HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Chavez swearing-in delay ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:56 PM

Chavez swearing-in delay legal, rules Venezuela Supreme Court

Source: BBC

9 January 2013 Last updated at 17:55 GMT

Venezuela's Supreme Court has ruled that the postponement of President Hugo Chavez's inauguration for a new term in office is legal.

Earlier, the National Assembly voted to give Mr Chavez as much time as he needed to recover from cancer surgery.

The opposition argues that Mr Chavez's current mandate expires on 10 January, the day he is due to be sworn in.

-snip-

Supreme Court President Luisa Estella Morales said it would be "absurd" to consider Mr Chavez's treatment in Cuba as an unauthorised absence.

-snip-


Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-20957164

6 replies, 1461 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 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Chavez swearing-in delay legal, rules Venezuela Supreme Court (Original post)
Eugene Jan 2013 OP
bitchkitty Jan 2013 #1
Marksman_91 Jan 2013 #2
Clouseau2 Jan 2013 #3
Judi Lynn Jan 2013 #4
happyslug Jan 2013 #5
bitchkitty Jan 2013 #6

Response to Eugene (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:06 PM

1. Excellent news! And not surprising either.

Everything is as it should be. Brava, Luisa Morales!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:35 PM

2. Wow... People here are actually applauding this?

This means we are officially a Cuban colony now. The Supreme Court doesn't give a damn about the constitution after declaring this. Nevermind that the President is in no capacity to govern at all. Do you guys honestly think this kind of situation would happen in the US or any other developed nation for that matter? A few years ago, people were applauding that the Hondurans ousted out their president because he was not obeying the constitution. Instead in Venezuela, all the powers obey only what Chavez says, no matter what the constitution states. Sure doesn't sound like democracy to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marksman_91 (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:26 PM

3. Yup

"Stupidity, outrage, vanity, cruelty, iniquity, bad faith, falsehood -- we fail to see the whole array when it is facing in the same direction as we."

-- Jean Rostand, Pensaes d'un Biologiste (1939)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marksman_91 (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:13 PM

4. No Democrat here applauded when the Honduran oligarchs violently kidnapped Mel.

That just didn't happen.

Don't even attempt to kick up the dust about Honduras, now the most violent country in the world, here. You'll only have a persistant, angry few kindred spirits in your corner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marksman_91 (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:39 PM

5. The Actual opinion of the Venezuela Supreme Court

Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:50 PM - Edit history (3)

http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scon/Enero/02-9113-2013-12-1358.html

I loved the English computer translation, most I could follow for I know enough about Civil Law Jurisdiction to understand this appears to follow French practice as to Constitutional challengers to law. Unlike the US, where we are comfortable with Courts throwing out Laws passed by Legislatures for violating the Constitution, The French have had a trouble with it for it flys against their position of Legislature supremacy. Most of this became the French View, due to the use of the Courts and the Executive branch under the Kings of France to by pass the legislature (and in effect, just never call the legislature into session from 1614 to 1789).

To counter and prevent such a suspension the French made the Legislature supreme. This policy had its ups and downs from 1789 to 1871 but it has been a solid policy ever since in France (Through De Gaulle strengthen the Presidency of France when he established the Fifth Republic in the mid 1950s).

Most Civil Law Jurisdiction have adopted some sort of variation of the French Model. The French were hostile to courts throwing out acts of the Legislature, but also knew it sometimes would have to occur when the legislature did something it should not have. Thus the French invented a Constitutional Court that decides such issues, independent of other issues of law. Venezuela seems to follow this same policy.

Now, as a Common Law Lawyer, a lot of this is opposite of what I was taught. It is NOT wrong, just different. The idea that the Supreme Court for All other legal matter is different from the Supreme Court for Constitutional matter is something odd to me but it is characteristic of Civil Law Jurisdiction that follow the French model.

I mention that for the Computer Translation into English can be strange and if I was NOT familiar with the French Model I would have been hopelessly lost. The Computer translation mention the duty of the President to appear on January 10 in front of the National Assembly, but then added the following: "will the Supreme Court of Justice". It took me some time, but then I realized it meant that the Supreme Court of Justice was an alternative to the National Assembly and the Phase was just a bad translation.

This is a problem with Computer Translation. At the end of the opinion, I notice some of the deciders where called "Judge" others "Magistrate" I had my suspicions given the name of the deciders and look at the Spanish version and notice the difference was "Magistrada" for the women, which the computer translated into English word "Judge" while the Word "Magistrado" for the men, which the computer translated into the English word "Magistrate". i.e all the men were Magistrates, all of the Women were Judges. Thus two different words were used, when one would have suffice AND it should have been the same no matter the sex of the Judge/Magistrate. This problem was due to the fact the same word had two different ending in Spanish, depending on whether the Judge/Magistrate was male or female. This problem was due to the Spanish language need that titles reflects the gender of who holds the title, something that applies generally only in Nobility titles in English (i.e Count and Countess, Duke and Duchess, Knight and Lady for example) not to titles of occupations (i.e President, judge, magistrate etc).

Please note I use the term "Generally" for when a position ends in "man" or "woman" gender is important, such as Chairman or Chairwoman, Congressman or Congresswomen etc. (Through I once knew a radical feminist who wanted to be called "Chairman" not "Chairwoman" for "Chairwoman" implies the holder was they because she was a woman NOT that she actually held the power. Chairman implied male, but also all of the power that a traditional male Chairman had, and it was that power she wanted NOT a token title).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marksman_91 (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:20 PM

6. Are you deranged?

A few years ago, people were applauding that the Hondurans ousted out their president because he was not obeying the constitution.


The only people who were applauding were not the kind of people who value justice, freedom and democracy. Are you one of those people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread