Debunking the Lies: Venezuela Referendum

Here’s how the current constitutional article on presidential terms reads:

Article 230: The presidential term is six years. The President of the Republic may be re-elected, immediately and once only, to an additional term.

The underlined part is the language to be removed if the referendum passes. Can you legally rewrite just that part? It seems to depend on whether you think changing the underlined section alters the fundamental structure or not. You could definitely argue the fundamental structure remains intact with a term limit amendment. After all, the President’s term is still 6 years and he/she can still be reelected; the only thing being modified is how many times the reelection may happen. Even if a Venezuelan court were to reject that argument and say the underlined section is part of the article’s fundamental structure, the government or public could still propose a new reform in 2010 once the new Assembly term starts.

It’s a legal language dispute, and the legality of this new proposal may have to be decided in court to officially interpret the Constitutional provisions. Regardless of how this turns out, anyone who says this new proposal is clearly/blatantly/outrageously illegal is being dishonest. The only questionable legality behind the proposal is very technical, and there’s nothing in international law violated by the referendum process up to this point.

Lees verder bij The Activist

Laten we maar weer niet vermelden dat Chavez, naast onbeperkt herkozen, ook gewoon weggestemd kan worden na die grondwetswijziging. Dus het kan ook zo uitpakken dat de door  Washington, CIA en IMF gesteunde elites hun eigen president levenslang aan de macht zou kunnen houden. 

Maar goed, de Nederlandse pers is niet kritisch over het feit dat we hier het staatshoofd, of zelfs maar de premier, niet eens kunnen kiezen. Sterker nog, hier houden we geen referendum over een Verdrag van Lissabon. 

De ANP-berichtgeving is gewoon blind overnemen van stemmingmakerij.