The length and content, the draft Constitution can be described, inter alia, of vague and verbose. Its ambiguities will generate numerous problems for the various interpretations that fit the reading of its provisions, as well as the contradictions that are already beginning to show.
In some chapters you can appreciate the emotional burden left by the crisis of the century, as they put everything barriers or impediments to certain facts that they are not to recur. In that sense there is an attitude, naively believing that this is going to achieve these goals, when lesson tells us that it is advisable to create serious economic policies, with positive incentives and responsible attitudes to minimize these risks.
And for these reasons that there are examples of provisions that allow what they are trying to avoid. Let
one: in the version of the Constitution that I have, which I hope will be the final, in the art. 308 which deals with the financial system, the end of the third paragraph says: "It is forbidden to freeze or retention widespread arbitrary or funds or deposits in financial institutions, public or private. "
From a quick reading might conclude that this provision shall be no more freezing of deposits, but the study with some detail the contents of this subsection, the conclusion is the opposite. Why?
Because what is prohibited is the freezing or arbitrary detention, which means in Castilian simple and ordinary that it is permissible to freeze that is not arbitrary. What would that be? According to the Dictionary of the English Language "arbitrary" means "to act or proceed contrary to justice, reason or law, dictated only by the will or whim. "
Then we have that with this constitutional text, the bank freezes are indeed possible to implement them. Governments can, indeed, are authorized by this rule-drafting a law similar to the Deposit Insurance Agency to define a freeze on deposits in domestic financial system. The wording of pompous and adjectives can-create, give rise to "the existence of such decisions. The constitutionalized.
A second reason is that it "prohibits the deposit freeze widespread ..." which means that it is possible to choose certain deposits, by amount, type or institution, to freeze and thus escape the ban.
A third reason is that the provision refers only to "public or private financial institutions," but leaves out what he calls "popular and supportive financial system," consisting of unions, community banks, savings banks, yes may be frozen up to arbitrarily
deposits.
0 comments:
Post a Comment