The Constitution is a moral code would restrict human nature that succeeds in changing human behavior to bring out the cooperation, peace and progress and develop civilization. Its source is objectivism that is born of the observation of the unintended consequences of human action.
The 1853 Constitution was the product of Christianity and its interpretation by the School of Salamanca in the fifteenth century and Scottish School in the eighteenth century.
His main concern was the relationship between individual freedom and the coercive power of government, so government powers were delegated, enumerated and thus limited. Government authority was transferred by the citizens, who in theory could recover.
The Constitution clearly defines the limits of the law and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of 1853 provides only the rights of the individual face to face with the state.
The law was above the law because the law is often guided by the whims and fancies of those who hold political power.
From Athens all the great political thinkers were the essence of freedom, in which the individual is subject only a set of moral rules, law, and not to the will of a ruler.
The rule of law, the Government of IAW Not of men or of wiil and the Government under the IAW refer to the concept of law is only meaningful when we relate to law, but law loses its meaning when translated as law.
Unfortunately in the twentieth century this objectivist suffered a dramatic, though well intentioned-mutation into subjectivism.
Faith in reason was the illustration that the constitution gave rise to become the product of rational construction of the intellectual as intellectual fashion of the time, strength of different historical interests and concerns of their authors.
The modern rationalism has no doubt that the reason is also able to create a new language than inherited. So was poisoned our language as the words become meaningless, "as Confucius observed the people lose their freedom.
The term that most contributed to the loss of individual freedom was the social adjective to the noun was able to transform into its opposite.
So if Constitution is the set of moral rules aimed at limiting human nature to change their behavior to achieve cooperation peace and progress and thus bring out the civilization. Social Constitution is the set of moral standards aimed at freeing human nature free of human behavior and so does poverty, violence and barbarism to surface.
In this way the modern positivism does the word Justice, Law and Order adjective suffer from social influence of a dramatic mutation in the twentieth century.
social constitutions of 1949-57y94 was the result of social engineering socialism of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church and the welfare state of the twentieth century.
His goal was to design a more democratic Argentina, "closer to the citizens." Such efforts to achieve this goal have been thwarted by issues of more diverse and the result was that the new constitution had very negative implications for individual freedom, for justice, for the law, peace and progress.
Social constitution away instead of bringing government closer to citizens. Increase state power and its operations and streamlined bureaucracy instead became increasingly complex.
His laws rose to 25 thousand, many contradictory policies and obeying the vagaries of intellectual fashion of the moment, and increased regulations ad infinitum.
ignoring Social constitution limiting the powers of government for reasons both practical and ideological. Ideologically, the social constitution believes the government should initiate action, why not support a government limited by individual freedom.
By contrast, the Argentine Constitution of 1853 saw the government as a facilitator of actions initiated by private individuals. Thus, individualism is incompatible with the welfare state.
This is the reason why the social constitution is accepted by his good intentions and turns on the road to stagnation, violence and hell of barbarism. However
the social consequences of the constitution are seen as alien to the Constitution itself.
government powers that were supposedly limited,-through-unwanted effects are completely disjointed generating unlimited governments that destroy individual freedoms. The laws are above the law. That is the will of the ruler has no limits.
social constitution drafters made a conscious decision to leave as ambiguous as possible the scope of the federal government, so as to allow for expansion of central power and the consequent destruction of federalism and the corresponding induction tyranny.
Thanks to the language of modern rationalism poisoned the social constitution is full of vague politically correct phraseology, including references to "sustainable development", "solidarity between generations" and "social market economy."
Social constitution also seeks to codify the "social rights", ie the rights that individuals or groups claiming it to other groups or individuals. Good examples of this are referred to as the right to decent employment or housing, which can only be guaranteed with the transfer of large resources of some citizens to other citizens.
The Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of 1853 stipulated only the rights of the individual face to face with the state. There was nothing about the rights that citizens have some property of others.
L clear limits of the law you were deleted creating an ambiguous space for so-called social rights, the Constitution lost its limits.
With the adoption of the social constitution of 1949-94 are born well-meaning social rights that would become the ideal tool for citizens to influence (political, bureaucratic politics and business friends) achieved a life and a living wage. Citizens are not influential (Workers and employers) must pay the tax impossible and a great legal uncertainty, which causes a lack of investment, the closure of their companies and the corresponding mass unemployment. Also achieved by this means the corruption of our political class and a negative effect on economic growth that leads to the stress of civilization with which human groups began his self-destructive process.
In this way, the Constitution suffers a devaluation by the broken promises, while Argentina's economy relegated to a secondary position, postponing indefinitely the dream of becoming a great country. Our
intellectuals believed that their work was superior and more evolved and compared favorably with those of the Constitutional Convention of 1853. Social engineers developed confuse their constitutional design on the simple yet enlightened principles underlying the Constitution of 1853 which underpinned the success of Argentina at the beginning of the century.
A constitution that is not practicable becomes an excuse for any practice.
A moral constitution (practicable) produces moral laws and build a moral nation, able to secure justice and hence the creation of cooperation, peace and progress and civilization develops.
By contrast the constitutions built based on a morality-based utopian ideologies nice (but not practicable) - produce immoral laws, which when executed create new imbalances, which generate more than building a country immoral laws immoral.
These laws destroy freedom and justice dismantle ending becoming an appendage of central government.
These two Constitutions reflect two very different performance of conflicting moral consequences.
The constitution contrary to the beliefs of modern intellectuals should not evolve because they refer to human nature and the human condition is immutable.
U.S.
based all his success, contrary to what they represent-not democracy but maintaining its inhalterable constitution that was away from criticism of modern intellectuals.
Today the European Union, Latin America paicas 6 and 16 provinces in Argentina, based on the failure of their own constitutions-seeking social reform and deepen his social reforms.
Is not it time to recognize the error produced by the Fatal Conceit of our intellectuals and return to the moral constitution of 1853?.
0 comments:
Post a Comment