It's so easy to change the constitution here, it seems. I plead ignorance on other countries' consitutions, not having studied the matter previously.
It takes 3/4 of the States in the US to ratify any proposed constitutional change, a process which takes place outside of the national legislature once the proposed changes have been made and voted on in Congress to proceed. Constitutional changes in the US, right or wrong, pretty much reflect the sentiments of a large majority of the population for which those changes will affect.
I'm not going to get into the interpretation of the Constitution, which, in my opinion, is the hole the corrupt politicians use to get around it as much as they can. But if it was any easier to change, the US would have probably collapsed long ago in one form or another, much like what happens in Argentina every so often. And I don't just mean economically.
I read a paper by an Argentine lawyer recently (don't remember now who it was or the link, sorry) related to the percentage of Argentine Supreme Court judges retiring for "unnatural reasons" (unnatural being "fired," or driven out of office in one way or another, not retiring or dying) and have seen similar numbers talked about in other places.
Before Peron, the average percentage of judges retiring "naturally" was something like 82% or 89% (working from memory here) and after, those who retired for "unnatural" reasons was 91%. The obvious point of the lawyer's paper was the lack of cohesion and the instability caused by lack of adherence to the rule of law.
Argentina, and other South American countries that go through similar issues, cannot possibly advance with any speed until they decide on a common framework, make it difficult to change, and follow through with at least attempting to follow laws without easily changing the framework to suit the needs of those in power.
The problem, it seems to me, is something similar that is happening to the US (and has been for some time), which is this thought that the government should be responsible for controlling the direction a people should take, in place of providing an honest framework within which the people make their own decisions.
In the US, people have gotten comfortable and lazy and want to be taken care of. Too many people want the government to tell them what's right and provide for them so they don't have to worry about providing for themselves.
In Latin America, the people have been oppressed (and admittedly, not without more than a little interference from the US and Europe) and have never really had the chance or the cultural leanings to coordinate in a manner that all can generally agree on (for various reasons).
I have been saying for some time now that I believe Cristina is working on weakening institutions here by taking advantage of the instability that is going on, to implement stronger Peronist (fascist) policies. Seems to me, the best way to do that for those who are really the power (whether it's her or people backing her) are to blame others for their problems, take advantage of the instabilities to make it easier for a relatively pliant majority of the population to believe she must take strong measures to right what has been wrong, and extend her power beyond her currently legal limits.
She certainly wouldn't be the first...
It takes 3/4 of the States in the US to ratify any proposed constitutional change, a process which takes place outside of the national legislature once the proposed changes have been made and voted on in Congress to proceed. Constitutional changes in the US, right or wrong, pretty much reflect the sentiments of a large majority of the population for which those changes will affect.
I'm not going to get into the interpretation of the Constitution, which, in my opinion, is the hole the corrupt politicians use to get around it as much as they can. But if it was any easier to change, the US would have probably collapsed long ago in one form or another, much like what happens in Argentina every so often. And I don't just mean economically.
I read a paper by an Argentine lawyer recently (don't remember now who it was or the link, sorry) related to the percentage of Argentine Supreme Court judges retiring for "unnatural reasons" (unnatural being "fired," or driven out of office in one way or another, not retiring or dying) and have seen similar numbers talked about in other places.
Before Peron, the average percentage of judges retiring "naturally" was something like 82% or 89% (working from memory here) and after, those who retired for "unnatural" reasons was 91%. The obvious point of the lawyer's paper was the lack of cohesion and the instability caused by lack of adherence to the rule of law.
Argentina, and other South American countries that go through similar issues, cannot possibly advance with any speed until they decide on a common framework, make it difficult to change, and follow through with at least attempting to follow laws without easily changing the framework to suit the needs of those in power.
The problem, it seems to me, is something similar that is happening to the US (and has been for some time), which is this thought that the government should be responsible for controlling the direction a people should take, in place of providing an honest framework within which the people make their own decisions.
In the US, people have gotten comfortable and lazy and want to be taken care of. Too many people want the government to tell them what's right and provide for them so they don't have to worry about providing for themselves.
In Latin America, the people have been oppressed (and admittedly, not without more than a little interference from the US and Europe) and have never really had the chance or the cultural leanings to coordinate in a manner that all can generally agree on (for various reasons).
I have been saying for some time now that I believe Cristina is working on weakening institutions here by taking advantage of the instability that is going on, to implement stronger Peronist (fascist) policies. Seems to me, the best way to do that for those who are really the power (whether it's her or people backing her) are to blame others for their problems, take advantage of the instabilities to make it easier for a relatively pliant majority of the population to believe she must take strong measures to right what has been wrong, and extend her power beyond her currently legal limits.
She certainly wouldn't be the first...
