Baby Has Phlegm For Weeks

Brief analysis of the 2011 Popular Consultation Dialogue

analysis questions the constitutional amendment referendum

1. In order to improve public safety, would you agree that the law changed for the reasonable time for revocation of pretrial detention, by amending the Constitution as set out in Annex 1?

First of all, this and the remaining questions are biased consultation, note that the phrase "for the purpose of ..." suggests that the question of gaps implies a particular purpose what? "Improve public safety," the text suggests while not vote for the question implies that it is against such "improved public safety." Fallacious.

Now, change the expiration period of custody, is supposed to lengthen the term of imprisonment of a suspect, not only violates the principle of innocence until proven otherwise, creates legal uncertainty, what is the "applicable law "that will change? What is the term that will change? Does the term is anyone, even indefinitely, is at the discretion of the legislature and the law to change can also be any? I will vote openly NO to this option.

2. Do you agree that alternatives to detention are applied only for less serious crimes, amending the Constitution as set out in Annex 2?

Although I would vote yes because it replaces prison with precautionary measures, remains untouched the question of preventive detention and its effect to the principle of due process. Both the first and second penalize an innocent question, when in fact the legal system to prove the crime and then proceed to the penalty, no matter what precautionary measures to replace custody, has been sentenced to a suspect with them before demonstrating his guilt. Flagrant aggression against the principle of due process. I will vote NO this question.

3. Do you agree with banning the private financial system institutions and private media companies of national character, its directors and principal shareholders, own or shares outside the financial sector or communication, respectively, by amending the Constitution as set out in Annex 3?

This question erodes many rights and guarantees that a book could be devoted to testing. The question to be approved erodes personal freedom, particularly free year of business. Legislation that is generated from this question will generate a new crime without a victim: Linking business. Totally arbitrary as well as absurd, does not solve any problems and rather generates many others, creates legal uncertainty and threaten freedom above all personal. My vote is NO. If the idea of \u200b\u200bthe consultation was to improve security, this is not achieved by creating a new role in victimless crime, a false crime where there is no aggression or to life or property of anyone. In this question the whim of the dictator's cousin and spirit of censure, pursue and destroy the financing of the press. This question also presents a danger to the country's economy, as intended that shareholders of a financial company can not be other businesses, which in addition to ridicule, attack on private property and discourages investment in the country. My vote is NO .

4. Do you agree to replace the Plenary Council of the Judiciary by a Technical Committee composed of three representatives appointed, one by the President of the Republic, one in the National Assembly and one by the Transparency and Social Control, to for a period of 18 months in charge of all and each of the functions of the Judicial Council and to restructure the judicial system by amending the Constitution as required by Annex 4?

This question is a blow to the dictator Correa wants to take on the justice system, a new coup, such a question in a republic where there is rule of law would be rejected outright by any agency to ensure clarity constitutional. Such "technical committee" has no place in a country governed by the separation of powers, and institutions that defend the individual and seek to curb the excesses of government. This question is approved, will be the functional equivalent of sending tanks to the Supreme Court to prevent the election of a judge as did former President Leon Febres Cordero, is also equivalent to choosing a finger at a "Pichi Court" between the parties represented in Congress, which must not interfere in the judiciary. Obviously my choice is NO this new coup.

5. Do you agree to modify the composition of the Judicial Council, amending the Constitution and reforming the Code of Judicial Function as set out in Annex 5?

This question is an extension of question 4. Both allow the dictatorship of Correa, "meddle" in the judicial system to impose a affect the government directory, judges impose dictatorship and obedient to the judges to impose affordable, more or less as it has been so far, but this time more directly and closing the possibility of having judges "misguided" that comes to mind exercise jurisprudence according to law and not the imposition of the Presidency. My vote is obviously NO.

None of these questions, except perhaps the second, had to pass the most basic constitutional review, such attacks should never have adopted the little that can call the rule of law in our country (Ecuador officially is no rule of law but "Rights" is not the same and is a devaluation, denial-of status of a republic). Perhaps only the second question should be a matter of law, not necessarily popular consultation, certainly in the absence of all other questions.