An obvious minority of ministers validated the cunning question of the induced response.
As was seen yesterday in the Supreme Court of Justice, democracy has worrying claims: the opinion of seven ministers was useless against the opposite criteria of the remaining four when debating, among other points, the constitutionality of the tricky question about the revocation of mandate that converts the useless and capricious exercise
Having to resolve by a minimum of eight votes of the eleven members of the Plenary, the draft sentence presented by Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo on the action of unconstitutionality of some articles of the Federal Law of Revocation of Mandate (challenged by 200 opposition deputies) it was rejected by an obvious but legal minority (what they resolve there in this type of resource must be by “qualified majority”).
It is not surprising that three of the togados incorporated into the Court by the Head of the Executive Power (Juan Luis González Alcántara, Jazmín Esquivel and Loretta Ortiz) approved the question: Do you agree that Andrés Manuel López Obrador, president of the United Mexican States, is the mandate revoked due to loss of confidence or continue in the Presidency of the Republic until the end of his term?
Conceived as a citizen’s right (through a duly regulated collective petition) the power to remove the ruler from his positions (if so decided by the majority of at least 40 percent of people registered in the electoral roll), to the revocation reflected the second part was cleverly added to the question.
With answering yes or no to the first question (up to “loss of confidence”), the patch is unnecessary, as the designer argued, and in the same sense six of their peers voted.
It is not surprising that the three López Obrador ministers acted politically and not legally.
What is striking is that the President of the Court, Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea, has also opined that the caravan and idle second part of the question should be maintained.
Unusual in his robust career, attested to by the usual strength of his arguments, yesterday he made the mistake of relying on a wholly false statement:
After underlining that “the interpretation of the constitutional judges must be very rigid, very solid, very forceful with an argumentative chain”, that there was no point in discussing “technicalities” and remembering that 3.4 million citizens want the consultation, he made a blunder background:
“These signatures were made based on this question, this question is the one that made people gather the signatures. It seems to me that we cannot change the question in the middle of the way…”.
False premise, wrong conclusion:
In the law format that the INE distributed to the signatories, only the revocation due to loss of confidence is mentioned, without including the patch that reveals the unnecessary and abusive purpose of ratifying the president in office.
#Miraculous #cut #greater
