Gent.mo President,
last July 15 you have signed and promulgated a Law on security and the parliamentary majority, under the ax of the vote of confidence imposed by Berlusconi's government had just approved.
In its promulgation, however, as she had described the text of the law (and I quote from what you put on paper in a letter to its contextual Berlusconi):
- "... from nature so general and comprehensive concept of security based e-law, descendants of the diversity of many impromptu and his predictions that deprive the measure of those characteristics of organic and systematic characterization which should have been ... "
-" ... it is essential to place an end to such practices, especially when it legislates on issues, as do various standards of this measure, constitutionally guaranteed rights and involve about qualifying aspects of civil coexistence and social cohesion ... "
-" ... is at stake and the quality the sustainability of our way to legislate ... "
- "our legal system is seriously flawed by vaguely formulated rules, contradictory, confounding, or not meeting the criteria of stability and certainty of the law ..."
- "... I add have also identified other provisions in the law that I appeared, again without limitation, the relevant critical and on which I hope for a renewed reflection, which allows to increase the coherence with the principles of the present or future and to overcome misconceptions highlighted interpretation and application problems .... " Having said
you, Mr. President Napolitano, thus concludes his official letter:
"The ... President of the Republic can not remain indifferent to questions of irrationality and unsustainability that a measure of considerable complexity and delicacy raises obvious in some respects, especially in legal terms .... "
At this point, any normal person would have expected that you, Mr. President, was leading with the premises and considerations expressed by you and applied art. 74 of the Constitution which reads verbatim (and you know it well!): "... The President of the Republic, before promulgating the law, motivated by a message to the Chambers may request a new resolution ...."
short, under constitutional law, could - and in our view, must - do not countersign or enact the law but returned to the Parliament in exactly the same reasons with which he wrote the "letter of reprimand" to the head of the Berlusconi government (letter, in our view, entirely because the Constitution irritale assigns to the President the power to send "messages" to the Chambers (Art. 74 of the Constitution) but not to the government).
She has decided to behave differently and we citizens (and citizens' representatives, as elected representatives) is not choice but to acknowledge and express our concerns and opinions.
But she went further and began to argue with me, I had invited to sign or not to promulgate the law, saying (again I quote): "... who invokes controversy and continuous powers and duties that I have not even, it shows that you understand little about the Constitution ..." (of course set off a predictable litany of insults against me).
That said, let me - even with the respect that any citizen should have against the President of the Republic - to restate the obvious contradiction between its findings on the law in question (defined by her full of "... and impromptu inhomogeneity of many of his predictions ... inconsistent with the principles of the misunderstandings ... application problems of interpretation ... ... obscurely formulated rules, contradictory, confounding, do not meet the criterion of stability and certainty of the law ...) and the "decision" taken (signature and promulgation of the Act).
But since she knows the Constitution, I ask:
- is it true that there is a clear contradiction (even literally) between the "motivation" and "device" of his decision (he says that the law is wrong but the counter the same)?
- is it true that in these cases, you have the power (and even the duty, to use his own words) not to enact immediately the law but returned to the room, with a considered opinion (Article 74 of the Constitution)?
- is that true or not but you do not have a duty to send "messages" to the head of government (and even letters as a kind of rebuke as "goose down")?
- is it true that the law on wiretapping (and gag attached information) has already been approved by both Houses of Parliament and another law unconstitutional and contrary to general principles of? And, if true, because she has been called the Attorney General to express his concerns and has not voiced a formal "message" to the Chambers (Art. 87 of the Constitution) to also know us as parliamentarians elected by the people for its assessment?
- is it true that on the Lodo Alfano (ad personam laws that Mr Berlusconi has made do not stand trial) You used the "velvet glove" signed and issued a law that now every Court of Italy is challenging as unconstitutional?
- is true or not that - pending the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the said Alfano - the same Prime Minister and Minister of Justice attended a "very private" dinner with their two judges of the Constitutional Court? And, if true, could you explain to Mr. President, how it intends to offer to individuals (and Members who represent them to us) that the Constitutional Court has not been compromised by external influences and interventions?
Please, Mr. President Napolitano, answer me on the merits, rather than offend you too for free. With
treat.
0 comments:
Post a Comment