And refused to accept the fact that the people of Egypt did NOT vote for them. Held a election for Legislators and then struck it down as unconstitutional because the wrong people won. The Court could NOT quite do that for the election of the President, but the courts have REFUSED to rule the Coup Unconstitutional. i.e. it is CONSTITUTIONAL for the Egyptian Army to remove the President in a Coup, but it is NOT constitutional for the President to act under a power granted to the President under the Constitution passed by the voters.
Remember Egypt is a Civil Law Jurisdiction, As a Civil Law Jurisdiction the Legislature is SUPREME not the Courts. The Courts just kept ruling the election to the Legislature was unconstitutional, so Moris then ruled he had to make the Ruling he did for there was NO legislature. AND his orders would be subject to the act passed by the Legislature when it was elected and convented.
A President by the Name Abraham Lincoln did the same in 1861. Lincoln called for Volunteers and military Actions against the South WITHOUT FIRST GETTING THE PERMISSION OF CONGRESS TO DO SO. It was clear such permission was needed but Congress was NOT in session, and something had to be done. Thus Lincoln did what he did in the Spring of 1861, knowing and accepting that if Congress did not later agree, it was an impeachable offense. Congress later approved the Actions of Lincoln.
The same line of logic and law applies to Morsi and his move to ban judicial review of his decision. The Egyptian legislature has the power to give him that power AND remove him if he abused his position. The problem was the Elected members of that Legislature would have SUPPORTED Morsi, like the US Congress supported Lincoln in 1861.
In many ways, your attitude was the attitude of the South in 1861. Lincoln could NOT do anything till Congress came into session. If Lincoln did something before Congress gave him permission, that was illegal and ground for Military actions against him. That the Courts was backing the SOUTH is NOT taught today, but the Taney-Lincoln dispute is similar to what Morsi and the Egyptian Courts were doing. Ruling the actions of Lincoln was illegal for Congress had not authorize them, even through the courts KNEW that the elected Congress WOULD support Lincoln (and why Lincoln ignored the Court rulings against him),
Sooner or later we come to the basis of ALL justification for the use of Force, majority rule. In the case of Morsi he had the support of MOST voters based on the fact he won the most votes in the elections he participated in. No one has produced any evidence or even accused the Moslem Brotherhood of Voting Fraud (the same can NOT be said of the Military supported opposition).
I do NOT like the Moslem Brotherhood, but they won the election fair and square. Elections MUST MEAN SOMETHING, or they are just widow dressing (like elections in the Former Soviet Union, you had the right to vote for the Communist Candidate or no one). As a good Democrat I hated Reagan, but I objected to an "Impeach Reagan" button someone was wearing for while I disliked Reagan, he had won the election and just because I opposed all that Reagan stood for was NOT grounds for his impeachment.
The same for the Moslem Brotherhood, they WON the election, this coup undermines the whole concept of Democracy and if a people do NOT oppose this Coup on that ground alone, such people do NOT believe in Democracy and are dangerous for that reason alone.
= new reply since forum marked as read
