Right to marry not needed in Constitution

To produce a complex document of 155 pages, 12 chapters; 183 clauses and many sub-clauses is indeed a monumental exercise, and demonstrates a commitment to orderly development and good governance of our nation.
It is not possible, or even necessary, to comment on all the chapters and I have therefore selected six, which I consider to be fundamental as they identify significant departure from the past and present manner in which we govern ourselves.
There is one obvious typographical error in Clause 60 — (Vacation of office) sub-clause 3, where ‘National Security’ should read ‘Foreign Affairs’. I am sure this has been corrected already by the committee.

Comments:

Chapter 1 — The recognition and protection of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms
1.1 This have been expanded and divided into six (6) groups, some of which, such as, ‘Mobility Rights’, and under ‘Equality Rights’, the Right to Marry. I consider unnecessary to be included in a Constitution.
Correspondingly do we need the right ‘Not to marry’?

2.2 Protection of rights and freedoms
Clause 66 defines Parliament as consisting of the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The manner in which the Cabinet is to be selected makes it a unit outside the definition of Parliament.
It might therefore be necessary in Clause 29 (2) to add the word ‘Cabinet’ after parliament, unless all decisions of the Cabinet are subject to ratification by both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Chapter 3 — The President and the Vice-President
This chapter introduces the American system of the election of a President and Vice President and initiates a departure from our present system of governance.
I am yet to be convinced that it is an improvement of our present system and should be the subject of very wide public debate if not a referendum.
What the proposal attempts to achieve is the transference of the powers and authority of Prime Minister to a President elected by popular vote.
My own preference, unless otherwise persuaded, is to retain the present system but expand the authority and powers of the President and circumscribe the powers of the Prime Minister, by making some of his decisions subject to a simple majority vote of the Senate comprised as in Clause 67.
Assuming the proposed method is agreed finally, Clause 56 (Transition provisions) need to indicate the role and functions of the incumbent President during the period of “not more than one hundred and twenty days” before election of a President and Vice-President.
Until a President and Vice-President are elected in accordance with Clause 58, and while the Prime Minister assumes the office of Acting President, it seems to me that there will be a void.
The transitional provisions, in my view, need to be clarified to define under whose authority the country functions between the coming into force of the Constitution and the period of General Elections.
Can the Prime Minister, acting as President, contest the General Elections or indeed the office of President?

Chapter 4 — Parliament
Mode of Election of Senators
Clause 67 sub-clause (2) states that Senators will be appointed from a list of forty-one names “from which members of the Senate shall be drawn. . .”, but sub-clause (6) states that “election of Senators shall be by secret ballot . . .”
Clarification is requested, as this provision appears to be in conflict with “the quota” procedure outlined in the same sub-clause.
I am opposed to the distribution of senatorial appointments on the basis of ethnicity and gender.
We are institutionalising racial divisions and gender discrimination. Appointments should be by merit, supported by moral values and integrity. Women have made significant strides since the Beijing Conference and can compete on an equal basis with men. They do not need our patronage. Representation, ethnic and gender, must evolve by moral suasion.
Chapter 6, 8 & 9
I do not agree that the Senate should be consulted on appointments made in these or any other Chapters, but the recommendations should be submitted to a Joint Select Committee and thereafter their report approved by majority vote of the Senate.
Has the Integrity Commission been excluded deliberately from Chapter 9?
General
The Constitution seems to have been drafted on the premise that the American system of government is more democratic than the Westminster system. I respectfully disagree.
The American President has far more powers than the Westminster Prime Minister and can enforce those powers almost with dictatorial authority.
If we are to introduce a more functional democracy what we require is an expansion of the role and functions of Local Government and the establishment of a system where there is a linkage with lawfully appointed Community Councils in each Local Government Authority thereby empowering the people in the decision making of matter which affect their respective communities. Representatives of Community Councils must have voice without vote at meetings of the Local Government authority.
We need therefore to include a Chapter on Local Government similar to Chapter 11 — Tobago House of Assembly
Additionally, there are two major issues which we must debate:-
a) The responsibility of the Cabinet, appointed by the President from the national community, to the people.
b) The recognition of the Senate as superior to the elected House of Representatives.
Finally, our Constitution must reflect the culture, the mores, of our society. We should not impose an alien system on our people.
We have been considering a review of our Constitution for some five years, now that a ‘draft’ is ‘on the table’, we should not wait for another five for approval and implementation.
I eagerly look forward to other public comments and in particular from the Legal profession.