Constitutional crisis as Egypt's Supreme Court rejects Morsi's reopening of Parliament - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18765947[/url] [quote=BBC News][B]Egyptian President Mohammed Mursi's order to reconvene parliament has been rejected by the highest court, which says its ruling that led to the assembly's dissolution is binding.[/B] The speaker of the dissolved house has already responded to Mr Mursi's decree, calling on MPs to meet on Tuesday. Army units outside parliament have left and some MPs have gone in. The decision by Mr Mursi, whose Muslim Brotherhood has most seats, sets up a potential showdown with the military. However the situation is unclear as Egyptians elected Mr Mursi without a constitution and without his powers being defined. [B]'No appeal'[/B] It was the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf) that made the decision to dissolve parliament in June, after Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court ruled that part of the election for parliament was unconstitutional. Meeting on Monday, the court said that all its rulings and decisions were "final and not subject to appeal". In a statement, it emphasised that the court was "not a party to any political confrontation". The BBC's Jon Leyne in Cairo said that the court had not itself ordered the dissolution of parliament so Mr Mursi was not directly challenging a court order. Despite the apparent tensions, the president and Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, who heads Scaf, appeared together at a military cadet graduation ceremony on Monday. Parliament speaker Saad al-Katatni, also a member of the Brotherhood, said MPs should return for a session of parliament on Tuesday afternoon. A Salafist MP, Nizar Ghurab, was the first to go into the building as guards outside allowed MPs to return, Mena news agency reported. But Mr Mursi's decree was criticised by some of his political rivals. Presidential candidate Hamdin Sabbahi was quoted as saying it was a "waste of legal authority" while another, Abdul Moneim Aboul Fotouh, was said to have denounced his move as unconstitutional. In his presidential decree, Mr Mursi said new parliamentary elections would be held 60 days after the constitution had been agreed by referendum. [B]Military critics[/B] The Scaf took over the reins of power last year, after the revolution that ended former President Hosni Mubarak's 30-year rule. The army move was initially welcomed by many of the anti-government protesters, but its presence became increasingly unpopular as critics accused its leaders of wanting to hold on to power. Mr Mursi won the country's first free presidential election last month, and army chiefs formally handed over power on 30 June. But before his inauguration, the military granted itself sweeping powers. The commanders' constitutional declaration stripped the president of any authority over the military, gave military chiefs legislative powers, and the power to veto the new constitution, which has yet to be drafted. The Muslim Brotherhood has consistently opposed the decision to dissolve parliament.[/quote] There is no clear constitution telling us who has the power to do what here, dunno wtf is going to happen now

Well, Morsi seems to have the backing of the people, whereas their Supreme Court has the backing of the military. The military though is doing everything they can to undermine the Egyptian President so that they can keep power to themselves, and Morsi is doing everything he can to reel in the military and make them just a military. [editline]9th July 2012[/editline] As it stands right now, their military only answers to itself, and even has the power to make laws as they see fit.

I don't really consider Egypt's revolution to be successful until the military is reigned in. They have too much power atm.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;36689237]I don't really consider Egypt's revolution to be successful until the military is reigned in. They have too much power atm.[/QUOTE]That's because what happened in Egypt was hardly a revolution. It was mass civil unrest, but nothing like in Libya or Syria. Mubarak left of his own accord and on his own terms, and the military was allowed to step in and carry on with business as usual. The only reason things between Morsi and the military aren't worse is because the country is still fired up, and if the military were to act against the first democratically elected president they would have an open rebellion.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36689290]That's because what happened in Egypt was hardly a revolution. It was mass civil unrest, but nothing like in Libya or Syria. Mubarak left of his own accord and on his own terms, and the military was allowed to step in and carry on with business as usual. The only reason things between Morsi and the military aren't worse is because the country is still fired up, and if the military were to act against the first democratically elected president they would have an open rebellion.[/QUOTE] This entire situation reminds of when Horatio Gates wanted to march on the capitol and take over Congress, but Washington stopped him. I mean, historically, the situations are worlds apart, but the core of the conflict, govt vs. military, is the same.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;36689237]I don't really consider Egypt's revolution to be successful until the military is reigned in. They have too much power atm.[/QUOTE] The problem with that is I don't see them voluntarily giving their power up unless they agree with their president, and clearly they don't. I foresee more violence unless an agreement is reached.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;36689373]The problem with that is I don't see them voluntarily giving their power up unless they agree with their president, and clearly they don't. I foresee more violence unless an agreement is reached.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's what I'm fearing, I don't wish to see more Egyptians die. I have confidence in Morsi. I think he's a smart guy and he can work this out. If he can't then, as Thomas Jefferson (in)famously said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."