DAP Uses MCA to ‘Screw’ UMNO?

11 04 2017

Ever since the proposed amendment of Act 355 was tabled on the 26th of May 2016, DAP and its allies including supposedly Muslim parties had strongly opposed the amendment to empower the Syariah Courts and fabricated stories to justify their actions.

Using fictitious, weird and out of context arguments, DAP and friends have been making stern statements not only to voice out their disagreements but also trying to deny the democratic process by trying to forbid the private bill from being tabled in Parliament.   

Not only that, DAP went as far as dragging its ‘enemies’ along to support its cause and pressuring them, in particular MCA, MIC, GERAKAN, and SUPP to force UMNO to oppose the amendment as well.

They even made seditious statements such as urging the non-Malay parties to leave BN since UMNO is working together with PAS ‘to get hudud implemented through backdoor channels’.

Now, why does DAP seriously want UMNO to fight against the amendment that has nothing to do with most of DAP leaders and members?

Well, while the proposed amendment of Act 355 will not affect their lives, UMNO’s support for the Act will definitely gives a great impact to DAP’s chance to win in the coming general election, hence it does affect them indirectly!

DAP who wants to win big in the coming general election can only achieve its dreams if UMNO and Barisan Nasional candidates lose; so DAP must make sure that UMNO supporters will not vote for UMNO.

In general, the so-called progressive Malays such as the Malays supporting LGBT rights, pluralism of religion, liberalism and those who are against the amendment of Act 355 will not vote for UMNO; as they feel that UMNO’s approach to Islamic matters is too conservative and not ‘progressive’.

The Negeri Sembilan’s transgender case clearly proves that the government is really serious in curbing the LGBT way of lives.

At the same time, it is not a secret that majority of the Chinese did not vote for MCA during the last general election, and obviously will still not be supporting MCA in the coming 14th General Election.

So the MCA’s candidates can only win the election if the Malay voters who support UMNO vote for them in order to uphold Islam in Malaysia as so far proven by the UMNO led Barisan Nasional.

Therefore, in order to win in the coming general election, DAP must make sure that the UMNO’s Malay voters will no longer vote for UMNO and its allies, and one of the ways to do so is to give the impression that UMNO leaders are no longer fighting for Islam and are as bad as the progressive Muslims leaders of DAP and friends.

And one of the best ways to deny UMNO from winning is to stop UMNO from supporting the amendment of Act 355, hence, making UMNO’s Malay voters angry, and ‘hopefully’ in frustration, some may even vote for the progressive Malay parties as a revenge.

DAP will then play the issue that UMNO had cheated its Malay voters and tell them to teach UMNO a lesson by not voting for UMNO’s and other Barisan Nasional’s candidates; therefore giving DAP and friends a much bigger chance to win in the next general election.

In other words, DAP is actually trying to use MCA as a tool to make the Malays hate UMNO so that they won’t be voting for UMNO and other candidates of the Barisan Nasional, including MCA.

DAP dares to pressure MCA to fight against the amendment because DAP knows that MCA will not be able to win the hearts of the Chinese who had voted for DAP in the previous general election even if MCA went all out to fight against the amendment of Act 355.

So, does it make any sense for MCA to be so arrogant and make the people who voted for them feel very,very angry,unappreciated and cheated?

MCA must understand that unlike DAP’s supporters, the Chinese who had voted for MCA are those who do not agree to the harsh ideologies of DAP and understand and respect the rights of the Muslims to be governed by the Syariah law; so MCA must not fall into DAP’s trap if MCA really wants to win in the coming general election.

Is it logical that DAP cares enough for MCA that it is forcefully dragging MCA to go all out fighting against the amendment so that the non-Muslim voters especially the Chinese will not ‘punish’ MCA in the coming general election?

Unless MCA is an ally of DAP, DAP will do anything to make the voters hate MCA because unless there is a secret agenda, no political party will want their opponent to win any vote.

So that is why the leaders of DAP and friends insist that even though the non-Muslims are not under the jurisdiction the Act 355, they are still affected by the Act because the Malays who support the Act will not be voting for UMNO and Barisan Nasional candidates if UMNO fails to support the amendment; meaning the support for the amendment will affect both the Muslim and non-Muslim candidates of DAP and friends in their chances to win the Malay votes in the coming general election.

So, MCA must grow up and be rational, and remember that they must not fall into DAP’s trap unless it intends to ‘commit suicide’.





Akta 355: Lim Kit Siang dan ‘Pakatan Harapan’ BiaDAP!

6 04 2017





Siti Kasim Finally Supports Act 355?

6 04 2017

Liberal lawyer and activist, Siti Zabedah Kasim seems to be very mad, in fact it looks like she is steaming, raging mad after being advised by the Mufti of Perak, Tan Sri Harussani to not touch on matters concerning tauhid.

On her Facebook page, claiming that the Mufti of Perak accused her of “being an apostate”, she wrote that the Mufti is “punishable by 80 kali sebat according to the Quran” for making “a very big fitnah to accuse woman wrongly”; and she quoted the 4th verse of the Surah An-Noor to prove her point.

I am appalled by her arrogant attitude and her out of context self-interpretation of the holy Quran to suit her needs.

Fortunately, she is not a Syariah lawyer; as it will cause a deafening uproar in the courtroom if she insists that her out of context self-interpretation of the Quran is valid!

Anyway, it puzzles me when she talks about the punishment from the Quran; after all, isn’t she is the one who vocally complains about the proposed amendment of Act 355?

As I understand from her ridiculous stunts at numerous public forums, she is against the implementation of “80 kali sebat” and wants the maximum limit for whipping stays at only six strokes. 

May be her anger made her confused… 

As I wrote in my previous post, ‘Siti Kasim: Drowned by Freedom of Speech it is best for her to stand up tall and clarify the matter with JAKIM to solve the problem.

I also asked, “Or is she going to deny what she had said in the video and says something weird like, the video was edited by somebody to defame her?”

And I was right because on her Facebook page she told the Mufti to listen to her original interview and “not to get confused by the cut paste fitnah version by menara.my, fundamentalist website that is out to attack what the Islamofascists term as liberals”. 

Has she changed her mind regarding the proposed amendment of Act 355 so that the people who accused her can be punished as according to the Quran?

Siti Bedah must make up her mind!





Siti Kasim: Drowned by Freedom of Speech

3 04 2017

It seems like liberal lawyer, Siti Zabedah Kasim who is usually cool and cheerful is getting really angry after she found out that she would be summoned by the religious authority “to clarify her reported remarks on God’s existence”.

She wrote in her Facebook that,”I will have no hesitation to take the full force of law against anyone or anybody who try to bully or defame me” and that “an idiot blogger” created a story about her that only “mentally challenged people will actually believe rubbish like that”.

She told Malay Mail Online that she received death threats after an article was published by the news portal Menara.my. Going to the extent of name calling, the portal was described as a “fundamentalist Malay-language portal”.

“She told Malay Mail Online when contacted on March 22 that the decapitation threats were made after a fundamentalist Malay-language portal, Menara.my, published an article titled “Melalui getaran, kita menghasilkan Tuhan — Siti Kasim” (Through vibrations, we create God — Siti Kasim) that she said had “manipulated” her interview with Chinese-language portal pocketimes.my”

~ Malay Mail Online.

The out spoken lawyer who is very popular for her liberal ideas and weird interpretations of Islam angered the Muslims with her crazy ideas and Islam bashing statements that she claims to be the true interpretations of Islam.

As a lawyer and activist who fights for the rights of the people, she must also fight for the rights of the Muslims to practise Islam as the religion of the Federaton according to the Federal Constitution.

Zabedah must stop applying double standards in her actions, and denying the rights of the others, as she did over the issue of the proposed amendment of Act 355. 

She complains of her anger over what was written by the “idiot blogger” when her words had angered millions of Muslims almost daily.

As a person of integrity, she should stand up tall and explain what she meant by her statements. instead of putting the burden of proof on others over what she had said in the video.

It is not good enough to only accuse others of twisting the issue because that is a lame excuse.

In fact, Zabedah should voluntarily meet JAKIM and share her ideas about Islam, who knows JAKIM can learn new things from her.

It will be great if she can explain about what she had said in the video and also about her version of Islam.

Or is she going to deny what she had said in the video and says something weird like, the video was edited by somebody to defame her?





Grow Up, MCA!

31 03 2017

“Malaysia is a secular country” – that is a very popular myth concocted and supported by people who are obviously constitutionally illiterate and clueless about the interpretation of the Federal Constitution of our country.

MCA Legal Affairs Bureau Chairman Datuk Tay Puay Chuan’s press statement  which was published on the MCA website yesterday (March 30, 2017) with the title, “Federal Constitution remains the supreme law of the nation” is part of the series of false and baseless accusations by certain groups to undermined the core principals of our country.

Tay Puay Chuan who clearly does not (or pretended not to) understand the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, as well as the definition of secularism, made several false accusations regarding the position of Islam in Malaysia, using the recycled baseless arguments which had been answered by many people for years.

I’ve written so many articles on this currently “hot issue” trying to open the minds of these people but then, it seems that some people just prefer to live in denial.

Below is the press statement (orange) together with my answers (blue) to all his twisted facts and wild accusations regarding Islam as the religion of the Federation.


I would like to stress again that the status of Islam as the religion of the federation, the roots of the Islamic law nationwide are granted by the Federal Constitution. This ascertains that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia

It is true that the Federal Constitution of Malaysia is the supreme law of the Federation as mentioned in Article 4 of the Federal Constitution, but Islam as the religion of the Federation is placed in the Article 3(1) which is in a higher order of precedence of the Articles. Therefore it gives Islam a higher position than the supreme law itself, meaning the supreme law of the land must be subjected to Islam as the religion of the Federation. This was mentioned by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, also known as the Kalimah Allah case.

The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution

This is in response to the booklet by Institute Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM) on the ’10 Salah Tanggapan Tentang Kedudukan Islam di Malaysia (10 Misconceptions about the Position of Islam in Malaysia)’, in which it included topics that either directly wrote or implied that ‘Malaysia is not a secular country;’ ‘rejecting claims that Islam is lower than the Constitution;’ ‘As an Islamic  nation, Islamic system is the thrust;’ as well as ‘other religions have no equal standing; and ‘the nation does  not carry the responsibility to safeguard and defend other religions.’

Malaysian leaders of all religions must be constitutionally literate and uphold the Federal Constitution including Article 3(1) that enshrines Islam as the religion of the Federation making Malaysia an Islamic nation. All the Articles in the Federal Constitution must be read together and people cannot just cherry-pick what they like and interpret the Articles according to their fancy to serve their agendas. In the High Court decision of the case, Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393, the then Justice Mohd Noor Abdullah had clearly clarified that other religions have no equal standing as Islam: 

In my opinion, “Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religions may be practied in peace and harmony” means that Islam is the main religion among other religions that are practied in the country such as Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and others. Islam is not equal to any other religion, not sitting together or stand upright. It sits on top, he walked past, located in the field and his voice heard. Islam is like teak trees – tall, strong and skilled. If not so Islam is not the religion of the Federation but is one among several religions practised in the country and everyone is equally free to practice any religion he professes, no more one than the other. Provisions ‘Islam is the religion of the Federation’ shall be defined and reviewed with the objective to read other provisions of the Constitution, especially Article 89, 152, 153 and 14.

Even though people of other religions can practise their religions (as long as they are in peace and harmony with Islam), there is no provision in the Federal Constitution to protect other religions except Islam, for example, the Article 11(4).

IKSIM must be alerted that the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution also explains that Islamic law is for persons professing the religion of Islam on matters related to succession, marriage, divorce, etc.

I have read the booklet and in the booklet, IKSIM has never said that the Islamic law has the jurisdiction over people professing other religions other than Islam.

The Federal Constitution is THE supreme law of the nation, and the supremacy of the Constitution renders Islam as the religion of the federation whilst other religions are allowed to be practised freely.

That is not only a false but also a malicious statement. The Constitution has never stated that “other religions can be practised freely” in any of its Articles or Schedules. Article 11(1) says that, Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it” while Article 3(1) clearly says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”. So, there is no phrase such as “other religions can be practised freely” in both Articles. Maybe Tay came across the word “bebas” in the Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM and was confused by it.

As for the phrase, “in peace and harmony”, it was clearly interpreted by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia.

Such publication will surely have an adverse effect upon the sanctity as envisaged under Article 3(1) and the right for other religions to be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. Any such disruption of the even tempo is contrary to the hope and desire of peaceful and harmonious co-existence of other religions other than Islam in this country.

Malaysia is a secular country. In fact, the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, Supreme Court judgement enables the implementation of secular laws in the country, which includes both criminal and civil laws. These laws apply to the entire country, irrespective of race and religion. Similarly, the Federal Constitution also provides that Islamic law may only be used on persons professing the religion of Islam. Therefore, Islamic law is not for everyone. Only secular laws may be applied to everyone. Hence, this is one of the proofs which shows that Malaysia is a secular country.

Contrary to what was argued by Tay, the fact that Malaysia has two court systems, the civil court systems and the Syariah Court systems proves that Malaysia is not a secular country.

By the way, does Tay understand the meaning of the word secularism? George Jacob Holyoake, the creator of the term secularism defined secularism as separating government and religion. Therefore, as said in many of my previous posts, it is impossible for Malaysia to be defined as a secular country when Islam is stated as the religion of the Federation. It also contradicts with other Articles of the Constitution such as the Articles 11(4), 12, 37, 76A, 121(1A) and others.

As I wrote in my article for the news portal Menara, in a secular country, the State does not have a religion and cannot has anything to do in relation to religion, for example in the case of Mount Soledad Easter Cross in San Diego, California.

Hence, by calling Malaysia a secular country, Tay slanders and challenges both the Federal Constitution and the definition of secularism.

Syariah law which is currently applied across all states, is the provision of rights granted to all state governments on the law as outlined in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. It is stated with a condition that the criminal penalties and jurisdictions of the Syariah Court cannot contravene the Federal Constitution, or it will be considered void and unconstitutional.

The jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts does not contravene the Federal Constitution because it was conferred by the Federal Constitution in Item 1 of the Second List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution also states that: Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

This again shows that other religions are also protected by the Federal Constitution. Hence the claims made in the booklet that the country has no obligation to defend nor protect other religions are incorrect. Instead, our nation and the government have the responsibility of defending all religions in line with the Articles and spirit of the Federal Constitution.

What a mind blowing senseless argument! It shows that either Tay is truly constitutionally illiterate or he, in bad faith is trying to deny and debase the position of Islam in our Federal Constitution because his argument is against the core principals of the supreme law of the land. In the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, Tan Sri Apandi Ali said that the purpose of “in peace and harmony” were added to Article 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam, and not to defend other religions as claimed by Tay.

It is my judgment that the purpose and intention of the insertion of the words: “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam as the religion of the country and also to insulate against any threat faced or any possible and probable threat to the religion of Islam.

Therefore, Tay must be constitutionally illiterate if he really thinks that the Federal Constitution conferred Malaysia as a secular country, all religions have equal standing and the nation carries the responsibility to safeguard and defend other religions other than Islam.

It is a known fact that during the 13th General Election, MCA won it seats mostly because of the Malay voters, so this kind of attitude is not a gracious way to thank the voters who had graciously voted for the party candidates regardless of their race and religion. MCA must grow up and stop imitating DAP in debasing Islam and the Malays in trying to win the Chinese votes because it won’t work.  

We are now constitutionally literate and therefore the people are not stupid to easily be fooled by concocted lies. Is it too much for me to hope for leaders to understand and uphold the core principals of my country as clearly stated in the Federal Constitution and stop misinterpreting the supreme law of the land for their political and personal agendas?

Related Posts:





Malaysia Bukan Sekular

28 03 2017

Salah tanggapan bahawa Perlembagaan Malaysia bersifat sekular kerap berlaku memandangkan ramai yang tidak memahami definisi sebuah negara sekular. Masih ramai yang merasakan bahawa Malaysia adalah sebuah negara sekular dengan Islam hanya sebagai agama rasmi. Perkara ini bertambah parah kerana adanya golongan yang dengan sengaja dan penuh tipu helah mendesak supaya Malaysia dinobatkan sebagai sebuah negara sekular demi untuk mencapai agenda mereka untuk menjatuhkan Agama Negara, iaitu Islam.

Untuk memahami perkara ini, kita mesti melihat dua dokumen penting, Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia dan buku ‘The Principles of Secularism Illustrated’ yang ditulis oleh George Jacob Holyoake, pengasas sekularisme. Di dalam buku tersebut, George Jacob Holyoake mendefinisikan sekularisme sebagai pemisahan agama daripada pentadbiran negara. Manakala Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia, melalui Perkara 3(1) mengistiharkan bahawa Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan.

Jika sekular bermakna memisahkan agama daripada pentadbiran negara, bagaimana mungkin Malaysia dikategorikan sebagai sebuah negara sekular sedangkan Perlembagaan Persekutuan sendiri menyebut bahawa Islam adalah agama Persekutuan?

Jadi, apakah ciri-ciri negara sekular? Kita ambil Amerika Syarikat, sebuah negara sekular yang dikenali ramai sebagai contoh. First Amendment (Amendment I) kepada Perlembagaan Amerika Syarikat menyatakan dengan khusus tentang pemisahan agama daripada pentadbiran negara selaras dengan definasi sekularisme. Ciri-ciri ini menjadikan Amerka Syarikat sebagai sebuah negara sekular.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Oleh kerana Perlembagaan Amerika memisahkan gereja (agama) daripada pentadbiran negara, maka kerajaan Amerika tidak boleh ada kena mengena dengan agama. Malah adalah melanggar perlembagaan negara itu jika lambang agama termasuk lambang agama Kristian di letakkan di atas tanah kerajaan, biarpun majoriti penduduknya adalah beragama Krisitan. Contoh terbaik ialah kes Mount Soledad Easter Cross di San Diego, California.

Pada tahun 1954, sebuah palang salib berukuran 9 meter tingginya dibangunkan di atas sebuah tanah perkuburan milik kerajaan. Perkara ini membawa kepada kes mahkamah yang berlarutan sehingga lebih 25 tahun dan akhirnya pada tahun 2011 mahkamah mengekalkan keputusan bahawa binaan palang salib di atas tanah kerajaan melambangkan sokongan kerajaan kepada agama yang tidak berperlembagaan atau “an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion” dan telah melanggar ‘First Amendment’ Perlembagaan Amerika.

Juga di Amerika, 14 palang salib putih telah didirikan di tepi lebuhraya di antara Farmington dan Kaysville di Utah bagi memperingati 14 orang anggota polis trafik lebuhraya yang terkorban di situ. Kes itu dibawa oleh kumpulan American Atheists hingga ke Mahkamah Rayuan Amerika dan akhirnya ketiga-tiga hakim mahkamah itu memutuskan bahawa salib-salib putih tersebut melanggar “Establishment Clause” Perlembagaan Amerika (“white crosses violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution”) kerana salib-salib itu adalah lambang agama, maka tidak boleh didirikan di atas tanah kerajaan.

Contoh kedua ialah Turki, sebuah negara yang sering disalahanggap sebagai sebuah negara Islam. Walaupun 98 peratus penduduknya beragama Islam, Perkara 2 Perlembagaan Republik Turki menyebut bahawa Turki adalah negara sekular.

ARTICLE 2- The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by rule of law, within the notions of public peace, national solidarity and justice, respecting human rights, loyal to the nationalism of Atatürk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the preamble.

Oleh itu, kerajaan Turki tidak boleh menggunakan apa-apa nama atau lambang agama kepada apa-apa institusi di negara itu sehinggakan kerajaan Turki terpaksa menamakan bank Islam negara itu sebagai Bank Ortak (Bank Partisipasi).

Bukan setakat itu sahaja, malah perlembagaan sekular Turki juga menghalang hak wanita Islam untuk bertudung di bangunan kerajaan seperti pejabat kerajaan, mahkamah, sekolah dan universiti. Malah, ahli parlimen Istanbul, Merve Kavakçı pernah dilarang memasuki parlimen negara itu kerana bertudung walaupun akhirnya beliau dibenarkan atas nama Hak Asasi Manusia. Namun, hak untuk wanita lain bertudung di bangunan awam masih dinafikan. Itulah keadaannya di negara sekular.

Bukan setakat itu sahaja, malah perlembagaan sekular Turki juga menghalang hak wanita Islam untuk bertudung di bangunan kerajaan seperti pejabat kerajaan, mahkamah, sekolah dan universiti. Malah, ahli parlimen Istanbul, Merve Kavakçı pernah dilarang memasuki parlimen negara itu kerana bertudung walaupun akhirnya beliau dibenarkan atas nama Hak Asasi Manusia. Namun, hak untuk wanita lain bertudung di bangunan awam masih dinafikan. Itulah keadaannya di negara sekular.

Begitu juga India. Mukadimah Perlembagaan India menyebut bahawa India adalah sebuah negara sekular.

“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens …”

Maka, walaupun Perlembagaan India masih mengiktiraf agama, namun India tidak mempunyai agama rasmi, jauh sekali agama negara kerana sebagai sebuah negara sekular, negara India tidak boleh mempunyai agama.





FMT: Laws Against Quran And Sunnah Are Void, Said Tun Fairuz

25 03 2017

I am very proud to read what was said by Tun Ahmad Fairuz in Free Malaysia Today’s report, “Ex-CJ: Laws that are against Quran and Sunnah are void”.

FMT wrote, “Explaining his interpretation, Ahmad Fairuz who was the chief justice from 2003 to 2007, cited a Privy Council judgement on a case in Singapore, where it said for a law to be valid, it must conform to the fundamental rules laid down by English Common Law.”

“This view seems to be accepted in Malaysia too. But as Islam is the religion of the federation, surely the fundamental principles of the law should be based not only on English Common Law, but (also) on the shariah law.

“I want to stress the aspect of judiciary in the definition of Islam where the Quran and Sunnah are the main sources of Islamic laws.

“Article 4 of the Federal Constitution states that laws which are against the Federal Constitution are void, on the part of the contradicting provisions. And hence, laws that are against the Quran and Sunnah will also be void.”

Explaining about the interpretation of Article 3(1) Tun Fairuz was reported saying:

“In the case of Lina Joy, when I was the chief justice, I said Islam was also a complete way of life that included all aspects of human activities, including judiciary, politics, and economy among others.”

FMT further wrote, “Hence, Ahmad Fairuz, reading Article 3 and 4 together, interpreted the Federal Constitution as making Islamic law the second most supreme legislation.”

Therefore for those who are constitutionally illiterate and shouting that Malaysia is a secular country and the proposed amendment of Act 355 is unconstitutional, please attend Tun Fairuz’s next lecture to learn more about the Federal Constitution from our former Chief Justice.

 

 








%d bloggers like this: