It seems suitable to make some observations about the performance of public bodies address the Constitution and also against what is established therein. Insisting on this can contribute to rational and constructive criticism that will eventually lead to a correction. Try to highlight some aspects that, in my opinion, unprecedented and are feeling sad, at least, disturbing.
I differentiate between the prepositions from and against. With the first - against - intend to refer to so publicly exposed as public bodies when they interpret, or apply, rightly or wrongly, the Constitution, ie the image projected by his performance, in line or dissonance with the common idea of \u200b\u200bwhat it is, what it does and how you live the Constitution. It is basically of two projections: one, to the outside, to society, in the sense of how we perceive the behavior of representatives of public power in the development of their activities, when we compared with the provisions of Article 7 of the Constitution, in its capacity as supreme law subjects all persons and bodies exercising public power, the other to the internal, that is, to themselves, in the sense of their own perception of how everything and how do they do impact on institutions and a reference mark on society. For Moreover, with the preposition denoting try against opposition or contrariety of some of their actions with regard to the Constitution.
In both formulations, understand performance, in addition to the activities of the position held those in power, based on their responsibilities under the Constitution, the behavior they display in their specific product features and their respective activities .
find that the facts as presented, be presumed that the distance between the must be and what is in all areas of public action, reflects a position taken consciously in which confuse the public and private, ie the public with personal conduct. I think this merger is inappropriate that gives rise to the personalization of power and therefore the underestimation of the Constitution. The end is reached when there is no reason, in practice, the replacement of the constitutional supremacy for political supremacy, or even worse, for the supremacy of individual will. In other words, we know we've touched bottom when we think of having retraced the long and winding road by which we come to the government of laws to return, unforgivably, the government of men. Many wonder
how could this happen. The only answer that I venture to offer is that revolutions are not democratic nor constitutional. No revolution has ever been done by applying the precepts of the Constitution, nor the rules of democracy. Revolutions have their own mechanisms, none of which is in the constitutional texts that proclaim the rule of law, which enshrine and guarantee the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, establishing the separation and mutual control of public authorities which provide certain procedures for constitutional reform.
In short, the ways that travel revolutions, invariably in a hit and run over to others, do not appear on maps in which constitutional to confer powers on par with those who are elected or appointed to exercise power, they also impose limits in order to curb any excesses in performance of their duties and avoid any abuse of authority. None of this is included free in the constitutions of democratic states of law. Historical experience has shown, again and again that human greed for power is unlimited and insatiable. And so far, the only way to civic, peaceful and legitimate power make it difficult to become a dangerous tool in the hands of its bearers, setting limits is accurate and effective by the Constitution.
So do not hesitate to say that is a mistake to understand the Constitution as a way ideological manifesto, with which the masses want catechize by the lie of a quasi-religious fear to any other doctrine or ideological bias, or as a political project designed by a small group of people, whether academics, businessmen, technocrats, military or professional politicians, whose ideal state and society infallible perfect obnubila them to the point of preventing them from recognizing that on the fragile foundation of Utopia is not possible to reconstruct a country affected in body for real needs and problems, or as a government program whose implementation involves a social engineering work representing a sort of superior minds who think they have all the answers to the expectations of citizens and all the solutions to the problems of society.
In general, the Constitution remains the supreme law of the legal system does not become yet a finished product, complete and static, as would a painting of Jesus Soto, or a poem by Enriqueta Arvelo, or a building of Villanueva. This means that the Constitution is evolving constantly, because his intention is last in time as much as possible circumstances and new generations. It is not complete, because it provides answers to all legal problems. It is a framework law that regulates what is important, but does not predetermine the social or economic policy does not set guidelines on the lifestyle of its audience, does not require schools of thought.
is an open and dynamic system that adapts to changes in society and in which space are the diversity of expectations and political pluralism. I'm talking, of course, the type of constitution that governed democratic states of law alluded to the famous assertion of Elias Diaz that not every state is the rule of law, only those states effectively taxed law.
and points in this to refer to our Constitution, which is the expression of an agreement between the citizens of the country, at any given time, we agreed that our Republic have certain essential characteristics, among them that Venezuela is a democratic state social and law and justice, that there are certain non-negotiable values \u200b\u200bhigher, with the same binding and rigid than the rest of the constitutional provisions governing both the legal and state action and that the Venezuelan government is and will always be democratic, participatory, elective, decentralized, alternative, responsible and pluralist mandate revocable.
However, if we base our assessment of the actions of the organs of public authorities in the rational understanding of the issues mentioned above, the overwhelming conclusion is that those now in power in Venezuela, are to ride roughshod nothing less than the values \u200b\u200band principles of the Constitution and the entire legal system.
I'm not saying you do not know any such safe and is well known. But it is important to emphasize the fact that, through many of the actions of public bodies, voluntary imprint is evident that subordinates the Constitution to particular interpretation of its precepts and the most unusual forms of manipulation by the current holders of power in our country.
The President of the Republic, representing the executive branch, totally ignoring the results of the referendum on constitutional reform, which most of the Venezuelan people rejected; is exceeded his authority and transcends the constitutional limits to issue decrees, enact laws and provide orders in all subjects.
The legislative power, symbolized in the National Assembly, has made his role in a vow of blind obedience, not those who claim to represent, but to the will of the President of the Republic, to embark on the development compulsive laws contrary to the Constitution, but perfectly compatible with the draft socialist or communist state, at all costs and a high cost, insists on imposing.
Electoral Power, embodied in the unperturbed guiding the National Electoral Council has not had the slightest qualms about violating the Constitution by denying the constitutional right zulianos conduct a consultative referendum on the Reform of the Law on Decentralization that, the time, helped the Government seize ports and airports.
The judiciary is a "Pandora's box" from which leave many decisions daily without legal status, but that show unconditional dependence Executive. It is enough to recall the decision No. 1939 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of 18 December 2008 which declared unenforceable the ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of former judges of the First Court for Contentious Administrative. In that ruling is affirmed, for example, that "law is a normative theory in the service of politics that lies behind the axiological draft of the Constitution ...." But if the interpretation of this project is axiological light of standards which, according to the Constitutional Court, "must be compatible with the political project of the Constitution ... and should not affect the validity of that project with ideological interpretative choices that favor individual rights at all costs ... (...), under the pretext of valideces (sic) universal, "then there is no doubt that sentence in question is not supported by legal arguments, but with other arguments that attempt to disapply the provision in Article 23 of the Constitution, which gives the prevalence of international treaties in domestic law to the extent that its rules are more favorable to human rights than those contained in our Constitution.
Moral Power I can only say that, until now, thank God, is just a figurehead in the Constitution and absolutely invisible in the country's reality. These few references are sufficient to bind to assume the defense of the Constitution as a civic genuine apostolate. This is the proposal of the Network of Defense of the Constitution, to raise awareness of Venezuelan society, mainly the less-informed citizens and most vulnerable sectors of the value of the Constitution, the importance of its provisions for the financial year effective our rights and freedoms, and the need to protect the Constitution of the systematic violations perpetrated against them, mainly those who are called, first, to implement and enforce its contents. M. Liliana Fasciani
I differentiate between the prepositions from and against. With the first - against - intend to refer to so publicly exposed as public bodies when they interpret, or apply, rightly or wrongly, the Constitution, ie the image projected by his performance, in line or dissonance with the common idea of \u200b\u200bwhat it is, what it does and how you live the Constitution. It is basically of two projections: one, to the outside, to society, in the sense of how we perceive the behavior of representatives of public power in the development of their activities, when we compared with the provisions of Article 7 of the Constitution, in its capacity as supreme law subjects all persons and bodies exercising public power, the other to the internal, that is, to themselves, in the sense of their own perception of how everything and how do they do impact on institutions and a reference mark on society. For Moreover, with the preposition denoting try against opposition or contrariety of some of their actions with regard to the Constitution.
In both formulations, understand performance, in addition to the activities of the position held those in power, based on their responsibilities under the Constitution, the behavior they display in their specific product features and their respective activities .
find that the facts as presented, be presumed that the distance between the must be and what is in all areas of public action, reflects a position taken consciously in which confuse the public and private, ie the public with personal conduct. I think this merger is inappropriate that gives rise to the personalization of power and therefore the underestimation of the Constitution. The end is reached when there is no reason, in practice, the replacement of the constitutional supremacy for political supremacy, or even worse, for the supremacy of individual will. In other words, we know we've touched bottom when we think of having retraced the long and winding road by which we come to the government of laws to return, unforgivably, the government of men. Many wonder
how could this happen. The only answer that I venture to offer is that revolutions are not democratic nor constitutional. No revolution has ever been done by applying the precepts of the Constitution, nor the rules of democracy. Revolutions have their own mechanisms, none of which is in the constitutional texts that proclaim the rule of law, which enshrine and guarantee the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, establishing the separation and mutual control of public authorities which provide certain procedures for constitutional reform.
In short, the ways that travel revolutions, invariably in a hit and run over to others, do not appear on maps in which constitutional to confer powers on par with those who are elected or appointed to exercise power, they also impose limits in order to curb any excesses in performance of their duties and avoid any abuse of authority. None of this is included free in the constitutions of democratic states of law. Historical experience has shown, again and again that human greed for power is unlimited and insatiable. And so far, the only way to civic, peaceful and legitimate power make it difficult to become a dangerous tool in the hands of its bearers, setting limits is accurate and effective by the Constitution.
So do not hesitate to say that is a mistake to understand the Constitution as a way ideological manifesto, with which the masses want catechize by the lie of a quasi-religious fear to any other doctrine or ideological bias, or as a political project designed by a small group of people, whether academics, businessmen, technocrats, military or professional politicians, whose ideal state and society infallible perfect obnubila them to the point of preventing them from recognizing that on the fragile foundation of Utopia is not possible to reconstruct a country affected in body for real needs and problems, or as a government program whose implementation involves a social engineering work representing a sort of superior minds who think they have all the answers to the expectations of citizens and all the solutions to the problems of society.
In general, the Constitution remains the supreme law of the legal system does not become yet a finished product, complete and static, as would a painting of Jesus Soto, or a poem by Enriqueta Arvelo, or a building of Villanueva. This means that the Constitution is evolving constantly, because his intention is last in time as much as possible circumstances and new generations. It is not complete, because it provides answers to all legal problems. It is a framework law that regulates what is important, but does not predetermine the social or economic policy does not set guidelines on the lifestyle of its audience, does not require schools of thought.
is an open and dynamic system that adapts to changes in society and in which space are the diversity of expectations and political pluralism. I'm talking, of course, the type of constitution that governed democratic states of law alluded to the famous assertion of Elias Diaz that not every state is the rule of law, only those states effectively taxed law.
and points in this to refer to our Constitution, which is the expression of an agreement between the citizens of the country, at any given time, we agreed that our Republic have certain essential characteristics, among them that Venezuela is a democratic state social and law and justice, that there are certain non-negotiable values \u200b\u200bhigher, with the same binding and rigid than the rest of the constitutional provisions governing both the legal and state action and that the Venezuelan government is and will always be democratic, participatory, elective, decentralized, alternative, responsible and pluralist mandate revocable.
However, if we base our assessment of the actions of the organs of public authorities in the rational understanding of the issues mentioned above, the overwhelming conclusion is that those now in power in Venezuela, are to ride roughshod nothing less than the values \u200b\u200band principles of the Constitution and the entire legal system.
I'm not saying you do not know any such safe and is well known. But it is important to emphasize the fact that, through many of the actions of public bodies, voluntary imprint is evident that subordinates the Constitution to particular interpretation of its precepts and the most unusual forms of manipulation by the current holders of power in our country.
The President of the Republic, representing the executive branch, totally ignoring the results of the referendum on constitutional reform, which most of the Venezuelan people rejected; is exceeded his authority and transcends the constitutional limits to issue decrees, enact laws and provide orders in all subjects.
The legislative power, symbolized in the National Assembly, has made his role in a vow of blind obedience, not those who claim to represent, but to the will of the President of the Republic, to embark on the development compulsive laws contrary to the Constitution, but perfectly compatible with the draft socialist or communist state, at all costs and a high cost, insists on imposing.
Electoral Power, embodied in the unperturbed guiding the National Electoral Council has not had the slightest qualms about violating the Constitution by denying the constitutional right zulianos conduct a consultative referendum on the Reform of the Law on Decentralization that, the time, helped the Government seize ports and airports.
The judiciary is a "Pandora's box" from which leave many decisions daily without legal status, but that show unconditional dependence Executive. It is enough to recall the decision No. 1939 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of 18 December 2008 which declared unenforceable the ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of former judges of the First Court for Contentious Administrative. In that ruling is affirmed, for example, that "law is a normative theory in the service of politics that lies behind the axiological draft of the Constitution ...." But if the interpretation of this project is axiological light of standards which, according to the Constitutional Court, "must be compatible with the political project of the Constitution ... and should not affect the validity of that project with ideological interpretative choices that favor individual rights at all costs ... (...), under the pretext of valideces (sic) universal, "then there is no doubt that sentence in question is not supported by legal arguments, but with other arguments that attempt to disapply the provision in Article 23 of the Constitution, which gives the prevalence of international treaties in domestic law to the extent that its rules are more favorable to human rights than those contained in our Constitution.
Moral Power I can only say that, until now, thank God, is just a figurehead in the Constitution and absolutely invisible in the country's reality. These few references are sufficient to bind to assume the defense of the Constitution as a civic genuine apostolate. This is the proposal of the Network of Defense of the Constitution, to raise awareness of Venezuelan society, mainly the less-informed citizens and most vulnerable sectors of the value of the Constitution, the importance of its provisions for the financial year effective our rights and freedoms, and the need to protect the Constitution of the systematic violations perpetrated against them, mainly those who are called, first, to implement and enforce its contents. M. Liliana Fasciani
