Bleeding More Once When Pregnant

Democracy or Rule of Law?

" Democracy is a form of organization groups of people, whose predominant characteristic is that the ownership of power resides in all of its members, making decisions to respond to the collective will of the members of the group. Strictly speaking, democracy is a form of government , the organization of State, in which collective decisions are taken by people through mechanisms of direct or indirect give legitimacy to representatives. In a broad sense, democracy is a form of social interaction in which members are free and equal and social relations are established according to contractual arrangements . "

" The rule of law is one where its governing authorities, remain and are subject to a law in force in what is known as a formal rule of law.

This is created when all social action state and is supported by the standard, so that the power of State is subordinated to legal effect for compliance with the procedure for creation and effective when applied in reality based on state power through their bodies government, thus creating an atmosphere of absolute respect for human and public policy . "

Source: Wikipedia.

I apologize if I used the Wikipedia, a source of knowledge as unreliable as a guide to give definitions of some of this humble note. Although I can not quite agree with the above definitions and no doubt incomplete and debatable, are more manageable than I could find. And I recognize my inability to draw up their own, in subjects as studied and where other, better than me (just as a legal theorist, eye) have failed.

I decided to put together these concepts to the growing barrage (unbearable in recent days) and peridistuchos politicians that do nothing to speak of " attack on democracy" and "changes playing" confusing both terms, do not know whether out of ignorance or bad faith. In all there.

Anyway, dear reader, and you mean what I mean, once you live in a democracy under the rule of law. For if the definition was unclear reproduced above, that means that everyone (including our illustrious leaders and authorities) are subject to the law in force at all times.

The legal system, because human work and therefore fallible (which is) is subject to change, changes made to the procedure fastening system itself provides the observance of which makes a sentence is written on paper a binding legal norm, as opposed to, for example this blog, which is not written more than anything else (we are working to rectify this problem.)

Such changes are inherent to its own legal system and very common practice, as you can see anyone who consult a Government Gazette. This, I fear, is not a football game, is a state, so talking about "playing " can not be changed "mid party" is, in my humble opinion, silly, directed perhaps to hide arguments of political expediency, but in any case a legal principle acceptable.

For this reason, claiming that a purported will of the people, even expressed through their elected representatives, may be superior to existing law, so that when you try to apply it there is an "attack on democracy is a clear misrepresentation of concepts.

In my opinion, as contrary to law is the Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to sanction the constitutionality of a Statute of Autonomy (which is available at the Constitutional Court Organization Act) and that its members can not be renewed before sentencing, after the passage of time marked in the same Act (which provides no such exception.)

So the conclusion is inescapable: we try to fake, and subvert our system, confusing the rule of law becoming an indirect democracy, and representative in our democratically elected representatives become spokesmen of our will, which is contrary to the provisions of our constitution.

If you really want to know what is our will, have a referendum. Which by the way, is under our legal system.

And stop disturbing that we are working to solve the problems we have caused.