The constitution is finished in Chaitén ...
The oddest thing about our fundamental system is that nobody seems to care. Does it make sense the consecration, the alleged defense and general discourse on individual rights and dignity, when deprived of their right to live according to what they considered valuable, and die for it, if it considers the case? Were not the totalitarian states that individuals showed them what was good for them and forced them institutionally, in compliance?
The government claims the right to forcibly evacuate residents of Chaitén who refused to do so. Sometimes, something as basic as choosing to die in the place where they had lived all his life. Deprived them of the possibility of choosing between safety and risk. Is not that in what is freedom? Or rather is it not on what is an adult? The style of any president in the near past, and now a minister, is very expressive of how some authorities believe, should be treated in a kind of minority status. And perhaps we should be, in light of the indifference with which we treat our Constitution and our freedom ... Not a protest. Not a discordant voice was heard strongly enough ....
Even so, in memory of some, what happened in Chaiten will remain the memory of an episode that showed in all its rawness constitutional lack of awareness in our country.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
Hgtv Carol Duvallcar Diaper Cake
Much ado about nothing (The Pill, II)
Taking into account its real content is difficult to understand the turmoil that has raised the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the morning after pill. The sentence was not pronounced as it would seem, in light of the reaction of people who support and those who attack it "on the pill itself. It merely states that certain administrative regulations contained in Decree No. 48 of 2007 of the Ministry of Health, which provide for free distribution in the national health service, are unconstitutional.
The discussion raised about the way in which this court decision must be met is absurd, because it ignores the fact that the Constitution regulates in clear and simple for the purposes of sentencing. They are that the provisions are declared unconstitutional, null and void "as of right" which could be understood colloquially as "automatically."
What does this mean? That the agencies, institutions and officials that make up the service network of the national health services are no longer obliged to comply in terms of the decree N º 48, provisions have been terminated, and that established a duty free distribution of emergency contraception drug known as morning-after pill. The only way to violate the Court's ruling would be trying to apply the provisions that have been terminated, for example, summary official who does not distribute the pill.
Before and after the ruling, then the pill is in good health: it is a drug included in the Health Registry of the Institute of Public Health and therefore, from a legal perspective, using everyday language, marketing and distribution is legal. Before and after the ruling, the powers of public bodies to store and deliver the pill as an option, and at the request of an applicant, are not affected.
The decision of the Court is bounded to the unconstitutionality and consequent loss of effects of the contested precepts: not a general statement about the pill in the public health system, nor on the treatment she should receive it, except in terms ) is no longer mandatory, b) for the national health service, c) the free distribution of the pill. We can say that, in law, eliminating the mandatory nature of conduct does not amount to prohibit such conduct. Thus, an administrative practice or regulatory provision left to the discretion of officials in the health delivery system of the tablet, at low cost against the affected application, not even remotely involves the breach or contempt of failure court, it does not involve giving value or application to the precepts that have been terminated by his sentence.
One of the lawyers for the applicant, Jorge Reyes, has tried to the Court's ruling much broader effects on the basis not of what the TC decide on his sentence, but what you said to base its decision. This claim, which explains part of the current confusion on the subject, no any legal basis, compared to the clear wording of the decision of the Tribunal and the provisions of the Constitution. But it is understandable: Kings must justify the expense and to argue that this monstrous procedure, with a dossier about a thousand folio and one of the largest judgments in the history of the Court, should yield a slightly more substantial, for rather than face the stark reality that here, indeed, has only been much ado about nothing. Or maybe, just for something: to put on the public agenda the debate on reproductive rights and freedoms that so far the Christian Democrats had successfully contained within the coalition, from attempts in any sector of socialism. 
The discussion raised about the way in which this court decision must be met is absurd, because it ignores the fact that the Constitution regulates in clear and simple for the purposes of sentencing. They are that the provisions are declared unconstitutional, null and void "as of right" which could be understood colloquially as "automatically."
What does this mean? That the agencies, institutions and officials that make up the service network of the national health services are no longer obliged to comply in terms of the decree N º 48, provisions have been terminated, and that established a duty free distribution of emergency contraception drug known as morning-after pill. The only way to violate the Court's ruling would be trying to apply the provisions that have been terminated, for example, summary official who does not distribute the pill.
Before and after the ruling, then the pill is in good health: it is a drug included in the Health Registry of the Institute of Public Health and therefore, from a legal perspective, using everyday language, marketing and distribution is legal. Before and after the ruling, the powers of public bodies to store and deliver the pill as an option, and at the request of an applicant, are not affected.
The decision of the Court is bounded to the unconstitutionality and consequent loss of effects of the contested precepts: not a general statement about the pill in the public health system, nor on the treatment she should receive it, except in terms ) is no longer mandatory, b) for the national health service, c) the free distribution of the pill. We can say that, in law, eliminating the mandatory nature of conduct does not amount to prohibit such conduct. Thus, an administrative practice or regulatory provision left to the discretion of officials in the health delivery system of the tablet, at low cost against the affected application, not even remotely involves the breach or contempt of failure court, it does not involve giving value or application to the precepts that have been terminated by his sentence.
One of the lawyers for the applicant, Jorge Reyes, has tried to the Court's ruling much broader effects on the basis not of what the TC decide on his sentence, but what you said to base its decision. This claim, which explains part of the current confusion on the subject, no any legal basis, compared to the clear wording of the decision of the Tribunal and the provisions of the Constitution. But it is understandable: Kings must justify the expense and to argue that this monstrous procedure, with a dossier about a thousand folio and one of the largest judgments in the history of the Court, should yield a slightly more substantial, for rather than face the stark reality that here, indeed, has only been much ado about nothing. Or maybe, just for something: to put on the public agenda the debate on reproductive rights and freedoms that so far the Christian Democrats had successfully contained within the coalition, from attempts in any sector of socialism.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)