Alarm in the Constitutional
Mar 9, 2024 4:54:02 GMT
Post by account_disabled on Mar 9, 2024 4:54:02 GMT
I do not know if the magistrates of the Constitutional Court were aware of the effects that their tight and controversial ruling was going to have on an issue as delicate as the appropriate constitutional form to fight against a pandemic with catastrophic effects, unknown development, difficult to control, and terribly deadly. I suppose not, engrossed as they were in their doctrinal dispute, where the arguments have been twisted to overcome resistance and make opposing positions feasible. Without a doubt, an exciting debate, although it does not seem that it will contribute much to the development of constitutionalism. But the Church has doctors. What is shocking, from the public point of view, is that the obligatory contextualization of the State of Alarm has not been sufficiently taken into account, as, apparently, some dissenting magistrates point out (for Cándido Conde-Pumpido the sentence does not resolve , but rather which creates a serious political problem, by disarming the State against pandemics.
But, above all, they did not take into account that the supreme right, foundational of all rights, is the right to human life, which is what, ultimately, was at stake (2). When the pandemic began its slaughter, converting the question of unconstitutionality into linguistic disquisitions, turning a very high intensity restriction of rights into a suspension; or sociological, stretching the concept of public order disturbance to justify the State of Exception, beyond the usual and Australia Phone Number consolidated political dimension, demonstrates a worrying lack of common sense . Wouldn't it have been more prudent to point out the need for greater specificity in the law to avoid abuses or dangerous inefficiencies? That a Constitutional ruling on a matter of life or death is approved by a single vote, with an incomplete Court due to an accidental resignation of Judge Fernando Valdés, is a fact serious enough that a broad agreement would have been attempted. Especially when, at this point in the film, there is no longer any urgency that justifies not continuing to debate for the public good and the strength of our democratic institutions.
Honestly, it is difficult for me to understand a ruling that, legal issues that I do not go into separately, affects political instability, encourages confrontation and polarization, facilitates its shameful use by Vox and opportunistic use by the Popular Party, and generates more confusion What clarity in a citizenry in need of certainties. Not to mention the social confusion that serious differences between the magistrates of a vital body of democracy can cause. And that it should always seek the largest majorities in its pronouncements. More so if we take into account the fact that four of its components have expired mandates, the renewal of which boycotts the current anti-system version of the . I do not think it is abusive to consider that the High Court, in the current circumstances, suffers from a certain deficit of legitimacy (not legality by not representing the socio-political reality of our country expressed in the last general elections, and manifested in the composition of the Current cuts.
But, above all, they did not take into account that the supreme right, foundational of all rights, is the right to human life, which is what, ultimately, was at stake (2). When the pandemic began its slaughter, converting the question of unconstitutionality into linguistic disquisitions, turning a very high intensity restriction of rights into a suspension; or sociological, stretching the concept of public order disturbance to justify the State of Exception, beyond the usual and Australia Phone Number consolidated political dimension, demonstrates a worrying lack of common sense . Wouldn't it have been more prudent to point out the need for greater specificity in the law to avoid abuses or dangerous inefficiencies? That a Constitutional ruling on a matter of life or death is approved by a single vote, with an incomplete Court due to an accidental resignation of Judge Fernando Valdés, is a fact serious enough that a broad agreement would have been attempted. Especially when, at this point in the film, there is no longer any urgency that justifies not continuing to debate for the public good and the strength of our democratic institutions.
Honestly, it is difficult for me to understand a ruling that, legal issues that I do not go into separately, affects political instability, encourages confrontation and polarization, facilitates its shameful use by Vox and opportunistic use by the Popular Party, and generates more confusion What clarity in a citizenry in need of certainties. Not to mention the social confusion that serious differences between the magistrates of a vital body of democracy can cause. And that it should always seek the largest majorities in its pronouncements. More so if we take into account the fact that four of its components have expired mandates, the renewal of which boycotts the current anti-system version of the . I do not think it is abusive to consider that the High Court, in the current circumstances, suffers from a certain deficit of legitimacy (not legality by not representing the socio-political reality of our country expressed in the last general elections, and manifested in the composition of the Current cuts.