Hello!
How are we? For here all goes well, after a very successful whirlwind visit to the capital in which I could do a little more to the idea of \u200b\u200bdorm where I live, if all goes well, until they pass the exams within three (fingers crossed) years. I think the issue of Caesar Carlos deserves an exclusive post will come later, when I have incorporated permanently. Also this time, not like before the end of August, I've been very good company, which is always appreciated.
Well, we enter today, with the help of the Latin expression "de facto" and "de jure" in the fascinating world of the relationship between substance and form, one of the topics that interest me most of my law. This is something that is not studied as such in any subject, although it is viewed from different areas of law. Thus, we see what happens if a building permit is in correct form (in administration), what happens if the marriage is concluded without the proper way (civil or church), or what happens if a bill of exchange does not meet the formal requirements (in business). I am going to focus on how specific defects and that would never end, but I will make a couple of rather abstract reflections on the subject. We
step. When we say someone or something what is "de jure" means you have this or that account because it has followed a few steps and formalities laid down in laws . That is, RodrÃguez Zapatero is prime minister "in law" because he has been elected in accordance with the procedure set by the Constitution to determine who governs.
By contrast, when we say that something or someone is "de facto", we are referring to a condition on the sidelines of the right channels (another mythical expression of the race.) Not if you follow everything that is happening in Honduras, but it is a case in which the president "de jure" was expelled from the government and the country, from the general Micheletti be president "de facto" post-coup status. The Honduran constitution provides for I imagine that the coup as a legitimate way to become President, so President Micheletti is not legitimate or "de jure".
"And what do I care?, You might be wondering. For I will give more or less depending on what you are interested in politics. The law is essentially a formal limit to power, a way to control what is done through how to do . So, if you put someone in jail must follow the requirements of the law (due process, that constitutes a criminal offense, etc, etc ...), and they do not do not be a valid imprisonment. If someone wants to preside over a country must get a majority, enabling it to have a majority in Congress that would allow him to be elected president. Otherwise, we will have a clearly unconstitutional president, said the hold on what for because we've been and it is not all fun.
On the other hand, the obligation to follow the rules makes no sense if the standards meet the criteria, say, "absolutist" ( for the Lack of a Better Word , as the English say). Let me explain. In North Korea they have laws and constitution and formal controls and judges and all you want. What actually happens? That the boss is the beloved leader Kim Jong Il and that what he says goes to church. It is a clear example in which politics (power) law is served rather than the right control of power.
has left me a rather chaotic post ... Yet, do you explain?
If you liked you not lose the post of my adventures and misadventures with the Catalan police.
Soon more!
0 comments:
Post a Comment