Who is the bully? The bully is a bully, one who does not respect the rules of civil coexistence in order to impose their point of view, in order to achieve their goals. Here, I believe that the decree approved last night by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers is a political act of bullying, a test of strength, an institutional arrogance.
This decree, in my opinion is totally illegal and I am going to briefly explain why. There una legge che si chiama legge n. 400/88 ed è rubricata "Disciplina dell'attività di Governo e ordinamento della Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri". E' la legge, cioè che regola il funzionamento del governo. L'art. 15 di questa legge dice:
ART. 15.
(Decreti-legge)
(Decreti-legge)
1. I provvedimenti provvisori con forza di legge ordinaria adottati ai sensi dell'articolo 77 della Costituzione sono presentati per l'emanazione al Presidente della Repubblica con la denominazione di "decreto-legge" e con l'indicazione, nel preambolo, delle circostanze straordinarie di necessita' e di urgenza che ne giustificano l'adozione, nonché dell'avvenuta deliberazione del Consiglio of Ministers.
2. The Government can not ' by decree-law:
a) to confer legislative powers under Article 76 of the Constitution;
b) provide for the matters specified in Article 72, paragraph four, of Constitution;
... omission ... "
So the government can not enact by-laws which concern the matters referred to in Article 72 fourth paragraph of the Constitution. We see that the fourth paragraph of Article 72: "The normal procedure of direct examination and approval by the House is always followed for bills on constitutional and electoral and those enabling legislation, the ratification of international treaties of approval of budgets and accounts .
The conjunction of this rule is clear: the government can not issue decrees on electoral law. So the decree issued March 5, 2010 is unlawful. And in fact, my first concern is why the President signed it? Then I read the statement from the Prime Minister and I understood. It reads "reiterated and emphasized the need to ensure the full exercise of the rights to vote and stand for the Council concurred with the need to ensure the fundamental values \u200b\u200bof social cohesion, the assumption of an orderly conduct of elections. To this end, therefore, the decree-law sets out certain criteria for interpretation of rules on compliance with deadlines for submission of lists of signatures and authentication of appeals against decisions of the Central Region. . It 'clear that the government knows that the rules meet the deadlines for submission of lists, authentication of signatures etc. election materials and materials are then removed from his legislative power, and then said "that some criteria for interpretation." It is a rule of interpretation. Under the rules of interpretation are used to explain a rule on the meaning of which turns a fierce dispute hermeneutics to the sound of judgments that contradict other judgments, and representatives of the doctrine that face each other in quarrels to the death. This rule, therefore, must be very clear in its wording.
In this case, however, we are talking of a rule that says that the sheets which contained the signatures must be filed within a certain time to the electoral office of a certain date. I explained what is there to understand? You tell me when ever in the history of the Republic has sparked a debate about the meaning of this rule that makes it essential to use a rule of interpretation? And in fact the reality is that the rule was clear and the Government has not amended and interpreted to the point that what was previously not possible, or participation in the electoral race by Formigoni and Polverini, today it is quite possible despite the opinion expressed by the Court of Appeals that, having applied the rule as drafted earlier than Decree-law, had rejected the memories submitted by the lack of candidates.
The rules only apply to us. For the powerful are all adjustable and makes up with the strength and boldness. We do not complain if this attitude of the policy is poured into our lives, is absorbed from the very young, is dominant in our society. Try to think what would have happened if he had filed a civil list in late lists or signatures. Nothing. Simply would have been rightly prevented from participating. Democracy is in compliance with the rules and everyone must be a democratic state governed by law. If this mechanism fails, then everything is fair game at all levels and company incorporates this instant message with all that implies.
And instead has happened again. I wonder how many more will have to endure harassment before realizing that these things in a democratic state can not be tolerated? How many abuses, many acts of bullying, how much bullying we still have to swallow? And the organs of security, as the President of the Republic, how can they let this happen?
I leave you with one last quick thought. I have a real feeling that the current leaders of political parties who oppose this government, Berlusconi, Berlusconi, everyone should reflect on their failure and resign immediately. It is possible that there is this happening and a responsibility can not be sought nell'inettitudine fearful of those who should fight these phenomena. Think about it. At least think about it.
Marco Guercio. Lawyer.
0 comments:
Post a Comment