he’s bitter. The military lawyer finds himself excluded in this unequal society. Some time ago, he said: “I am neither black, nor homosexual, nor Indian, nor a robber, nor a guerrilla, nor a land invader. How do I live in Brazil today? As a modest teacher, lawyer, ordinary white citizen, I feel I feel discriminated against and have less and less space in this society.”
Misunderstood, “Many people, despite the more than 100 individual works and more than 500 joint works that I have written, with publications of books and articles in 21 countries, insist on thinking, in a distorted view, that this commentary is my complete work” .
The comment that caused such injustice did not concern 600 works and 21 countries, but Ives was the intellectual manager of mili-constitutional interpretation that tries to recognize the military’s power to carry out a coup.
But Ives avoids the word “scam.” To avoid scaring the children in the room, he makes vocabulary choices with Vaseline. Ives shares this verbal acumen with the coup plotters of 1964. And also with the minister who diversified his lexicon and started using “movement”. Euphemism is a resource for emotional intelligence at the dinner table and in the public sphere, but it is also a hiding place for authoritarian cowardice.
Ives’ reasoning is unprecedented in the history of democratic and liberal constitutionalism. It begins like this: “If the Judiciary invades the legislative competence of the , it could not resort to the invading Power. How, then, can it ensure its exclusive competence?”
Ives gives us an answer that formal logic has never been able to come up with: “It seemed to me that they could only, punctually, without deconstitution of Powers, guarantee the exclusive competence of Parliament”.
Ives recalls that this interpretation “could never justify a coup”, after all “the Armed Forces are slaves to the Supreme Law and would never lend themselves to a coup”. Therefore, “avoiding distortions”, his position “could never justify a coup”.
The concept of “punctual” intervention by the Armed Forces in the separation of Powers to correct civilian abuse smells like a coup, coup violence and coup torture, but it is not a coup. And why respect the argument? Not only because of the intelligence of the content, but because it is signed by the author of more than 600 books, 21 countries and so many emeritus honors. Good summary of the baccalaureate cudgel.
Ives acknowledges that the device should be used sparingly. The last time the country resorted to “punctual intervention” was in 1964. It lasted 21 years, punctually.
The Brazilian Press Association and the National Human Rights Movement represented Ives at the OAB-SP Ethics Court. They want to know about mentions of Ives on , who planned the occasional application of medication to the president and vice-president, as well as a specific excursion by the STF minister.
It would be an opportunity for Ives to explain how cassava, when called cassava, stops being cassava. request and blocks the conversation about the lawyer’s responsibility for his legal position.
How much is the jurist’s opinion worth or is it per kilogram?
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
