HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » International » Latin America (Group) » Chavez cannot be sworn in...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:36 PM

Chavez cannot be sworn in on January 10 (Spanish)

The National Assembly president, Godgiven Hair, read a communication from VP Maduro inwhich he informs Venezuelans that Chavez will not attend the swearing in January 10. He said the Supreme Court will have to swear him in at a later date.

(Yesterday, inMaduro said that Chavez was in his complete capacity as president)

http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/salud-presidencial/130108/presidente-chavez-no-podra-juramentarse-el-10-de-enero


Caracas.- El presidente de la Asamblea Nacional, Diosdado Cabello, leyó ante el parlamento un comunicado del vicepresidente de la República, Nicolás Maduro, en el cual se informa a los venezolanos que presidente Hugo Chávez no podrá asistir a la juramentación el próximo 10 de enero.

Maduro explicó en el texto que el equipo médico encargado de salud de Chávez indicó que se recuperación postquirúrgica debe extenderse. Añadió que el Jefe de Estado pidió informar a los venezolanos sobre su situación actual.

La juramentación, que marca el inicio del cuarto mandato del presidente de República, tendrá que ser pospuesta, tras la decisión de los galenos de prolongar el reposo.

Señala el texto, que este hecho constituye un "irrebatible motivo sobrevenido, por lo cual se invoca el artículo 231 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, a objeto de formalizar en fecha posterior la juramentación correspondiente ante el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia".


13 replies, 884 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply Chavez cannot be sworn in on January 10 (Spanish) (Original post)
Bacchus4.0 Jan 2013 OP
naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #1
Bacchus4.0 Jan 2013 #2
joshcryer Jan 2013 #3
Bacchus4.0 Jan 2013 #11
joshcryer Jan 2013 #13
flamingdem Jan 2013 #4
joshcryer Jan 2013 #5
flamingdem Jan 2013 #6
joshcryer Jan 2013 #7
Bacchus4.0 Jan 2013 #8
joshcryer Jan 2013 #12
Marksman_91 Jan 2013 #9
Bacchus4.0 Jan 2013 #10

Response to Bacchus4.0 (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:57 PM

1. What does the constitution say on the matter?

 

I posted it earlier.

Here's the thing: Chavez's successor will win in a new election.

So why bother subverting the constitution then?

The only logical explanation is that the Chavez side knows it will fracture in the absence of chavez

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:05 PM

2. it doesn't matter what it says to them but I am not

so positive that his successor would win. I assume they want his re-election and next term to be made official (while subverting the constitution at the same time)

They will try to use his re-election/death towards the ends they want. I see Capriles actually compares favorably to both inMaduro and God-given Hair but there will also be the sympathy vote for Chavez.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:09 PM

3. It says he must be sworn in Jan 10th.

It also mentions a medical board if he cannot perform his duties.

So logically a medical board should be formed so that the people can know whether or not delaying the swearing in is a fair act (which is logical in certain extraneous circumstances; such as having a bad toothache the night of Jan 9th, having surgery the morning of Jan 10th and needing to be sedated for a day and unable to attend Jan 10th swearing in). In that event, obviously you can throw some bit of interpretation into the Jan 10th date and a doctor can come forward and say "he'll be ready tomorrow."

I am also perplexed by this as well because they just won by a large margin, the best thing they have going for them is to have elections as soon as possible. The longer they give the opposition to organize and the more fractured the chavistas become, the worse it is. This is a really bad move for them. Unless chavez does have a chance to recover, which at this point I do not believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:32 PM

11. a more sinister possibility but perhaps more likely

As there is no requirement according to TSJ to swear the president in, they can avoid calling new elections for 4 or 6 years. My undertanding from you is that if the president dies in the first 4 years there must be new elections, in the last two years the VP becomes president. They can retain power for 6 years by simply denying that Chavez is incapacitated or dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:57 PM

13. I don't think his family would allow that to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:56 AM

4. Their courts have ruled in favor of postponement n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:01 PM

5. Did they rule on Maduro taking power over Cabello?



edit, nevermind, Maduro gets indefinite power over the country.

En atención al principio de continuidad de los Poderes Públicos y al de preservación de la voluntad popular, no es admisible que ante la existencia de un desfase cronológico entre el inicio del período constitucional y la juramentación de un Presidente reelecto, se considere (sin que el texto fundamental así lo paute) que el gobierno queda ipso facto inexistente.


Venezuela will be experiencing a coup Jan 11, 2013. Any other interpretation that does not address article 234 is false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:26 PM

6. No, if Chavez is not able there will be an election n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:29 PM

7. That's not what the TSJ ruled.

They threw out Article 234.

Read the ruling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:30 PM

8. yep, its a coup. there are no plans for new elections as required

Maduro was not elected. Don't be suprised if Chavez is "recovering" for 6 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:55 PM

12. Yep.

This is a coup, unlike Lugo, this is a true institutional coup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:39 PM

9. It's a coup

The Supreme Court basically doesn't give a damn about what the Constitution says. It establishes clearly that a professional medical board must examine how the president is doing, and rule if he is fit enough to keep on governing or not. The only official information we have about his health is what Maduro and the government has said, of whom none are medical experts, and the news are that he's not doing well anyway. I don't know about you guys, but that doesn't sound like the president's fit enough to keep on governing. For all we know, he could be dead already, and Maduro and Cabello are only telling lies about his state, which aren't good news about his health anyway. These guys are really doing everything they can to perpetuate their stay in power. It's why Chávez went to Cuba for treatment in the first place, nobody can really know if he's dead or not in there. Instead, if he had stayed in Venezuela, it'd be much easier for everyone to know what his REAL state is. If Chávez still really is giving orders and conscious, why don't they show any evidence for it? Maybe some video footage or a recording. But alas, they have not produced anything, hence why we cannot assume their word is true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marksman_91 (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:43 PM

10. indeed, but completely unsurprising n/t

s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread