Should Hugo Chavez have the power to govern by decree?

Hugo was granted the power to govern by decree. Should he have that power?

Hugo Chavez shall have the right to make laws by decree for the purpose of:
"Transformation of the state, where laws are to be passed that make the state more efficient, honest, participatory, rational, and transparent."

I am the one who wrote it.

(Section ii 8-a, LoZoccolo constitition)

comin' my way to take what was my familys and call it yours.

... to the same degree they 'participate' in America's. :eyes:

Why of course! No one's ever hidden atrocities behind any of these terms before, so it couldn't hurt.

of a "participatory" government?

democracy.

That is horribly self-defeating.

Oh boy :hide:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:spray:

:rofl:

I guess you didn't know that there is a provision for rule by decree in certain circumstances in the Venezuelan constitution. He was granted the use of that power unanimously by their congress. So I ask again, should he NOT abide by their constitution?

your "laugh" smileys just make it look like you have nothing intelligent to say.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"your "laugh" smileys just make it look like you have nothing intelligent to say."

As do your replies, for you.

That makes us look bad! :evilgrin:

Sic transit gloria Caesar -- et Hugoque.

--p!

I think Bush should be impeached for some of the things he has done under his theory of the unitary executive. Yeah, yeah, I understand the Venezuela constitution allows the legislature to give their president this power. That doesn't mean I have to think it wise or prudent or anything other than risky to the practice of democracy.

What odds he'll still have this power, after the 18 months expire? What laws will he decree that modify the rules by which he was given this power? The funny thing is that there are many who share my view of Bush, and would even for relatively minor usurpations of executive power, who will excuse anything Chavez does. That's where leftists and liberals part ways, I guess.

:hippie:

that he's had this power before and gave it up.

But of course, they never hesitate to criticize the idiot at 1600 Penn. for believing in the urinary executive theory (;-)).

He should absolutely not have the power to make laws by decree. That would be a serious abuse of power. He should use signing statements instead.

:bounce: :hi:

:-)

Except in Venezuela's case they are authorized by legislation, while here in the USA they are not

for emphasis

for their Constitution which contains precisely the provision that Chavez has invoked. Is not Venezuela allowed to be a sovereign state, with a democratically chosen form of government whether we "approve" or not?

What business is it of ours? I'm not voting in your poll because I believe the question is based on an illegitimate premise.

sw

(edited for clarity)

Seems to me when Bush was reelected, the Mirror ran a cover asking how 60 million Americans could be so stupid. Should the universal response to that have been, "why should you care?"

The world is connected. Admittedly, the US is more influential than most nations, so people worldwide watch it more attentively than other places. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about those other places. I care about the coup in Fiji, and those there the military are now arresting and hassling on small cause. Small place. Far away. Still, I care. And I'm hoping Blair's latest scandal lands him in hot water.

:hippie:

about a domestic Constitutional act on the part of a foreign government.

sw

... I dont mean that in a nasty way, but if you look at the logic:

Your posit: We should not make judgements about the way other countries decide to think and govern themselves

However it means that you constrain other individuals from thinking and governing themselves at least regarding this topic.

---------------------------------

In 1933, the Weimar Germany voted Adolph Hitler as Chancellor and in the next few years gave him greater and greater powers through constitutional means. Are you telling me I do not have the right to judge this?

Constitutions and Democracy do not insulate countries from ability to do harm or from the ability of others to criticize them.

We could, by 2/3rds majority, implement a constitutional amendment that said that red-headed humans were not people and therefore were not accorded constitutional protections. All of this would be completely constitutional. Does that make it OK? One can envision all kinds of other crazy amendments. Why would we be insulated from criticism arising from them?

building up social services for the poorest citizens in Venezuela.

How are his actions -- or even his words -- a threat to others? Who in Venezuela is being oppressed?

Btw, your example of "logic" is absurd:



I can "posit" anything I damn please -- as can you -- and it in NO way "constrains" anyone else from presenting a counter argument.

Or did you mean that they might be rendered speechless in awe of the sheer brilliance of my rhetoric?

sw

we're talking about whether he should be allowed to rule by decree.

Anyone who believes in the theory of checks and balances, must be appalled that any leader would rule by decree. I have a problem with US President using executive orders and interpretive signing statements as well. Actually, I have lots of problems with our government, and I could type all day about how it is unconstitutional and how even the US Constitution has a number of fatal flaws.

Please point out the evidence that Chavez has in any way violated the VENEZUELA Constitution.

sw

I believe that it's important to step back for a moment, just for a moment, and consider (and this is more to other readers because I think you already see my point) why it is necessary for the United States to be, to use the hackneyed but still-accurate term, "policeman of the world".

  It is nothing more than a rationalization for future military action to retain grip on a fading empire.

  "What business is it of ours?" The question causes considerations which almost universally lead the ponderer to dark, undemocratic intentions on the part of the United States. We Americans still believe that self-determination is over-rated, when those who we would like to control determine a future at odds with our second Manifest Destiny.

  And how has our own current interpretation of Democracy treated us these last seven years? I do not welcome tyranny, ever, but if Chavez's time in office has been a tyranny, it has been greatly more beneficial to its people than our crooked Democracy has been to ours.

PB

Other = it's racist for me to decide what's best for them.

is exactly what I'm thinking. {why are you in my head? LOL!}

Hugo Chavez won by a landslide in Venezuela's elections in December. He is his people's choice. The PEOPLE voted on their Constitution and it's provisions. The legislature granted this power to Mr. Chavez, with no opposition from the people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm

Venezuela is a Sovereign Nation and we have no business, as individuals or as a Country, sticking our noses into how they run their Country.

It would serve us all well for people in this Country to be as concerned about our own back yard before we worry about others. It's past time to take to the streets here.

Ghost

Interesting.

;)

according to the laws set forth in its constitution.

...moronic extremes of black and white, finding any deeper consideration abhorrent or possibly frightening in an unfavored outcome.

PB

are actually legal.

It blows my mind seeing all the posts on this thread invoking the U.S. Constitution to condemn Chavez! I'm sorry, that's just pathetically parochial and ignorant.

I wasn't going to vote in this poll -- based as is on an illegitimate premise, but now I'm going to vote "yes" just to stir up the DU hysterics.

sw

In a democracy the means are almost as, if not more important than, the ends.

If you are concerned about the Venezuelan people, then look for ways to help them in their ongoing project of improving their health, education and general living conditions.

And then bear in mind that so far, Chavez seems to have been making good on his word to do precisely those things. That the democratically-elected Venezuelan legislature voted to grant him permission to invoke a perfectly legal Constitutional provision for a limited amount of time should not be made into an occasion for panic.

Your point about means and ends is well taken.

Therefore I ask you: if the "means" ARE Constitutional (by the Venezuelan Constitution), and legal and above board, and the "ends" actually DO turn out to be the securing of better lives for the people of Venezuela as claimed by Chavez -- how is that anything other than a case of democratic means leading to a democratic end?

sw

... it begs for abuse.

moronic indeed to believe that the U.S. Constitution applies to any other country.

to amaze me anymore.

Your kind reply is much appreciated.

sw

since writing a constitution is a political process, isn't it possible that un-democratic things could be written into it? Since Venezuela has a shaky history of democracy and personal freedom, have you ever considered who actually wrote their constitution? You make it sound like all constitutions are all equal in promoting and protecting the freedom of the people - I remind you that the Soviet constitution did nothing for the freedoms of the Russian people - it was written as a tool of oppression.

As far as I am concerned, since I would never willing accept rule by decree in America as it is serious threat to my personal liberty, I have no problem in stating that Venezuelans have the same theoretical right to freedom that I do.

It's in their constitution and he was GRANTED the powers. Every country in the world has the right to run itself the way it wants to. Who are we--with a dictator of our own--to tell another country how it should run itself. Gee, maybe we need to "bring democracy" to Venezuela, which has had certified fair elections for several years now. What is with the Chavez obsession, anyway? The people love him and the country appears to be thriving.

at the very least we have the right to talk about it, or is that forbidden?

him the power, it is a traditional part of their constitutional system.
Better check your own little dictator right here in the good ole US of A before you look around at a democratically elected leader of another country simply doing what he is given the right to do BY LAW.

It was legal.

It was unjust.

Ruling by decree is unjust as well.

Just because something is legal, does not mean it is right.

And I also do not approve of Bush's actions and methods either.

It's part of their system, and he has shown himself to be running the country for the benefit of Venezuelans -- what's "unjust"?

but if a President, other than Bush, who was also a member of the Democratic party, asked for this power, would you give them that power?

but it IS how they do it IN VENEZUELA, so who am I to judge their system? if that's the way they want to do it, how is my opinion of that even relevant? Just like the family next door can raise their kids the way THEY want and could give a crap less whether I "approve" or "disapprove" or think it's not the way I would raise mine.

Until that, stop pestering me.

Venezuelan people voted to adopt in free and fair democratic elections.

sw

  Foreigners are obliged to participate in self-determination- as long as they determine what we believe they should conclude. Countries who cross us on the matter are soberly designated "ignorant" from our corroded ivory tower and we consider, out of the goodness of our own hearts of course, to correct their behavior with a benevolent guiding hand.



  Let Freedom Reign, indeed! :sarcasm:

PB

it is the exact opposite of democracy.

I can't believe the idiotic short-sightedness in this thread. If it's not set up exactly like the USA, it's "ignorant."

But what kind of IGNORANCE got us the little dunce currently issuing executive orders and signing statements? We have the hugest clown in the world as our president, the biggest liar, the most murderous serial-killing "commander in chief," the least scholarly, dumbest dumb@$$ in the universe as a "president" and you're saying some other country with repeated fair, free, and open elections is "ignorant"?

in the process you assume that I approve of the way things are in this nation, as well as implying you support the methods of governing (if you can call it that) Bush uses.

and we will have ours.

I think it tests whether we are really Democrats or not, because if we allow a person on the left to rule by decree, without even so much as our disapproval, then I have to wonder about the fate of our nation.

the Venezuelans to have their constitution and their system of government the way THEY want it?

Not just a single vote on election day.

PB

Venezuala wouldn't be the first country to make bad decisions. Just look around here.

So this is totally different from how Hitler took power.

We're doing so well taking care of our own here. My mama always told me to make certain your own house is clean before you criticize your neighbor for their housekeeping habits. My mama was a wise woman....rest her soul.

Will this make his government more "honest participatory and transparent"? No. Perhaps more rational and efficient but we offer those up for control by the citizenry.

Bad, bad idea.

:hide::evilgrin::hide:

Who are we to say anything? Really? Ok...screw Sudan and all of the other oppressed people in the world. A big part of my liberalism is international human rights.

And just because the people voted him this power does not justify it. I won't even bring up who also was voted in by his people.

I do not defend consolidation of power - especially when it can hide behind an obviously poorly written Constitutional clause.

the last time the Venezuelan legislature gave the Venezuelan president temporary, limited powers of decree?

Maybe as liberals we're not suckers for 700 Club bullshit.

few weeks back) I've ever noticed.

Is this a frequent thing? If so, I'm assuming the President always returns the power, right? If so, it may not be as dire as it seems. But, the clause is still risky because it depends on the individual President to return the power.

including a few times while the Venezuelan president was friendly to the U.S., it's limited to only certain actions, it's temporary, in this case 18 months, and it's fully legal under the Venezuelan constitution.

Jesus H. Christ. Learn something about Venezuela, will you?

is that it is only 8 years old. Is that correct?

If so, I hardly think that them "doing it every few years" says much.

And they did it in the nineties under a different constitution, and in the eighties, and in the seventies....

What on earth are you thinking?

Snarky remarks from you though are unnecessary.

I'm looking for the clause in the Constitution which grants the power. Do you know which one it is? It is quite a lengthy document.

Move along...nothing here to see...

BS.

just being a good neighbor instead of a hegemon.

So, you sniff at the Venezuelan's "poorly written" Constitution. If that isn't an ignorant, arrogant Western Superiority statement I don't know what is.

If that's what YOU think is a proper "liberal" stance, I want absolutely nothing to do with it.

sw

"Poorly written Constitution." I explicitly narrowed it to that particular clause.

The statement may be ignorant in the sense that I've never read the Venezuelan Constitution nor seen this clause in use but that's as far as I'd extend it. Arrogant? Perhaps, but arrogance does not seem to me to be a per se bad thing.

The proper liberal stance I am advocating is separation of power and international human rights.

I am also absolutely anti-imperialist. Please explain why these should not be "liberal" stances.

sw

Why on earth would I explain why those should not be liberal stances? I said nothing of the sort. I indicated what I thought was a liberal stance, not which stances I thought were not liberal.

But as I side note, I agree with both of them. Except, as to self-determination, I reserve an exception. I do not believe that the right of self-determination includes the right to relinquish self-determination, i.e., a democracy cannot vote to install a dictator.

has democratically voted to include enhanced executive powers in their Constitution then how are they still not a democracy?

It smacks of paternalism to me to read all these judgements of whether or not democracy as it is expressed in Venezuela is a *real* democracy. It is THEIR democracy, that should be enough.

Let us look to the beam in our own democracy before we point to the mote in Venezuela's.

sw

on the amendment power in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has held that you can't amend the Constitution to abolish the amendment power.

And, once again, I didn't say what you claim I said. Of course a sovereign nation can vote to enhance the powers of the executive. That's not what I said. I said that a democracy cannot, by definition, vote to abolish democracy.

Has that occurred here? Maybe, maybe not.

Paternalism, ignorance, arrogance...is there anything else you'd like to throw at me? The insult that I would most object to is a lack of civility, which I always maintain and wish others would as well.

You start out by characterizing my position as "isolationist" and implying that such is not an acceptable "liberal" stance.

Then you throw in Sudan and some stuff to muddy the argument. (Those poor Third-worlders, they just CAN'T seem to do this self-governing stuff properly at ALL.)

I think it smacks of knee-jerk imperialism, but it is not "uncivil".

sw

My original post was in response to those who said it is none of our business. The world is everyone's business, in my opinion. Sovereignty is an interesting issue and state sovereignty is only several hundred years old. Absolute state sovereignty doesn't work now that the world is so small. Hell I'd even be amenable to letting every person in the world have a vote in the election of the leader of whatever country happens to be the superpower.

So yeah, I don't like the isolationist stance. And I'll go further than implication and say that I don't think it is an acceptable liberal stance. Too much is at stake.

And I threw out Sudan to point out an inconsistency in the Isolationist argument. I doubt few here would advocate doing nothing to stop what is happening there. I do take offense to the your implication about it being about Third-Worlders. Plenty of Third-World countries operate just fine, in my opinion.

I'm not an Imperialist, I just don't think we can ignore what is going on in the rest of the world behind a veil of "state sovereignty".

By calling advocates of noninterference in other nations' democratic processes "isolationists", you are making a specious argument.

I am not an isolationist. I believe in being as informed as possible about as much I can about the whole planet. And because I have put a great deal of effort into being informed, I lose patience with those who spout off about things that they seemingly haven't informed themselves about.

The people of Venezuela are politically aware and are progressing along a good path. If Chavez starts fucking that up, I see no reason to not have faith in the Venezuelans' ability to exercise their power to reject him.

Right now, the people in Venezuela ARE sovereign. And they are far more aware of, and protective of, their sovereignty than most Americans.

sw

One of the perils of speaking, I guess. I try my best to be specific and limit myself but it is a never-ending battle.

I don't think that noninterference in other nations' democratic processes is per se isolationist, though it can often be. And I rarely make arguments, much less specious arguments. I spend most of my time pointing out the errors in others' arguments. I suppose Bush would have a problem with my lack of alternate answers:)

And I will confess a less then elementary knowledge of Venezuela. But that is not, in my opinion, so terrible. Gaining information on such things is why I spend so much time on message boards. I'm still conflicted about the clause, however. I need to do some research into its workings.

Finally, I would rather not rely on the people to correct the wrongs of their leader. Too often, the people are lulled into complacency by bread and games to care. A worthy document is necessary to do that, in my opinion.

own copy of the Venezuelan Constitution which they proudly brandish during pro-Chavez demonstrations.

Copies of the Venezuela Constitution are made available free to every Venezuelan citizen. And with a literacy rate of nearly 94%, the people of Venezuela know and treasure their Constitution.

Since you "confess" that you have "a less then (sic) elementary knowledge of Venezuela..", you may not have known that.

Thanks for pointing that out...I am quite the Grammar Nazi and I hate making mistakes like that.

I did not know that. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, consolidation of power is always a bad thing.

of course, is karma. No sooner does one smugly and arrogantly correct anothers' spelling or useage, then one goes off and makes an equally glaring error. It's a price I'm willing to pay, however, for the sacred cause of proper English.



It is also an extremely common thing. Show me a government anywhere in the world that is NOT busily engaged in consolidating its power. (*pause*)

If you can think of one, you are more geopolitically astute than I. On the off chance that you haven't thought of one, then here is the rest of my point:

Certainly, compassionate human beings from any place on the planet may feel concern for the fate of their fellow human beings living in other places on the planet. I would like to think that true human beings feel concern for ALL their fellow beings on the planet.

But as far as human beings in peril of horrible awful things happening to them as a result of horrible awful people in power goes, Venezuela and Chavez rank pretty far down the list.

That's why it actually pisses me off VERY much more than what I have heretofor written on this thread -- why the HELL are people getting all exercised over legal and constitutionally-sanctioned actions taken by the government of Venezuela?

Just leave Latin America alone! They can work it out for themselves! Chavez has, by every objective measure, raised up the poorest citizens of his nation during his tenure. A people once raised up are much harder to put back down. Why not trust the political process of Venezuela to make necessary corrections if/when they may be needed? The Bolivaran Revolution has its own momentum now, it does not require Chavez to sustain it.

Not EVERY country in the world has as decadent and brain dead a population as does the U.S.

All this heat and froth over Chavez at this point just looks like a worse than useless distraction from MUCH more immediate and direct political concerns. Like, the upcoming war on Iran.

I just don't understand why people want to obsess over Chavez, when OUR Dear Leader is just weeks away from dropping nuclear bombs on Iran! So these "polls" and threads are pissing me off.

We have no say in how the Venezuelan government works, nor should we! Chavez isn't the guy threatening to drop nukes on a non-nuclear country!

sw

I really dont think some of you are thinking this through.

If you admire the guy, that's fine. To sell out Democratic principles and buy into a dangerous practice is something altogether different.

(and I gotta reveal this. I put the word 'Fucking' in after I wrote the rest, and didn't realize at first that I accidentally placed it in front of the 'A' instead of after it. Came thissssssss close to hittin the post message button. I mean wow, how the simple placement of the letter 'A' can change an entire sentiment LOL)

I have never been to Venezuela nor have I studied Venezuelan history or politics. Therefore, I do not feel qualified to opine.

They haven't got anything valid to complain about, so they just make up phony outrages.

They're basically conspiracy theorists. Only less interesting.

A lot of people agree with me!

Cult-like? Ya.

the Mexican president had been given similar power by their parliament. There are many differences between political systems and constitutions, but I wonder how many who support Chavez ruling by decree, since we like his politics, would be equally enthusiastic if Mexican president Calderon was given the same power, since his politics are quite different. I imagine there would be a least a few who would condemn Calderon as a right wing thug and dictator who was destroying Mexican democracy.

We talk a lot here about sovereignty, noninterference, and respect, but does it come down to politics?

...why should we decide what is best for Venezuelans?

Simple answer: No. All the power to decide in the hands of only one man has proven way too many times to be detrimental to the peoples who live under such systems, regardless of the political stance of the power holder.

If the Venezuelans were so uncomfortable with this, they would've wanted it eliminated when they convened their last constitutional convention.

Whether it be a dictatorship, which Chavez is not, socialism, communism, democracy/republic.

All of them have the potential to be good- only assholes can mess it up. So far, Chavez has not been an asshole. Can we say the same for our democracy?

to allow any President of any country to rule by decree. Essentially, the representatives of the Venezuelan government have abdicated thier responsibility to be part of the checks and balances associated with democracy, and is tantamount to an 18 month vacation. Basically, they've done what Congress accomplished in 2002 when it gave Shrub a blank check to invade Iraq. Now, obviously Chavez will probably not abuse this power. But that's not the point. There's suppose to be checks and balances on power as a safety mechanism. And now that's gone.

Oh, and this business about having to be Venezuelan to have an opinion on this is nonsense. I don't have to be a woman to know that banning abortions is wrong, and I don't have to be African-American or even American for that matter to know that slavery was wrong.

Thank you.

Dave From Canada