Failure Analysis Polino, Hector and other c. PEN s / Amparo
Facts:
The plaintiffs, Polino and Bravo (Socialist Party), invoking their status as citizens and members of the Nation requested the annulment of the constitutional process whose first phase ended with the enactment of Law 24,309, which declared the need for reform of the CN.
Judge court denied standing to the actors, because as citizens-considered-not invoke a violation of a right or interest and as to their status as members, it enables them to perform their duties to defend the interests of citizens but only within the limits of the powers assigned to them by the NPP.
against the ruling of the Court of the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Administrative Disputes, which confirmed the first instance, the plaintiffs filed an extraordinary appeal for violation of constitutional guarantees, which was granted.
The Court concluded by dismissal of the extraordinary appeal.
Majority opinion:
w The condition of citizenship invoked by the applicants is not suitable for lack of practical, immediate and substantial. W
control system at the federal constitutional rule or abstract generic control, which prevents the Court's activity extends acquiring the characteristics of the legislature. W
Appellant raises a concern only very general and position held only enables it to act as such within the body part. W
Art. Only 30 of the CN requires the need for reform is declared by the Congress by a vote of two thirds at least of its members, not necessarily require that it be declared as law. Therefore, Congress was within the framework prescribed in the provision
Minority opinion:
Dr. Fayt
law should only be considered that it is constitutional sense, so they had to follow the formalities in the CN. Front
violations as those alleged can not be argued that the issue is unrelated to judicial control, since at stake is the very validity of the reform process of the CN.
All citizens are equally empowered to defend the CN when it is placed under threat of being subverted by some different ways than she expected.
The statement requires an expression of will of two thirds of both houses, which did not happen, because the statements of both chambers differ.
This coupled with the constraints they imposed the acceptance or rejection of a number of provisions beyond the powers of Congress. Dr. Boggiano
Questions concerning the validity of the limitation of the powers of the Constitutional Convention under Art. 5 of Law 24,309, which requires the approval or a rejection of certain issues and those relating to the powers of the Senate to declare the need for reform are cleavable and different.
can not be considered given the required majority of the art. 30 of the Constitution as senators and House approved separate things.
Conditioning For Constitutional Convention, established in Article 5 of the Act, the appellant is not entitled to challenge it, in his capacity as deputy
Facts:
The plaintiffs, Polino and Bravo (Socialist Party), invoking their status as citizens and members of the Nation requested the annulment of the constitutional process whose first phase ended with the enactment of Law 24,309, which declared the need for reform of the CN.
Judge court denied standing to the actors, because as citizens-considered-not invoke a violation of a right or interest and as to their status as members, it enables them to perform their duties to defend the interests of citizens but only within the limits of the powers assigned to them by the NPP.
against the ruling of the Court of the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Administrative Disputes, which confirmed the first instance, the plaintiffs filed an extraordinary appeal for violation of constitutional guarantees, which was granted.
The Court concluded by dismissal of the extraordinary appeal.
Majority opinion:
w The condition of citizenship invoked by the applicants is not suitable for lack of practical, immediate and substantial. W
control system at the federal constitutional rule or abstract generic control, which prevents the Court's activity extends acquiring the characteristics of the legislature. W
Appellant raises a concern only very general and position held only enables it to act as such within the body part. W
Art. Only 30 of the CN requires the need for reform is declared by the Congress by a vote of two thirds at least of its members, not necessarily require that it be declared as law. Therefore, Congress was within the framework prescribed in the provision
Minority opinion:
Dr. Fayt
law should only be considered that it is constitutional sense, so they had to follow the formalities in the CN. Front
violations as those alleged can not be argued that the issue is unrelated to judicial control, since at stake is the very validity of the reform process of the CN.
All citizens are equally empowered to defend the CN when it is placed under threat of being subverted by some different ways than she expected.
The statement requires an expression of will of two thirds of both houses, which did not happen, because the statements of both chambers differ.
This coupled with the constraints they imposed the acceptance or rejection of a number of provisions beyond the powers of Congress. Dr. Boggiano
Questions concerning the validity of the limitation of the powers of the Constitutional Convention under Art. 5 of Law 24,309, which requires the approval or a rejection of certain issues and those relating to the powers of the Senate to declare the need for reform are cleavable and different.
can not be considered given the required majority of the art. 30 of the Constitution as senators and House approved separate things.
Conditioning For Constitutional Convention, established in Article 5 of the Act, the appellant is not entitled to challenge it, in his capacity as deputy
0 comments:
Post a Comment