Victoria Secret Transvestite

Extortion in democracy: on stopping and their hostages.

One of the most important rights for life and health of a democracy is the right to demonstrate, in its various forms, meetings, public rallies, strikes. By virtue of the citizens who are willing to sacrifice some of their time and personal interests are expected to influence public opinion and, through them, the decisions of the authority, in this form of government-not forget-is mandated by a decision of the people
For exercise the right to demonstrate operate as legitimate means of influence is necessary to do so under a basic condition of any democracy: respect for liberty and the prohibition of force as means of political action. This idea, although elementary, seems to have lost the latest in the early years of this decade. So increasingly, groups or associations to defend their interests, whether private (better salaries, historic debt, working conditions) or public (quality of education, health services, etc.) Leverage dominant position they occupy in the dependency ratio as the product of the work they do, there remains a significant universe of other people, basic dimensions of their lives (health, education, civil procedure). The advantage is that those who must be served in these areas, they become used as instruments of pressure or bargaining chips, as compared to unemployment among health officials, teachers, or the Civil Registry officials, have no alternative meet the vital services which due to the strike, are unmet.
In these cases, the manifestation of the respective groups or associations do not operate like any other citizen, who assumes the costs to mobilize politically (in terms of personal time off costs for time not worked and even possibility of dismissal for failure of his contractual duties), but moving the consequences to others, institutionally caught in a dependent relationship with those who protest, but third to last, have not been involved in the conflict free. Put another way: we find here a group of people that an important part of their rights, they become hostage to those who demonstrate by a strike for their demands. However legitimate they may be, it does not detract from the correctness of the description. Thus, the right to demonstrate, as a legitimate form of influence over the authority by means of shaping public opinion, becomes pure and simple extortion under the guise of defending the rights, planting the seeds for effectively erode constitutional government looking to move the decisions to be taken under its democratic legitimacy by others obtained as a result of the use of force.

When I Eat And Drink Why Does Chest Hurt?

Men for Equity adheres to the initiatives presented in the House of Representatives concerning the amendment of Civil Code on two key issues: empowering people to marry regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, and not inclusion of the alleged sex identity documents.

initiatives, MPs belonging to Silvia Augsburger (Socialist Party) and Vilma Ibarra (Popular and Social Encounter) will be discussed in a plenary assembly of the General Law Committee and Family, Women, Children and Adolescents, directed, Juliana Di Tullio. Both involve reform of several articles of the Civil Code

Difference Between An Ascot And A Cravat

XXIV National Meeting of Women Men for Equality

Men for Equality joins the XXIV National Meeting on Women to be held in the Province of Tucumán. We do this because we are men and we are committed to raising the profile of gender inequities. We do this because we are also responsible for this and want to change it, from our places. As they themselves say: " The meeting with thousands of other women who share the common gender oppression and thousands who have similar problems touch us deeply. It is discovered that what appeared to be a destination place relegated to the family and society, has reasons, responsible, and the main thing that can be modified. The woman has the same problems again left to go, but not the same look and know that thousands as she believes can change from family relationships to the social and fight for it. "

Sister Wedding Card For My Friends

The naivety of a power

After more than eight months of waiting, the Constitutional Court ruled on the procedure for compulsory control of the bill amending the organic law constitutional. Thus, in September 2009, Shall have been able to exercise its constitutional authority under the law, according to the Constitution entrusts to it. "Shall" because, curiously, the law has not yet published.

not dedicate this review to the analysis of relevant legal aspects of the decision, which does, but only to a very specific aspect of the decision.
delivery
The Constitution authorizes the Court to declare, at the request of a party, or on its own (that is, on its own initiative), the unconstitutionality of a law, it fulfilled the requirement of prior declaration of the inapplicability of a provision for unconstitutional application (not a twister, but the correct way to describe what is supposed to make the Tribunal) in a specific management. This means that once produced the declaration of unconstitutionality, the Court is left to choose whether or not a law repealed. This is a huge power, but the constitutional reform of 2005 actually delivers it the Tribunal. Why should reclaim the parliament or the president of his time, not the Court. However, the relevant question of the power to repeal a law is not only the faculty itself, but an opportunity that can be exercised. The bill would amend the organic law of the Constitutional Court established constitutional end of a period: six months. But the Court has stated that to the extent that the Constitution does not set a limit to its power, the legislature has failed to do so, and declared unconstitutional the provision establishing that time.

I must admit that the legal level, it may be possible to find plausible arguments for Court decision on this point. But she ignores important policy considerations, that a constitutional court can not dismiss. The main one is that the body is exercised, in our case the Constitutional Court has a power not subject to control. The power to repeal legal provisions office, fulfilling the stated requirement is not jurisdictional in nature, but legislative. The very opening of proceedings by the court to declare unconstitutional a political act, policy decision. The declaration of unconstitutionality as well, from the moment that does not depend on the formation of will on the law applicable by the majority the Tribunal, but requires a special quorum of 4 / 5 of its members. In other words, the issue is not resolved by the prevailing legal standard the majority but the minority has a veto on the decision, veto that can only be understood, then, as a political power. Thus, within six months trying to fix the project was more than reasonable to limit the political and legislative power of the Court, and not leave it delivered to your discretionary decision. With its decision, the Court reserves without limit or restriction to decide the opportunity and time to declare unconstitutional a provision of law (already declared unenforceable) be repealed. The unenforceability will accumulate, enlisting a growing catalog, and no time limit-of retrospective provisions available to the repeal of the Court competition. And he will gain ever greater power to intervene and decide when, in shaping the legal system.

There are above a level of naivete of the Tribunal. I think that solves taking the view that members of the Tribunal, being the people who are not abuse their power. That might be true. The naivete is that as individuals they are, are not always members of the Tribunal. Others will come. I do not know if the current ministers will want others in their time some day they can choose either to declare the repeal of penal provisions, which could apply to anyone in particular, in the future, or requirements governing the electoral process just at election time, or procedural requirements, in light of certain procedures or, better yet, thinking Campiche, certain environmental regulations or urban-right and by chance events in a project and executed ... The examples could continue. The accumulated experience and thought from Plato tells us: it is desirable to organize the institutions thinking about the charges they will be exercised by individuals correct. Sure, if it happens, we should rejoice. But sooner or later nature expresses human as it is, and then the satisfaction of a naive and complacent political ethics gives way to the sober assessment of the consequences of naivety.