Article 1 of the Constitution stipulates that sovereignty belongs to the people, so it is the people themselves in a fundamental means of determining who and how it should be governed. Now, the democratic government ("government" understood in the broadest sense) is expressed through its constituent bodies - the so-called legislative, executive and judicial - of which the first two are the direct emanation of the popular will, while the latter has the task of applying this will.
However, because there must be a balanced management of power, lest there abuse, liberal democracies have established the presence of organisms that have the power to control the work of parliaments and governments. The Constitutional Court has this function, sifted the legitimacy of the rules. The power of the people has therefore a limit (Art.1: "... which is exercised in the forms and limits of the Constitution"), also confirmed by the fact that some of the components of the Court is designated by the judiciary - which is not popular issue - and a head of state not directly elected by the people. Parliament and the Executive Board have, therefore, a primary locus but not absolute.
The sovereignty is the foundation of living together, otherwise it is chaos: that is, there must be a "government rules" that would eliminate the agency. In any civilized society can not therefore be no "sovereignty". Since then it is necessarily given, it is the people stabililire in that way it should express itself, through which programs and lines of government. The governments and parliaments have therefore right to govern - as audited, as we have seen.
Since this right is embodied in concrete persons (our MPs and leaders), but they can not be considered ordinary people in the sense that they, in the performance of their duties, they express a desire fundamental institutional collective and not an individual will . If these people were prevented from carrying out their functions, such as legal proceedings - it is the case with Prime Minister Berlusconi - would be affected one of the basic principles of our paper, that would prevent the sovereign people to express sovereignty have freely chosen. This is why the Constitutional Court has recognized the correct formula the so-called "legal impediment", while causing a form different from that presented in the proposal of the Right. It has recognized that a correct principle, but limiting the scope of the original, returning to the courts the prerogative to control its possession, as required by the balance of powers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment