The character of the Constitution and the problem of reform appear in the background of the coup in Honduras. Article 374 ° of the standard provides an absolute inability to change the presidential term. It is against this definition that President Zelaya tried to call a referendum for a constituent assembly to rule on the reform of the outlawed extreme.
The issue, in theory, has behind it a broad debate. In the early twentieth century Irish lawyer James Bryce notes that, according to "the relationship between constitutions with the ordinary laws and the authority that issues " [1] , they could be classified into" hard "or" flexible. " The first is reflected in the written constitutions, providing a complex procedure which made it difficult to reform. The latter, however, alluded to the unwritten constitution, and assumed the possibility of reform through normal procedures.
approach left little clarity about the true meaning of constitutional rigidity. In any case it appeared that this was determined by the quality-of-deepening reform process. In that scenario could imagine defining role clauses of stone, so rigid, formally considered, it would be taken to extremes to avoid any possibility of change. This claim, characterized by a blind trust, or naive, in the standard, hallucinated the idea of \u200b\u200bfreezing the politics, law, culture, in short, history.
believe in the unchanging part of a course that has undeniable political contingency dose ends up thinning the idea of \u200b\u200ba Constitution (by making it just paper) and that plane is identified, for example, the time or the actual presidential election. After all, the obedience of the law is not justified on the authority of written law, without falling into absurdity. Is rational and moral structure of the debate flowing articulated, for example, through judicial decisions, which gives meaning and makes them acceptable norms and law. Support the thesis of obedience to authority argument is to accept the idea of \u200b\u200ba timeless and arbitrary consensus derived from original wills and imaginary.
The inevitable correction material of any attempt to petrify the right, is better understood if we notice that the so-called rigidity of the Constitution is not in the demand formalities that impede reform, but in the very meaning of Constitution. The central ideas are derived from this last statement is that the stiffness and expression ceases to be formal when it supports the hypothesis of reform, however limited it may be. And, on the other hand, the Constitution as a cultural reality in which exercising rights and fundamental freedoms instruments and subordinated public institutions as formal and imposed substantial limits to their existence [2] also be the reason justify them.
institutions of democracy are justified in the discussion to deepen the meaning of the Constitution and rights. This condition is diluted, as in Honduras, where the practices that give life to the political process restrict the dialogue, because they obey as exclusionary reasons of who wields power, because there are structural conditions of inequality that invalidate the free debate or, finally, reading the ludicrous claim of constitutional rules as if they were rules of the road to defend the present political structures in terms of an agreement's ghostly past .
[1] BRYCE, James. Constitutions flexible and rigid constitutions. Madrid: Center for Constitutional Studies, 1988, p. 9.
[2] PACE, Alessandro, Varela, Joaquín. The rigidity of written constitutions. Madrid: Center for Constitutional Studies, 1995, p. 77.
0 comments:
Post a Comment