Ontario Boat Trailer Plate

Klitsche Teodoro de la Grange, "Still on the stamps, pies and integration. Additional Notes. "

Homepage
Previous - Next

Still on
STAMPS, pies and INTEGRATION
Additional Notes

The developments of 'affaire of regional lists with the decree of the Government, the opposition uproar and the position of President of the Republic offer two additional suggestions in the article published this blog last week.

The first is that it can play - repeated by the opposition - the law against democracy, in the case of electoral matters, it has some precedents in the constitution. Why is an irrepressible temptation, when you want to restrict or annihilate a right solemnly proclaimed in the abstract, while minimizing (or nothing) to engage in concrete.

among which as in the constitutions of the states of real socialism, the right to vote was guaranteed (to talk) as much as in liberal democracies, but in fact nullified by the possibility to submit nominations only to certain groups.

Take the Soviet constitution (last, the so-called Brezhnev) of 1977 it is recorded

"The elections of deputies shall be universal suffrage for all citizens of the USSR who have reached the age of 18 are entitled to elect and to be elected, except for insanity recognized as such in accordance with the procedure established by law "(Article 96 - since you made a generous use of internment in a mental hospital, this rule concerns generated based ...) and soon after
" Art 97. - The election of the members are equal suffrage: each voter has one vote and all voters participate in elections on an equal condizioni.
Art. 98. – Le elezioni dei deputati sono a suffragio diretto: i deputati di tutti i Soviet dei deputati popolari sono eletti direttamente dai cittadini.
Art. 99. – L’elezione dei deputati avviene a scrutinio segreto: il controllo sull’espressione di volontà degli elettori non è consentito”.

Dopo tali ineccepibili dichiarazioni l’art. 100 disponeva “Il diritto di presentare candidati a deputati appartiene all’organizzazione del Partito comunista dell’Unione Sovietica, ai sindacati, all’Unione Comunista Leninista della Gioventù dell’URSS, alle organizzazioni cooperative e ad altre organizzazioni sociali, ai collettivi di lavoro, nonché the assemblies of the military department by department. " The result was obvious: they all had the right to "elect and be elected" (ie the vote and to stand), but in fact that person could be exercised only by those presented by the party (and "joints" of the same).

and proclamations, more or less similar in both the solemnity of utterance that in the reality and effectiveness of the restrictions can be found in the laws of the deceased socialist states, sometimes (and partially) in the constitution, for the most part in the electoral legislation. Hence the rule that it could be inferred from the wording dell'orwelliano was that "all are equal, but some are more equal than others ", you could specify" everyone has the right to vote, but only someone to be elected. "

Since nowadays most have the objective of building communism, there has been replaced to ensure "respect the rules", but as the other, to be used in the function of reducing or eliminating the free expression of popular will and the consequent formation of that state. That is, you play the "legality" against democracy, which is primarily the shape of the state with the will of the electorate (ie the pouvoir majoritaire, so called by Hauriou).

And here takes over the role of President of the Republic.

The political sensitivity of the Head of State has been warned that it is not practicable, in accordance to "respect the rules," even though - in part - based not always ensure the free exercise of the right to vote and with it the democratic character (the choice between several possible alternatives) of the election.

Stamps, stamps and anything else needed to ensure a correct expression of popular will, but can not replace the essential fact of the plurality of parties contesting the elections and not to penalize anyone, particularly not to the most votes. Otherwise the entire system of the Republic, whose fundamental principle is democratic, it should be to hell. Ben

are stamps, stamps and other formalities: they do not alter the essential fact of the most popular choice among alternatives, with respect to which - essential - they are accessory and "servant."

Returning to the 'constitutional archeology "of the constitutions of the Iron Curtain, plebiscites were more democratic than those of gray officials appointed by the Communist parties and their ancillary organizations, in accordance with the" socialist legality ", or the vibrant democracy with free elections in the thousands of candidates and, occasionally, but not much, some fraud?

President Napolitano then gave an example, by Order "save list" in the right proportion of things: the democratic choice is essential, must accompany the formal correctness, but not replace.

And at the same time reminded the zealots of the law, the partisans of anti-(ie contrary to the policies of others), that there are no substitutes for policy, let alone the rule of law, that to be effective and viable should be based on assumptions and political categories: integration of the legitimacy, the consent form to prinzipien politisher. The data that

the pompous (and often boring) pistolotti on the legality of his predecessors, not cheap. Thank you, President.

Klitsche Teodoro de la Grange

Ontario Boat Trailer Plate

Klitsche Teodoro de la Grange, "Still on the stamps, pies and integration. Additional Notes. "

Homepage
Previous - Next

Still on
STAMPS, pies and INTEGRATION
Additional Notes

The developments of 'affaire of regional lists with the decree of the Government, the opposition uproar and the position of President of the Republic offer two additional suggestions in the article published this blog last week.

The first is that it can play - repeated by the opposition - the law against democracy, in the case of electoral matters, it has some precedents in the constitution. Why is an irrepressible temptation, when you want to restrict or annihilate a right solemnly proclaimed in the abstract, while minimizing (or nothing) to engage in concrete.

among which as in the constitutions of the states of real socialism, the right to vote was guaranteed (to talk) as much as in liberal democracies, but in fact nullified by the possibility to submit nominations only to certain groups.

Take the Soviet constitution (last, the so-called Brezhnev) of 1977 it is recorded

"The elections of deputies shall be universal suffrage for all citizens of the USSR who have reached the age of 18 are entitled to elect and to be elected, except for insanity recognized as such in accordance with the procedure established by law "(Article 96 - since you made a generous use of internment in a mental hospital, this rule concerns generated based ...) and soon after
" Art 97. - The election of the members are equal suffrage: each voter has one vote and all voters participate in elections on an equal condizioni.
Art. 98. – Le elezioni dei deputati sono a suffragio diretto: i deputati di tutti i Soviet dei deputati popolari sono eletti direttamente dai cittadini.
Art. 99. – L’elezione dei deputati avviene a scrutinio segreto: il controllo sull’espressione di volontà degli elettori non è consentito”.

Dopo tali ineccepibili dichiarazioni l’art. 100 disponeva “Il diritto di presentare candidati a deputati appartiene all’organizzazione del Partito comunista dell’Unione Sovietica, ai sindacati, all’Unione Comunista Leninista della Gioventù dell’URSS, alle organizzazioni cooperative e ad altre organizzazioni sociali, ai collettivi di lavoro, nonché the assemblies of the military department by department. " The result was obvious: they all had the right to "elect and be elected" (ie the vote and to stand), but in fact that person could be exercised only by those presented by the party (and "joints" of the same).

and proclamations, more or less similar in both the solemnity of utterance that in the reality and effectiveness of the restrictions can be found in the laws of the deceased socialist states, sometimes (and partially) in the constitution, for the most part in the electoral legislation. Hence the rule that it could be inferred from the wording dell'orwelliano was that "all are equal, but some are more equal than others ", you could specify" everyone has the right to vote, but only someone to be elected. "

Since nowadays most have the objective of building communism, there has been replaced to ensure "respect the rules", but as the other, to be used in the function of reducing or eliminating the free expression of popular will and the consequent formation of that state. That is, you play the "legality" against democracy, which is primarily the shape of the state with the will of the electorate (ie the pouvoir majoritaire, so called by Hauriou).

And here takes over the role of President of the Republic.

The political sensitivity of the Head of State has been warned that it is not practicable, in accordance to "respect the rules," even though - in part - based not always ensure the free exercise of the right to vote and with it the democratic character (the choice between several possible alternatives) of the election.

Stamps, stamps and anything else needed to ensure a correct expression of popular will, but can not replace the essential fact of the plurality of parties contesting the elections and not to penalize anyone, particularly not to the most votes. Otherwise the entire system of the Republic, whose fundamental principle is democratic, it should be to hell. Ben

are stamps, stamps and other formalities: they do not alter the essential fact of the most popular choice among alternatives, with respect to which - essential - they are accessory and "servant."

Returning to the 'constitutional archeology "of the constitutions of the Iron Curtain, plebiscites were more democratic than those of gray officials appointed by the Communist parties and their ancillary organizations, in accordance with the" socialist legality ", or the vibrant democracy with free elections in the thousands of candidates and, occasionally, but not much, some fraud?

President Napolitano then gave an example, by Order "save list" in the right proportion of things: the democratic choice is essential, must accompany the formal correctness, but not replace.

And at the same time reminded the zealots of the law, the partisans of anti-(ie contrary to the policies of others), that there are no substitutes for policy, let alone the rule of law, that to be effective and viable should be based on assumptions and political categories: integration of the legitimacy, the consent form to prinzipien politisher. The data that

the pompous (and often boring) pistolotti on the legality of his predecessors, not cheap. Thank you, President.

Klitsche Teodoro de la Grange

Bulma Vegeta Doujinshi

Klitsche Teodoro de la Grange: Stamps, pies and integration

Homepage
Previous - Next

STAMPS, pies and INTEGRATION

From Lazio Lombardy errors and failures presentation of the lists are, on the one hand, the usual zealots of the law, all happy to be able to defend especially when it coincides with their own advantage, on the other orphans who accuse the zealots of democracy (and guardians) the legality of neglect as to substantially participate in the electoral lists and candidates that is known not only to have consensus, but where they are, as indicated by the results of previous elections, and majority. The fight would be so law versus democracy.

This representation does not convince us to part, but mostly it is (largely) incomplete: one aspect of the problem, and certainly important, but (perhaps) not the main one.

Firstly these errors, due to mechanisms are unclear, they are (also) the result of complications with the regulations on the submission of lists, gradually introduced in legislation in recent decades: in the early '70s I helped an old party leader to gather signatures for the submission of the list in municipal elections (for the City of Rome can not remember if I needed 250 or 500), a few weeks ago I learned that presenting the regional list in the Lazio (all provinces) needed beyond 6000. That is if you are not represented in the council: but if it is not obliged to collect them.

The sense of this and other rules is similar to the elected assemblies (Parliament down) parts of the organs monitored and slowed. They have the same function, only more hypocritical, and the abolition of the clauses of the barrier preferences, change the order of the list: to make the elected assemblies of the club members only.: that is in my sloppy English translation / adaptation of the Latin status quo.

We are not, however, the abolition of democracy, if only because the progressive nature of the plebiscite choice of government - with that in a majority of electoral laws - ensure that at least one decision still belongs to the electorate (although it hurts a lot the powers that be): the fact is that today the citizen who votes more than the government chooses, that the composition of elected assemblies. In contrast to what happened in the first republic, where the government (national and local) was chosen by the elected assemblies. However, these were largely adopted (and selected) by the electorate.

this arrangement is satisfactory choices than the "ideal type" of democracy, but even more to the relationship between rulers and ruled? To me it seems, one of the most important factors to the structure of political institutions is one of integration, as particularly stressed by Smend and Duverger.

Rudolf Smend distinguish the different forms of integration in the material, functional and personnel in every community and all political use. In particular, organs and institutions of political democracy, achieved through a substantial popular participation in decisions and implement decisions that circuit for participation, action and selection of top and base that makes it "alive" a democratic regime. Every political group, however - whatever the form of state and government - necessarily creates, through the union of the will of the components, integration.

As he wrote in the German jurist "In addition to people as opposed to the content and supplementary material, the second formal moment in the life of every kind of human community is represented by functions or additional procedures, forms of life ... you collettivizzanti processes is always the meaning of which is a synthesis of social and aim to make any common spiritual content or to strengthen the experience of the community in it, with the dual effect of intensifying the life of the community is that of one. "

And in modern constitutionalism is above all the Parliament (and other elected assemblies) that played the role of functional integration, whose value is that "it does not matter for Parliament to decide, and act in particular, but rather it is important that the dialectic leads to the formation of parliamentary groups, the association, the formation of a particular political position within the overall parliament and the people ... "So it is very problematic, where the electoral rules make it possible to exclude the significant components elections, even as the majority as PDL, can be formed through the assembly elected a" total political attitude "(easier it forms a part). And this in particular for the integration of minorities "forms of state involving the constitutionality of integrated control have the advantage of easier to prevent a permanent minority position of certain parts of the people. They, in the constitutions of static and constant representation of certain objective values \u200b\u200bthey refused, they can be Standing in a minority position and that of permanent alienation, while the ever-renewed struggle for power, for example. State parliamentary attracts with the opportunity to participate in the future to power and, through this struggle for participation, and actively involved ever again in public life. "

This aspect of the problem is entirely neglected in the recent electoral law, which thus appears to have no additional effect but disintegrated.

On the one hand the election to exclude the order of list selection by the voters of individual members: the innovation (the result) was smuggled to his time (also) as a moralization of political life. Of moral excess has not really seen you around, while the parliament and other elected assemblies - have become a very large majority of the sets of co-opted is visible to everyone. Even more worrying

another innovation: the terms of the barrier. To justify which used two magic words: bipartisanship and governance. But as for the first nobody could explain why one is better or more democratic two-party system rather than a multi-party system. If it is stated that the first government provides more stability, it is said was not true, because to observe political systems if they are very articulate as those of Germany in Spain, and until recently France (later moved to a substantial bipartisan) characterized by enviable stability: Obviously in those systems to ensure it was not the (small) number of parties, but other factors, sociological and Legal.

regard to governance, this does not depend on the number of parties in Parliament, but by choice or by the direct nature of the government (through the presidential or premier) and / or character of most of the electoral law. It is reducing the number of parties to promote, as the possibility (encouraged) to elect a stable majority. So the (relative) stability gained by the governments of the second Republic is (mostly) due to the majoritarian electoral laws and the reduction in the number of parties, because even in the penultimate term and the previous parliaments had increased as compared to the "First Republic". This

own, and it is clear that bureaucratic obstacles - even when he stumbled upon the PDL - terms of the barrier, blocked lists, they are all gimmicks designed to promote, reduce and eliminate the possible replacement - interior (preferences) and outside ( other parties) - the political class and, consequently, to a large extent, the ruling class, must be determined whether this constitutes a positive result.

Se c’è un dato su cui concordavano molti tra i più grandi teorici politici e giuristi tra XIX e XX secolo (da Hauriou a Pareto; da Renan a Smend, tra i tanti) è che l’istituzione (la comunità politica, la società) non è una somma di norme, regole, precetti, ma un insieme vivente; e non è statica (celebre, anche se poco nota in Italia, la critica di Hauriou a Kelsen e Duguit) ma un insieme in movimento. Scriveva il grande giurista francese che l’ordine sociale è “un sistema animato d’un movimento lento ed uniforme… la materia degli organismi è rinnovata… mentre le forme restano relativamente stabili… i sistemi sociali behave like living organisms ... You will then see the bodies last for centuries, despite their human material and most social situations ... it will be changed. " If, however - it follows - the renewal is slowed or blocked, instead of measuring the duration of centuries, is shortened to a few decades or years. Which usually follows a period of acute political crisis and / or social institutions to adapt to a changing and situations, and to encourage the exchange and access of excluded elites.

So, to think in realistic terms, the duration, ie the first criterion for success of the institution, is safeguarded by its ability to integrate gradually and without violent struggles of the new emerges from the social group: that is not to impede the circulation of elites.

is the case for any political regime, but it is obviously more acute in democracies, where the functional integration has a higher role than in other forms of state.

And therefore better, as far as possible, give up stamps, stamps and other bureaucratic obstacles: political regimes are governed by consensus, integration and legitimacy, despite what the zealots think of legality. Ask a stamp to produce integration is like trying to squeeze water from a stone.

Teodoro Klitsche de la Grange

Bulma Vegeta Doujinshi

Klitsche Teodoro de la Grange: Stamps, pies and integration

Homepage
Previous - Next

STAMPS, pies and INTEGRATION

From Lazio Lombardy errors and failures presentation of the lists are, on the one hand, the usual zealots of the law, all happy to be able to defend especially when it coincides with their own advantage, on the other orphans who accuse the zealots of democracy (and guardians) the legality of neglect as to substantially participate in the electoral lists and candidates that is known not only to have consensus, but where they are, as indicated by the results of previous elections, and majority. The fight would be so law versus democracy.

This representation does not convince us to part, but mostly it is (largely) incomplete: one aspect of the problem, and certainly important, but (perhaps) not the main one.

Firstly these errors, due to mechanisms are unclear, they are (also) the result of complications with the regulations on the submission of lists, gradually introduced in legislation in recent decades: in the early '70s I helped an old party leader to gather signatures for the submission of the list in municipal elections (for the City of Rome can not remember if I needed 250 or 500), a few weeks ago I learned that presenting the regional list in the Lazio (all provinces) needed beyond 6000. That is if you are not represented in the council: but if it is not obliged to collect them.

The sense of this and other rules is similar to the elected assemblies (Parliament down) parts of the organs monitored and slowed. They have the same function, only more hypocritical, and the abolition of the clauses of the barrier preferences, change the order of the list: to make the elected assemblies of the club members only.: that is in my sloppy English translation / adaptation of the Latin status quo.

We are not, however, the abolition of democracy, if only because the progressive nature of the plebiscite choice of government - with that in a majority of electoral laws - ensure that at least one decision still belongs to the electorate (although it hurts a lot the powers that be): the fact is that today the citizen who votes more than the government chooses, that the composition of elected assemblies. In contrast to what happened in the first republic, where the government (national and local) was chosen by the elected assemblies. However, these were largely adopted (and selected) by the electorate.

this arrangement is satisfactory choices than the "ideal type" of democracy, but even more to the relationship between rulers and ruled? To me it seems, one of the most important factors to the structure of political institutions is one of integration, as particularly stressed by Smend and Duverger.

Rudolf Smend distinguish the different forms of integration in the material, functional and personnel in every community and all political use. In particular, organs and institutions of political democracy, achieved through a substantial popular participation in decisions and implement decisions that circuit for participation, action and selection of top and base that makes it "alive" a democratic regime. Every political group, however - whatever the form of state and government - necessarily creates, through the union of the will of the components, integration.

As he wrote in the German jurist "In addition to people as opposed to the content and supplementary material, the second formal moment in the life of every kind of human community is represented by functions or additional procedures, forms of life ... you collettivizzanti processes is always the meaning of which is a synthesis of social and aim to make any common spiritual content or to strengthen the experience of the community in it, with the dual effect of intensifying the life of the community is that of one. "

And in modern constitutionalism is above all the Parliament (and other elected assemblies) that played the role of functional integration, whose value is that "it does not matter for Parliament to decide, and act in particular, but rather it is important that the dialectic leads to the formation of parliamentary groups, the association, the formation of a particular political position within the overall parliament and the people ... "So it is very problematic, where the electoral rules make it possible to exclude the significant components elections, even as the majority as PDL, can be formed through the assembly elected a" total political attitude "(easier it forms a part). And this in particular for the integration of minorities "forms of state involving the constitutionality of integrated control have the advantage of easier to prevent a permanent minority position of certain parts of the people. They, in the constitutions of static and constant representation of certain objective values \u200b\u200bthey refused, they can be Standing in a minority position and that of permanent alienation, while the ever-renewed struggle for power, for example. State parliamentary attracts with the opportunity to participate in the future to power and, through this struggle for participation, and actively involved ever again in public life. "

This aspect of the problem is entirely neglected in the recent electoral law, which thus appears to have no additional effect but disintegrated.

On the one hand the election to exclude the order of list selection by the voters of individual members: the innovation (the result) was smuggled to his time (also) as a moralization of political life. Of moral excess has not really seen you around, while the parliament and other elected assemblies - have become a very large majority of the sets of co-opted is visible to everyone. Even more worrying

another innovation: the terms of the barrier. To justify which used two magic words: bipartisanship and governance. But as for the first nobody could explain why one is better or more democratic two-party system rather than a multi-party system. If it is stated that the first government provides more stability, it is said was not true, because to observe political systems if they are very articulate as those of Germany in Spain, and until recently France (later moved to a substantial bipartisan) characterized by enviable stability: Obviously in those systems to ensure it was not the (small) number of parties, but other factors, sociological and Legal.

regard to governance, this does not depend on the number of parties in Parliament, but by choice or by the direct nature of the government (through the presidential or premier) and / or character of most of the electoral law. It is reducing the number of parties to promote, as the possibility (encouraged) to elect a stable majority. So the (relative) stability gained by the governments of the second Republic is (mostly) due to the majoritarian electoral laws and the reduction in the number of parties, because even in the penultimate term and the previous parliaments had increased as compared to the "First Republic". This

own, and it is clear that bureaucratic obstacles - even when he stumbled upon the PDL - terms of the barrier, blocked lists, they are all gimmicks designed to promote, reduce and eliminate the possible replacement - interior (preferences) and outside ( other parties) - the political class and, consequently, to a large extent, the ruling class, must be determined whether this constitutes a positive result.

Se c’è un dato su cui concordavano molti tra i più grandi teorici politici e giuristi tra XIX e XX secolo (da Hauriou a Pareto; da Renan a Smend, tra i tanti) è che l’istituzione (la comunità politica, la società) non è una somma di norme, regole, precetti, ma un insieme vivente; e non è statica (celebre, anche se poco nota in Italia, la critica di Hauriou a Kelsen e Duguit) ma un insieme in movimento. Scriveva il grande giurista francese che l’ordine sociale è “un sistema animato d’un movimento lento ed uniforme… la materia degli organismi è rinnovata… mentre le forme restano relativamente stabili… i sistemi sociali behave like living organisms ... You will then see the bodies last for centuries, despite their human material and most social situations ... it will be changed. " If, however - it follows - the renewal is slowed or blocked, instead of measuring the duration of centuries, is shortened to a few decades or years. Which usually follows a period of acute political crisis and / or social institutions to adapt to a changing and situations, and to encourage the exchange and access of excluded elites.

So, to think in realistic terms, the duration, ie the first criterion for success of the institution, is safeguarded by its ability to integrate gradually and without violent struggles of the new emerges from the social group: that is not to impede the circulation of elites.

is the case for any political regime, but it is obviously more acute in democracies, where the functional integration has a higher role than in other forms of state.

And therefore better, as far as possible, give up stamps, stamps and other bureaucratic obstacles: political regimes are governed by consensus, integration and legitimacy, despite what the zealots think of legality. Ask a stamp to produce integration is like trying to squeeze water from a stone.

Teodoro Klitsche de la Grange