Much more complicated situations than the one now put to decide on the constitutionality of have already been resolved in the country through politics.
It was thus in the democratic transition, in the succession of after falling sick on the eve of possession, clashes in the Constituent Assembly and the processes of two presidents. This is to cite more recent and eloquent examples in which the owners of popular delegation have been able to overcome obstacles and resolve their impasses without injuring official protocols.
This path today proves to be banned and somewhat deformed when the for all effects is put as a moderator power without the current order to check such a role.
In the decision on a presidential decree overthrown by, it would be up to those who are right in the light of and nothing more. It would come out with the reason that had acted in accordance with the law.
As the minister said, a legal demand to be resolved “in five minutes.” Perhaps a little more, given the complexity of the theme. The question, however, is political in nature, as added the magistrate from the top of his experience in the two Searas.
The conciliation hearing convened by the rapporteur of the case, minister, seems, in theory, a good solution and was thus received by the parties. In practice, however, it exposes the inability of politicians to perform their end activity: to build consensus in the midst of the disuse.
This responsibility, a noble prerogative conferred by the vote, is thus transferred to the supreme at the apex of the judicialization of which they complain so much and which they want to impose limits through improvised shortcuts.
This does not solve the problem of the institutional noise in which the three powers are, whose primordial task is not if they get it right in occasion, but to review procedures in order to fit their functions.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
