I’m pretty sure you meant defender, defendant means accusado.Another of my colleges is the defendant of De Vido
None of the foregoing is remotely relevant to the issue.The problem with you, as usual, is your lack of proper background and arrogance.
The ceremony of the oath used to be before the Lords, later before the Kings but after the French and May Revolution is under the people that is represented by the Congress. This is why dictators do the ceremony at the Pink house while democratic Presidents do it at the Congress. all the other arguments I already explained them.
Firstly, that only dictators did the ceremony at the Casa Rosada, and all democratic presidents did it at the Congress is patently false. Alfonsin’s was at the Casa Rosada, as was that of Menem and de la Rúa. No president not named Kirchner did it at the Congress since 1983.
And if you want to dive deeper, the oath and the traspaso de mando are conceptually completely different concepts. The constitutionally mandated oath is made, as you correctly say, before the Congress and so before the people. The traspaso de mando, which by definition takes place after the oath, is from one president to another, literally a passing of the baton. This takes place, naturally, at the seat of presidential power, which is the Casa Rosada.
None of which, again, changes the simple fact that A) the ceremonial traspaso de mando is not at all mentioned in the Constitution, let alone its location; B) you insisted that the CN mandates the location at the Congress. You even tried to make it about the new 1994 CN, hoping people would just be stupid. Sorry, they aren’t.
Hmmm, let’s get the score card read, shall we?And in politics and history is precisely where you are clueless.
If I recall correctly, you predicted that Macri wouldn’t be able to become president, because of the 200 open (largely spurious) cases against him.
You were also suckered into linking BS from Diario Registrado about the NYT elaborating on how bad Macri’s position was with the Panama Papers. (Or you knew all along that it was BS and linked it anyways - we’ll never know).
I’d lay off the ‘clueless’ label if I were you.
To the extent that I may have underestimated the amount of legal thuggery that is allowed to go on here, you are correct and I thank you.Again, you gave an advice that was bs. I just remember you. If this person follows your advice is going to have serious issues.
That expressing willingness to seek relief from a court - a court! - can constitute illegal intimidation and result in pretrial confinement, is insane.
I simply did not expect Argentina to have such a poorly developed legal system. Maybe that explains a lot of what goes on here.