Some straight forward questions on the legality of the proposed Constitutional reform

October 21, 2007

Questions on the Constitutional reform that no rational person can answer the way Chavismo pretends to do it:
 
—Don’t
the redefinitions of the Republic as a Socialist State, which now will
be a centralized one and the indefinite reelection, imply fundamental
changes to the Constitution, which require a Constituent Assembly (see Art. 342)?
 
—Since
25 new articles were not part of the first and second discussions of
the proposed reform, as they were introduced after the second
discussion, doesn’t this mean that they have to go back and begin the
process with a first discussion (see Art. 343)?
 
—The
original argument to why the reform should be voted as a block, was
that Chavez’ proposal was a single unit and could thus not be voted in
parts. Doesn’t this mean that now that the Assembly has introduced 25
new and separate articles that argument is no longer valid?
 
—Since the Constitution guarantees the “progressivity” of human rights (Art. 19), i.e. no right can be reduced, can the reform of Art. 337 be legal?
 
Given
these four items, isn’t the proposed Constitutional reform totally and
absolutely illegal and thus constitutes a coup de etat against the
current Constitution, using the favorite language of Chavismo?

This entry was posted on October 21, 2007 at 10:44 pm and is filed under Venezuela.

Leave a comment