) between the parties to the issue at hand. The issue at hand in this case is how a country is to be governed and how to govern it. This could be wrong but it is how I understand it.

I am also the opinion that even those who can't "rationally define and characterize" a constitution like a layperson but a citizen like me have the responsibility and duty to safegaurd the constitutional order of the country they claim to have its citizenship.

The reason is, in my understanding again, in the absence of a constitutional order there will be a chaotic and lawlessness that will overtake and that is not the wish of many ordinary citizens, including me.

Now I am ready to be lectured about how and where I threatened a country and which country that was/is.

Maybe a little lecture will go a long way to help you here. Read your previous comments again. "Not worth defending it" is explicit enough to be read as a threat. That said, I rest my case about your understanding of the characteristics of a constitution. In my model, people are always above the constitution. That is why there are amendments. Your explanation has not convinced me that that is also your model.

Here is what I wrote:

"Ethiopia is not a country without a constitution, be it good or bad.

A country without a constitution would have been not worth of defending it and Ethiopia is not one of them, fortunately."

Even with a/some grammatical error(s) in the two sentences here, I don't think that it is to be misunderstood and misinterpreted that much to make that much allegation.

In fact you are going an extra mile here and making uncalled for proposition if not unrelated.

I am not sure if you are also clear enough with your statement "In my model, people are always above the constitution".

The model is the following, in my layman's level of understanding.

- The creation and modification (amendment in your words) of a constitution has got its own procedure (even if the people could be said to be above the constitution, they can't flagrantly disregard the constitution or the laws resulting from the same constitution).

- Once the constitution is ratified (implemented) the affairs of the people under its jurisdiction will be governed under its supremacy, they say "no one is above the law". I don't think it is the other way, and we say "people are above the law" but we know the laws under a given jurisdiction are created (agreed up on) by the people.

So, you have two choices, in my layman's level of understanding:

1. You either accept the constitution and be governed by it with all its deficits (perceived or real) until the part you are considering should/could be amended. No one has got the right to flagrantly disregard the law of the land he/she is its legal resident/dweller, in my level of understanding.

2. Revolt against it and dismantle the constitution (the constitutional order) and strive to create another one in its place. In this category could be people who are calling for a transitional government (from outside of the constitutional order) or people who are openly waging war to topple the constitutional order by force. I can't demand from this category to be governed by the rule of the constitution, at least not in my understanding, since they are already lawless.

So, which category of the two would those people you consider to be "above the constitution" belong to?

And lastly, which category do the people in the video, waving the so called ልሙጡ ባንዲራ, belong to?

[Abere]

Ethiopia had been always a country of Law until occupied by the rebel TPLF. Not only legal, constitutional but also the rule of moral and ethics were more powerful assets that kept peace, order and stability. Leaving alone, the Imperials Laws even the Derg regime had a much better Constitution in terms of its formulations, national and grassroots level discussion. The TPLF illegal Constitution is a constitution of OLF(people like Lencho Leta, Negasso Gidada, etc) and TPLF( Melese Zenawi et la) only not Ethiopians. Hence, the Ethiopian National Flag is Green-Yellow-Red. The Derg Constitution had it right:

"Article 113 states the Flag of the People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia is of a rectangular shape with the colors: green above, yellow in the middle and red below."

[DefendTheTruth]

Ethiopia had been always a country of Law until occupied by the rebel TPLF. Not only legal, constitutional but also the rule of moral and ethics were more powerful assets that kept peace, order and stability. Leaving alone, the Imperials Laws even the Derg regime had a much better Constitution in terms of its formulations, national and grassroots level discussion. The TPLF illegal Constitution is a constitution of OLF(people like Lencho Leta, Negasso Gidada, etc) and TPLF( Melese Zenawi et la) only not Ethiopians. Hence, the Ethiopian National Flag is Green-Yellow-Red. The Derg Constitution had it right:

"Article 113 states the Flag of the People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia is of a rectangular shape with the colors: green above, yellow in the middle and red below."

Which means, you are not recognizing (and abiding yourself with) the current constitution, isn't it?

[Naga Tuma]

ልሙጡ ባንዲራ፣ is a sign of disdainful disregard for the constitution of the country, if you don't have a regard for the constitution of a country then you are also signaling that you care less about the country itself.

Ethiopia is not a country without a constitution, be it good or bad.

A country without a constitution would have been not worth of defending it and Ethiopia is not one of them, fortunately.

DefendTheTruth,

Without listening to the folklore, can you rationally define and characterize a constitution? If you can't define a constitution, what makes you feel you are a soldier to defend the country? Moreover, if you can't define a constitution, what makes you feel entitled to threaten a country?

I am not sure about which country I might have threatened or implied to threaten, you can remind me of my short memory.

I am not a constitutional scientist and didn't try to imply to be one either.

As a layman I consider a constitution as the basic document of a deal (an agreement, a contract, a declaration, a convention or a document created to govern similar intention) between the parties to the issue at hand. The issue at hand in this case is how a country is to be governed and how to govern it. This could be wrong but it is how I understand it.

I am also the opinion that even those who can't "rationally define and characterize" a constitution like a layperson but a citizen like me have the responsibility and duty to safegaurd the constitutional order of the country they claim to have its citizenship.

The reason is, in my understanding again, in the absence of a constitutional order there will be a chaotic and lawlessness that will overtake and that is not the wish of many ordinary citizens, including me.

Now I am ready to be lectured about how and where I threatened a country and which country that was/is.

Maybe a little lecture will go a long way to help you here. Read your previous comments again. "Not worth defending it" is explicit enough to be read as a threat. That said, I rest my case about your understanding of the characteristics of a constitution. In my model, people are always above the constitution. That is why there are amendments. Your explanation has not convinced me that that is also your model.

Here is what I wrote:

"Ethiopia is not a country without a constitution, be it good or bad.

A country without a constitution would have been not worth of defending it and Ethiopia is not one of them, fortunately."

Even with a/some grammatical error(s) in the two sentences here, I don't think that it is to be misunderstood and misinterpreted that much to make that much allegation.

In fact you are going an extra mile here and making uncalled for proposition if not unrelated.

I am not sure if you are also clear enough with your statement "In my model, people are always above the constitution".

The model is the following, in my layman's level of understanding.

- The creation and modification (amendment in your words) of a constitution has got its own procedure (even if the people could be said to be above the constitution, they can't flagrantly disregard the constitution or the laws resulting from the same constitution).

- Once the constitution is ratified (implemented) the affairs of the people under its jurisdiction will be governed under its supremacy, they say "no one is above the law". I don't think it is the other way, and we say "people are above the law" but we know the laws under a given jurisdiction are created (agreed up on) by the people.

So, you have two choices, in my layman's level of understanding:

1. You either accept the constitution and be governed by it with all its deficits (perceived or real) until the part you are considering should/could be amended. No one has got the right to flagrantly disregard the law of the land he/she is its legal resident/dweller, in my level of understanding.

2. Revolt against it and dismantle the constitution (the constitutional order) and strive to create another one in its place. In this category could be people who are calling for a transitional government (from outside of the constitutional order) or people who are openly waging war to topple the constitutional order by force. I can't demand from this category to be governed by the rule of the constitution, at least not in my understanding, since they are already lawless.

So, which category of the two would those people you consider to be "above the constitution" belong to?

And lastly, which category do the people in the video, waving the so called ልሙጡ ባንዲራ, belong to?

I am not interested in reading you keep opening the pandora's box about the source of the current constitution. I have already rested my case about it. Your second set of comments substantiated what I understood from your first set of comments.

You can be sure about what you meant. You can only be less sure about how it should be understood. You can't at the same time be the judge of what you meant and how it should be understood. A little survey about how it is understood may be helpful.

Yes, I am clear and have been clear for a long time about people-constitution-leadership-leader hierarchy. Just a day or so ago, I was listening to an American citizen discuss amending the U.S. Constitution, that it hasn't been amended in a long time. That expression by a citizen broke no law. If the citizen's idea convinces more than the majority of voting citizens in the country, he will get his way. There is a reason why there is a distinction between constitution and law, ሄራ ፍ ሴረ። One can at the same time be governed by the law of the land and demand peacefully a change or amendment of the existing constitution. That makes your hypothetical scenarios moot except that they substantiate what have happened in the past while rejecting them from happening again.

These are ideas independent of folklore of every stripe.

[Naga Tuma]

Ethiopia had been always a country of Law until occupied by the rebel TPLF. Not only legal, constitutional but also the rule of moral and ethics were more powerful assets that kept peace, order and stability. Leaving alone, the Imperials Laws even the Derg regime had a much better Constitution in terms of its formulations, national and grassroots level discussion. The TPLF illegal Constitution is a constitution of OLF(people like Lencho Leta, Negasso Gidada, etc) and TPLF( Melese Zenawi et la) only not Ethiopians. Hence, the Ethiopian National Flag is Green-Yellow-Red. The Derg Constitution had it right:

"Article 113 states the Flag of the People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia is of a rectangular shape with the colors: green above, yellow in the middle and red below."

So, is it fair to say that Ethiopia has seen three written constitutions in recent years instead of one original written constitution and two amendments? Do you know of any objective analysis of all of them?

[DefendTheTruth]

ልሙጡ ባንዲራ፣ is a sign of disdainful disregard for the constitution of the country, if you don't have a regard for the constitution of a country then you are also signaling that you care less about the country itself.

Ethiopia is not a country without a constitution, be it good or bad.

A country without a constitution would have been not worth of defending it and Ethiopia is not one of them, fortunately.

DefendTheTruth,

Without listening to the folklore, can you rationally define and characterize a constitution? If you can't define a constitution, what makes you feel you are a soldier to defend the country? Moreover, if you can't define a constitution, what makes you feel entitled to threaten a country?

I am not sure about which country I might have threatened or implied to threaten, you can remind me of my short memory.

I am not a constitutional scientist and didn't try to imply to be one either.

As a layman I consider a constitution as the basic document of a deal (an agreement, a contract, a declaration, a convention or a document created to govern similar intention) between the parties to the issue at hand. The issue at hand in this case is how a country is to be governed and how to govern it. This could be wrong but it is how I understand it.

I am also the opinion that even those who can't "rationally define and characterize" a constitution like a layperson but a citizen like me have the responsibility and duty to safegaurd the constitutional order of the country they claim to have its citizenship.

The reason is, in my understanding again, in the absence of a constitutional order there will be a chaotic and lawlessness that will overtake and that is not the wish of many ordinary citizens, including me.

Now I am ready to be lectured about how and where I threatened a country and which country that was/is.

Maybe a little lecture will go a long way to help you here. Read your previous comments again. "Not worth defending it" is explicit enough to be read as a threat. That said, I rest my case about your understanding of the characteristics of a constitution. In my model, people are always above the constitution. That is why there are amendments. Your explanation has not convinced me that that is also your model.

Here is what I wrote:

"Ethiopia is not a country without a constitution, be it good or bad.

A country without a constitution would have been not worth of defending it and Ethiopia is not one of them, fortunately."

Even with a/some grammatical error(s) in the two sentences here, I don't think that it is to be misunderstood and misinterpreted that much to make that much allegation.

In fact you are going an extra mile here and making uncalled for proposition if not unrelated.

I am not sure if you are also clear enough with your statement "In my model, people are always above the constitution".

The model is the following, in my layman's level of understanding.

- The creation and modification (amendment in your words) of a constitution has got its own procedure (even if the people could be said to be above the constitution, they can't flagrantly disregard the constitution or the laws resulting from the same constitution).

- Once the constitution is ratified (implemented) the affairs of the people under its jurisdiction will be governed under its supremacy, they say "no one is above the law". I don't think it is the other way, and we say "people are above the law" but we know the laws under a given jurisdiction are created (agreed up on) by the people.

So, you have two choices, in my layman's level of understanding:

1. You either accept the constitution and be governed by it with all its deficits (perceived or real) until the part you are considering should/could be amended. No one has got the right to flagrantly disregard the law of the land he/she is its legal resident/dweller, in my level of understanding.

2. Revolt against it and dismantle the constitution (the constitutional order) and strive to create another one in its place. In this category could be people who are calling for a transitional government (from outside of the constitutional order) or people who are openly waging war to topple the constitutional order by force. I can't demand from this category to be governed by the rule of the constitution, at least not in my understanding, since they are already lawless.

So, which category of the two would those people you consider to be "above the constitution" belong to?

And lastly, which category do the people in the video, waving the so called ልሙጡ ባንዲራ, belong to?

I am not interested in reading you keep opening the pandora's box about the source of the current constitution. I have already rested my case about it. Your second set of comments substantiated what I understood from your first set of comments.

You can be sure about what you meant. You can only be less sure about how it should be understood. You can't at the same time be the judge of what you meant and how it should be understood. A little survey about how it is understood may be helpful.

Yes, I am clear and have been clear for a long time about people-constitution-leadership-leader hierarchy. Just a day or so ago, I was listening to an American citizen discuss amending the U.S. Constitution, that it hasn't been amended in a long time. That expression by a citizen broke no law. If the citizen's idea convinces more than the majority of voting citizens in the country, he will get his way. There is a reason why there is a distinction between constitution and law, ሄራ ፍ ሴረ። One can at the same time be governed by the law of the land and demand peacefully a change or amendment of the existing constitution. That makes your hypothetical scenarios moot except that they substantiate what have happened in the past while rejecting them from happening again.

These are ideas independent of folklore of every stripe.

Funny

Why are your "ideas independent of folklore of every stripe" fail to pick one of the 2 options I put forward or, in case the two may not cover all the scenarios, add a third option and say it in clear terms then?

[Naga Tuma]

Funny

Why are your "ideas independent of folklore of every stripe" fail to pick one of the 2 options I put forward or, in case the two may not cover all the scenarios, add a third option and say it in clear terms then?

Ask your rochestered phony brain why it still thinks what it has been told to be moot are options.

[DefendTheTruth]

Funny

Why are your "ideas independent of folklore of every stripe" fail to pick one of the 2 options I put forward or, in case the two may not cover all the scenarios, add a third option and say it in clear terms then?

Ask your rochestered phony brain why it still thinks what it has been told to be moot are options.

I will ask my "phony brain" for not knowing something is not a crime or a form of weakness, as I understand at least.

But why do you keep deflecting the issues instead of answering my questions on some of your own claims?

[Naga Tuma]

Funny

Why are your "ideas independent of folklore of every stripe" fail to pick one of the 2 options I put forward or, in case the two may not cover all the scenarios, add a third option and say it in clear terms then?

Ask your rochestered phony brain why it still thinks what it has been told to be moot are options.

I will ask my "phony brain" for not knowing something is not a crime or a form of weakness, as I understand at least.

But why do you keep deflecting the issues instead of answering my questions on some of your own claims?

Keep asking it very well. I read your comments before listening to anything. A country is not worth defending comes from the same mindset that wrote and published a long time ago, long before the era of Coronavirus, that it may have to perish. That can’t be unpublished. As far as I know, it is only in Ethiopia that a citizen has the audacity to assert that his country may have to perish and then appear to be its better defender years later. That is the case put to rest and you evidently have yet to get it, however diplomatically you have been told.