The Minister of Justice is the only specific mention in the Constitution (art. 107 and art. 110) and its constitutional functions and importance of substantive is also called the Minister of Justice; symbolically guards the laws and is the guarantor of their integrity; countersignature the same before publication, to disclose his knowledge of their effect, and, in the same time, genuine respect for the conclusion and approval procedures
The statements made in newspapers and television programs from the current holder of the Ministry of Justice I have left stunned Italian citizens, but literally impressed the intellectuals of the law, that the professors, but have recovered a prudent silence before so confusing statements, which presage even more difficult times, as well as in justice, in the school. So fear is another important justification, when you look a bit 'more closely, the darting Minister Brunetta, a former Socialist Craxi, who, convinced of being still, he made an observation of Professor Ichino, detailed in his book "The -nothing, "which meant something quite different, a battle of his ass, and the same Brunetta, a teacher of economics of Berlusconi, who, a few years ago, said with an air of professorial out of the crisis, ignoring, as older scholars titled of economic matters are not, to evaluate the stomach popular and not that of caste and, if anything, the acute phase had passed the required therapies difficult convalescence and recovery, these perhaps the most difficult stages of the crisis.
But back to the Keeper. Angelino Alfano, a young department, but also of malice, went in a completely different style statements by Minister of Justice. Confirmed, without distinction, the verbal processing of the President with whom Pygmalion, the latter condemned the Constitutional Court and said the President of the Republic an absurd so solemn as to seem to reason (as they appear big lies told by those who have great talents of actor). The Constitutional Court rejected the guarantees for the highest offices of State not a perfect interpretation of the Constitution, but to damage the prime minister, the head of state could and should intervene to guide the Court in favor of the Ruling and instead, not speaking, he pointed in the opposite direction, the eleven judges who voted against were red and are dealt-Soviet.
When someone talk of subversion does not say something different from what is now visible to everyone. But what tentatively is suffused by many, without going to specify the types of sources, there are thoughts that we do not seem right to escape the deepening which will be needed when, finally, the government team, throwing the final form, will lavish him to amend the Constitution insofar as it summarizes the guarantees of the parliament.
The constitutional amendments have to follow the mandate of Article 138 of the Constitution:
Article 138
Laws amending the Constitution and other constitutional laws are adopted by each House after two successive debates at intervals of not less than three months, and shall be approved by an absolute majority of the members of each house in the second vote. The laws are submitted to popular referendum when, within three months of their publication, such request is one-fifth of the members of a House or five hundred thousand voters or five regional councils. The law submitted to referendum is not promulgated if it is not approved by a majority of valid votes. shall not be held to a referendum if the law was passed in the second voting by each of the Houses by a majority of two thirds of its members.
That is to say, meanwhile, that the legislative process followed the law like ordinary Alfano, has dramatically materialized a constitutional vulnus because, in part joke, part three required the rewriting of the Constitution itself, in which estimates of neutralization of the whole people to whom the novel, not exclude the high offices of State and that any modification, where with this Parliament was made legitimately, would certainly have met with the referendum.
If this is irrefutable, the sovereignty of the people, the majority relied upon by the Government, and was duped by the surrogate hired sondage. I want to mention, he considers it appropriate, my work published in 1992, where, indeed, it seemed natural to evoke a form of direct democracy in the light of available technologies that could make it more participatory the people, just like in the ancient Greek polis But always within a framework of rigid rules and strict, to avoid the scams and the "distortions"
But be added, as mentioned before, two things: our Bill Constitution is rigid, so much so that its change is long and complex, because it is a pact between different political parties representing all orientations, but especially those of minority which complete the framework of sovereignty and make it fulfilled the merits of the social pluralism, and its approval was the result of a Constituent Assembly elected by a proportional system, for ensure the broadest participation politica.Una change during the entire duration of a majoritarian electoral law type, does not satisfy the foundational principle of the Republic and, therefore, even if unwritten, rule of proportion should be respected in order to legitimize a parliament costituente.Tra lines of distinguished scholars, see Martinez, Barbera, Rescigno, Della Cananea etc ...., even if you do not see those comments, it appears that the principles of prudence, which attract an ultra scripta respect of our memorandum and a deeper research in philosophy inspired by the founding fathers to Saragat Nenni, from Togliatti, De Gasperi, a Scalfaro From Pertini, Da Andreotti Jotti, by Benedetto Croce in Einaudi Ignazio Silone.
The Democratic Party must make the guarantor of the pact, even if they have to do the last act of his flag. Only then can invoke the legacy of this great democracy founded on the values \u200b\u200bof democratic socialism and liberal Catholicism that our people are deeply attached.
0 comments:
Post a Comment