The story has much to teach us, is fascinating, first, reading about ancient deeds, how the sum of many events separated by distance and by the time they were giving us what we now know as "civilization", but on the other, sad that we often deny learn from the past, repeating our mistakes over and over again, without, can live better but detected in only ourselves, and dragging the company depends on our decisions, chasms, crisis of governance and even disgust with public affairs.
precious to compare two cases are, first, the advent of Greek culture, with emphasis on their achievements, both as intellectual territories. It was there some institutions were born today, such as democracy, republic, suffrage.
However, the second case, the consolidation of Rome as a world power, it is interesting, because not only learn from the Greeks, who are often devalued and even contempt, but surpasses them in many fields, providing the Western civilization For the first time, the establishment of a stable and strong power, founded not by the bold adventure of a hero subject to perish, as happened with the vast empire of Alexander of Macedonia, who with all and be "Great", I had institutions that would survive his great conquests.
Roman Miracle that increases with the passage of several centuries, mainly due to the traditions of their citizens, who founded their institutions on the basis of the greatness of their community, rather than on the genius of a general.
Inspired, perhaps, in the centuries of history of these two wonderful people, and having in mind mainly the strength of the institutions bequeathed to us, I think, and not the institution itself, but there's debalce about any of them, mainly because our legislators, thinking of a good number of other effects caused unedifying for life in society, the brightness of an effective administration of justice and that without the latter, we often feel overwhelmed by crime, by high levels of violence, impunity prevails, the lack of justice for the delays and incomprehensible situations.
Moreover, the defense of constitutional order and the rule of law is the duty of every citizen, and as emphasized in the most general and democratic culture is, but this does not preclude it being the first to defend the legality and the hierarchy of norms in our legal system, so we are to criticize it, because often the legislature lacks common sense, an essential element for a legal rule remains in effect in the scaffolding country's legal, and living in the popular imagination.
This criticism is particularly serious (not that there is another kind of criticism in this area) when it comes to selecting judges for both the Supreme Court CJS, and to the Constitutional Court, DC, the latter with just twenty-five year period and that, in one way or another, has come to call into question the "supreme" the Supreme Court, which today is seen as an intermediate, since it usually comes, ultimately, to see what decides DC.
Without attempting in this essay to make a deep analysis of doctrine, much less comprehensive than it should be the amendments to the Constitution itself We dare to comment on the subject indicated in the preceding paragraph.
For example, to avoid the appointment of judges should cede a single person, because you can not trust anyone, and as is clear from the mechanisms that had occurred to the legislators constituents, much less in politicians, we proceeded politicizing universities and professional schools, with such good faith, perhaps, not see it coming and thought that by involving academia and the unions, they would act differently from acting as politicians came, but the experience of a quarter century shows that it happened exactly the opposite: now the universities and professional associations are so politicized as political parties or Congress, especially in the era preceding and during the selection of judges to the two courts indicated and appeals chambers of the judiciary.
subtracting not responsible politicians, and delegates to other institutions, which seem to be neat then, we reach the ideal situation in which principals and lawyers will have wings of cherubs assets when choosing.
The reality is that levels of corruption that has been virtually put on a silver platter, organized groups of offenders, the system of choice for legal professionals to be de juzgarlos (o de absolverlos) después.
Tiene que ser muy lucrativo poner magistrados como para que se gasten la cantidad de dinero que, evidentemente, "invierten" en cursos pagados en el exterior, pasajes, hoteles, fiestas, convivios, centros de llamadas, campos pagados, "entrevistas espontáneas", etcétera.
Por eso tenemos mucho tiempo de sostener que la elección de magistrados, para cualquiera de las cortes, no debiera ser en grupo, sino puesto por puesto, para que haya suficiente tiempo y capacidad de atender a quién se está nombrando.
Los cargos deben, a su vez, ser de carácter vitalicio, salvo que haya motivo suficiente como para abrir un proceso de destitución with well-established mechanisms in advance.
is, it must be a way to change the constitution to establish not only the checks and balances in the original appointment of any court, judge by judge, in a matter of life, falling in politicians but with the support of all the public through public hearings, so that, when elected, start to work independently, without having each judge, in particular, to walk trying to get along with pressure groups that have become who they are named.
Then, each time a judge resigns because he's already able to continue exercising, or dies, political authority in charge of naming would reopen the process of appointing one person to replace one who left a vacancy, which would monopolize the attention of all citizens, as in other countries where this is done, thus avoiding large extent, that will be brewing, as our greatest judges, professionals who have had a record of activities at odds with morality or ethics.
That is, half again the enormous weight of civil society has focused its attention on the resumes of the candidates, morals or ethics of the appointing authority or each of its members relatively low value.
We can not continue our republican life with the kind of setbacks that our current Constitution contains. Until the reform that took a few years ago, rather than politicize the Supreme Court, ended in ruin to establish the mechanism unwise for a court, elect a president every year. It's so gross that change until you come to think, sometimes, that was done on purpose to confuse things further and make them more disgusting in the eyes of the public.
The Supreme Court must continue to be the Supreme Court and not an intermediate. DC, meanwhile, must have a specialized and highly constitutional jurisdiction to enable it to act and function in the field without interfering with the general administration of justice in the judiciary, OJ, and the CSJ.
is the system that the President should appoint either relapsing the position at the older person and the oldest active collegiate, anyway, the point is that our judges should not be involved in bickering or struggles that are often interpreted as power, but someone may have different readings seasoned, as there have been groups of good people whose only sin has been to the Supreme Court does not fall into the hands of the mafias.
other is that the constitutional error that must be changed, is that the President of the Supreme Court, who is also the OJ, the one who manages his immense available budget and appointments, exchanges, transfers and all the paraphernalia of acts that give them some administrative power, when the judges should be, say, with their heads in the decisions that concern the administration of justice, which is a supreme value that should not be mixed with union negotiations, travel authorizations, purchases, and all those things that tend to corrupt.
transparent management of the resources of OJ, through an independently appointed manager of the judges, with integrated financial management systems that allow citizen oversight of such resources so ago, becomes indispensable and complementary ideas above.
With these constitutional changes would restore its original dominance of universities on academic subjects and professional associations in their areas of jurisdiction, and would have a Congress responsible for the appointment of a good or a bad judge, elected by individual selection, contrary to what is happening today, with universities and professional schools and a politicized Congress and a President totally irresponsible, because as everything is done simultaneously with an assortment of actors, if something goes wrong is "the system" or , what is worse, because things are well and can not not, which is not exactly true.
A constitutional system where everyone's roles are clearly defined is absolutely indispensable and even urgent. Hopefully
have the opportunity to make the necessary changes in our Constitution, and in this essay are just a sample treated with pretensions idea that, perhaps, one day social anthropologists, in about two or three thousand years , our bodies are turned over to see as a symbol of the wisdom of the citizenry and political leaders of our time.
0 comments:
Post a Comment