Presidential Transition

[Stevied]

Parrili's head nearly exploded when he faced the press just now, insisting that the country will be without a president for 12 hours. A golpe de estado, in his words.
No questions of course.
She won't go to either Congress or Casa Rosada now.
Oh dear...

The Queen has spoken. Good for Macri - I'm glad he stood his ground - it's his day. I told my wife (Argentinian) today - I think there are some in your country who still believe in a monarchy!!

 

[Redbeanz]

This is such a "down the rabbit hole" situation. Just when you think she couldn't make things more bizarre, she surpasses herself.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Well, Macri says there is a regulation, the lowest hierarchy of norms while she quites the National Constitution. I don't think it is enforzable. It also says men has to use tie. kicilloff didn't use it, the Macri team neither.
But nobody quotes which reglament is this, i mean, when was enacted? Does anybody know?

 

[ben]

Well, Macri says there is a regulation, the lowest hierarchy of norms while she quites the National Constitution. I don't think it is enforzable. It also says men has to use tie. kicilloff didn't use it, the Macri team neither.
But nobody quotes which reglament is this, i mean, when was enacted? Does anybody know?

Dude. This is the only rulebook there is. And the particular suggestion in question was followed by every president not named Kirchner since 1983.

If the rulebook suggested shirts be worn, do shirts become genocidal clothing? How about socks?

Macri quoted the regulation in response to the K position that he was trying to make up something new. Anibal was comparing doing the handover in the Casa Rosada to doing it in Barrio Parque. The rulebook - which quote was immediately followed by Macri citing every president including Peron, you skipped that part - was in response to that.

Meanwhile, you support quoting the National Constitution... even if it's a lie. Unless most Argentine presidents violated the Constitution even as they took office.

And a few days ago, Anibal was claiming that the handover cannot take place in the Casa Rosada, "No lo dice la ley". I don't remember hearing you protesting much.

Meanwhile your president makes shit up (I know, nothing more delicious than a he-said-she-said argument, but her claims defy belief and reek of projecting).

Meanwhile your president appropriates the official Casa Rosada Twitter handle to herself. Like I said elsewhere, the C/F joke gets less funny each time.

Not that you seem to mind lying, guess it isn't illegal. On the other thread, you made as if La Nacion and Clarin quoted a fiscal as if it's a ruling, where both publications made clear that the judge has yet to rule.

Still waiting for a response re your ridiculous attempt to frame this as a civil code/common law issue.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I wasn't fighting, now i m curious because it is hilarious to try to derogate the National Constitution with a simple regulation enacted by nobody.. I cannot find it on line.
You know, regulations are not enforzable but this fight shows how she ruled and how is he going to rule.
While she enforced the National Constitution, he is going to rule with regulations not enacted by the congress.
I predicted that a few weeks ago.
This is a soft coup because he us not the President until the oath is done. It is like to be the owner of the house before signing...WTF!!!!

 

[ben]

I wasn't fighting, now i m curious because it is hilarious to try to derogate the National Constitution with a simpleregulation enacted by nobody.. I cannot find it on line.
You know, regulations are not enforzable but this fights shows how she ruled and how is he going to rule.
While she enforced the National Constitution, he is going to rule with regulations not enacted by the congress.
I predicted that a few weeks ago.

Yes, because he is 'ruling' by choosing his handover to be the same as almost every preceding president.

Meanwhile, you seem support her (not) enforcing and (mis)quoting the National Constitution. The Constitution is silent regarding the handover. If the Constitution specifies the handover to be in the Congress, then almost all Argentine Presidents violated the constitution even as they took office.

But they didn't violate the Constitution - it's just CFK, Anibal and you making stuff up.

Are all K supporters like this?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Yes, because he is 'ruling' by choosing his handover to be the same as almost every preceding president.

Meanwhile, you seem support her (not) enforcing and (mis)quoting the National Constitution. The Constitution is silent regarding the handover. If the Constitution specifies the handover to be in the Congress, almost all Argentine Presidents violated the constitution even as they took office.

Are all K supporters like this?

art. 93 of the CN is super clear that it must to be at the Congress:
Al tomar posesión de su cargo el presidente y vicepresidente prestarán juramento, en manos del presidente del Senado y ante el Congreso reunido en Asamblea, respetando sus creencias religiosas, de: "desempeñar con lealtad y patriotismo el cargo de presidente (o vicepresidente) de la Nación y observar y hacer observar fielmente la Constitución de la Nación.

The CN was changed in 1994, i don't know if this article changed and i don't have the time to check it.

 

[ben]

Everything you quoted regards the oath of office.

Who ever suggested that the oath of office be taken anywhere except the Congress assembled?

Are you being willfully obtuse?

This is a soft coup because he us not the President until the oath is done. It is like to be the owner of the house before signing...WTF!!!!

Before signing but after payment. The payment, of course, being the democratic vote.

And you skipped my longer post, the one regarding the old tired "this is a militar document" trope.

Again: every president since 1983 not named Kirchner had the traspaso de mando at the Casa Rosada. Did they all violate the National Constitution?

Are you being willfully obtuse or just trolling?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Well, i just confirmed it. The art. 93 of the CN was modified on 1994 so the regulation quoted by Macri is abolished / bulls....t.

Payment? No, some very important legal acts are complex: you need to fullfit some steps before it can produce effects. Marriage for example. Unless you say yes before a public officer and sign you are not a spounce.

With real State is the same: you have to pay, you have to get the keys and it has to be inscripted.

I never troll, i m just giving a legal opinion on something i m specialized. Should i say hellooooooooo?

 

[ben]

This defies belief. You're responding to every debatable argument (and the issue regarding December 10 is certainly debatable), but regarding the main issue you are silent.

I'll repeat it:

The National Constitution says nothing regarding the traspaso de mando. Almost every president in the country had it done in the Casa Rosada. Including Peron, it appears.

CFK is misquoting the Constitution. Anibal Fernandez is misquoting the Constitution. You are misquoting the Constitution. And when called out on it, you go silent.

You point out that the rulebook is a military document. When confronted with the fact that it simply confirms the tradition, a tradition followed by every president not named Kirchner since 1983, you pretend not to see it.

You often write sane things. Are you really just trolling all along?

You can say hellooooooo all you like. I've already suggested you make it your signature. But address the issues a bit less selectively.