In Italy, many newspapers and opinion leaders find it difficult to exercise the sacred right of criticism of the President of the Republic. By definition, our Head of State is the "guarantor of the Constitution," the third part of the political game, whose only point of reference the Constitution came into force in 1948. One of its tasks is to promulgate laws and decrees issued by the government or Parliament. One of his few "real powers" and return to the Chambers laws, to put it in a simplistic but effective, did not like. Need not be unconstitutional. It 'just that the President does not like that law, perhaps because the judges wrong. We
five examples. In July 2008 the Parliament adopted in haste the infamous Lodo Alfano. In favor of who was issued the law is clear. Whether it is equally unconstitutional. In the first instance because it is difficult to imagine that conforms with the Constitution a provision that places itself above the law someone. According to the Lodo Alfano because it was too similar to the Lodo Schifani (2004), already found to be unconstitutional by the Consulta. When the law is (re) failed, not a criticism is raised to the Head of State ("The Guarantor of the Constitution") has signed in 24 hours (while it has up to 60 days to do so). Same thing can be done on such failure, "partially failed" recently by the judges themselves. President Napolitano has countersigned the two laws unconstitutional, can not be criticized?
Last year the government issued the decree on the "tax shield". If you have capital abroad, you can return them anonymously in Italy paying 5 percent of the total. Some might argue that this is state money. And in fact there are many Italians to think so. When a man approaches Giorgio Napolitano, in one of his many visits around Italy, and requested him not to sign the law, the President of the Republic explodes and declares that "it is useless, so that back then the law and and where do I sign. " Statement as true as jarring because the lessons that the Head of State imparts to that city are two: 1) 'useless to give a strong message to the country, the Government and Parliament, by one of the few powers I have. 2) My role is unnecessary.
strange reason for the "guarantor of the Constitution." Fourth example
Eluana the decree. In February 2009 when Mr Berlusconi also announced that the government is to issue a decree that, in practice, becomes a straight leg on the decision of the Court to respect the will of the girl, Napolitano made it known he will not sign the decree. Decision for some morally impeccable, but constitutionally questionable. It is not the tasks of the Head of State to know in advance what you think of the laws discussion. One way to do, the newspapers dubbed "moral suasion, which Napolitano will use other times on sensitive issues (one example: the law on wiretapping.) Again no critical Giorgio Napolitano. Why? Last
example Gelmini reform. In the days of protests (even violent) student, Napolitano at the Quirinale a delegation calls. The guys at the end of the interview appear to be satisfied, because the President also highlighted his concerns in talks on reform. A week passed and Napolitano signed the law. Lawful decision, but if it is true that the Head of State was puzzled why he signed? A basic question for any writer, but the signature goes almost unnoticed and many newspapers, strongly opposed the reform, does not rise up criticism of the President.
In conclusion, because in Italy you can not criticize the head of state? Criticare does not necessarily rhyme with delegitimize, demonize, "pull to the jacket" or disrespect. It 's just the preparation that every journalist should be given to the institutions if the latter, according to the vision of the journalist, or take a wrong mistake.
attitude to the Italian press against the head of state similar to that of the faithful against the alleged "infallibility" What will be the Pope for the person who believes in certain dogmas, but it is not for those who are secular, atheist or merely professes another religion.
The President of the Republic and the Pope (also a Head of State) are men chosen by other men. And if to err is human is not taking a charge to make them foolproof.
five examples. In July 2008 the Parliament adopted in haste the infamous Lodo Alfano. In favor of who was issued the law is clear. Whether it is equally unconstitutional. In the first instance because it is difficult to imagine that conforms with the Constitution a provision that places itself above the law someone. According to the Lodo Alfano because it was too similar to the Lodo Schifani (2004), already found to be unconstitutional by the Consulta. When the law is (re) failed, not a criticism is raised to the Head of State ("The Guarantor of the Constitution") has signed in 24 hours (while it has up to 60 days to do so). Same thing can be done on such failure, "partially failed" recently by the judges themselves. President Napolitano has countersigned the two laws unconstitutional, can not be criticized?
Last year the government issued the decree on the "tax shield". If you have capital abroad, you can return them anonymously in Italy paying 5 percent of the total. Some might argue that this is state money. And in fact there are many Italians to think so. When a man approaches Giorgio Napolitano, in one of his many visits around Italy, and requested him not to sign the law, the President of the Republic explodes and declares that "it is useless, so that back then the law and and where do I sign. " Statement as true as jarring because the lessons that the Head of State imparts to that city are two: 1) 'useless to give a strong message to the country, the Government and Parliament, by one of the few powers I have. 2) My role is unnecessary.
strange reason for the "guarantor of the Constitution." Fourth example
Eluana the decree. In February 2009 when Mr Berlusconi also announced that the government is to issue a decree that, in practice, becomes a straight leg on the decision of the Court to respect the will of the girl, Napolitano made it known he will not sign the decree. Decision for some morally impeccable, but constitutionally questionable. It is not the tasks of the Head of State to know in advance what you think of the laws discussion. One way to do, the newspapers dubbed "moral suasion, which Napolitano will use other times on sensitive issues (one example: the law on wiretapping.) Again no critical Giorgio Napolitano. Why? Last
example Gelmini reform. In the days of protests (even violent) student, Napolitano at the Quirinale a delegation calls. The guys at the end of the interview appear to be satisfied, because the President also highlighted his concerns in talks on reform. A week passed and Napolitano signed the law. Lawful decision, but if it is true that the Head of State was puzzled why he signed? A basic question for any writer, but the signature goes almost unnoticed and many newspapers, strongly opposed the reform, does not rise up criticism of the President.
In conclusion, because in Italy you can not criticize the head of state? Criticare does not necessarily rhyme with delegitimize, demonize, "pull to the jacket" or disrespect. It 's just the preparation that every journalist should be given to the institutions if the latter, according to the vision of the journalist, or take a wrong mistake.
attitude to the Italian press against the head of state similar to that of the faithful against the alleged "infallibility" What will be the Pope for the person who believes in certain dogmas, but it is not for those who are secular, atheist or merely professes another religion.
The President of the Republic and the Pope (also a Head of State) are men chosen by other men. And if to err is human is not taking a charge to make them foolproof.
0 comments:
Post a Comment