black day for the Republic of
Stefano Rodota • 07-Feb-09 is a bad day for the Republic. We are facing an unprecedented constitutional conflict.
And that is a government that challenges the President of the Republic who had made firm defender of the reasons for the Constitution and fundamental rights of individuals. The most serious decision of the Government to intervene in the matter with a decree of Eluana, Giorgio Napolitano after he publicly justified the reasons for his dissent, subverts the institutional balance, opens a time when you go beyond the "tyranny of the majority", of which we spoke so eloquently liberal Alexis de Tocqueville, and enter into a "terra incognita" where the political party is dominated not by the sense of the state, but the brutal will of the President of the Council to offer reassurance to members of a foreign power at any cost, even the upheaval of democracy itself costituzionale.È so even if a clear statement as it may seem brutal. With one move will hit many targets. The Constitution, the only democratically legitimate charter of values, a true "secular Bible," is overwhelmed to put in place state ethics drawn to the dictates of the Vatican hierarchy (not a widespread feeling in the same Catholic world, that the story of Eluana Englaro approached with respect and compassion). The sovereignty of Parliament is further mortified, because it is denied the privilege of being the privileged place to discuss and decide when it comes to fundamental rights. The independence of the judiciary disappears when you erase its decisions by an act of creating a precedent devastating to the survival of a piece of rule of law. The fundamental rights of persons no longer be trusted to guarantee the law, but the instincts of maggioranze.Ma the main target is just the President of the Republic, than ever right now embodies its function clearly the maximum guarantee of the Constitution. Guided by the principle of "sincere cooperation" between organs of state Giorgio Napolitano had in recent days expressed his concerns to the government on a decree, making it impossible to execute a decision of the judiciary, was exposed to the risk obviously unconstitutional . When it was announced the possible content of the decree, some interpretative contortions made even more unacceptable (Judgement No 334 of 2008 the Constitutional Court has made clear that the responsibility lies with the judiciary), the President of the Republic has sent a letter the Prime Minister to reiterate his point of view, by an act of extraordinary transparency and accountability, necessitated by the exceptionality of their situation and emotion with which it is followed by a story so dramatic. Never before at this time the public needs clarity of institutional behaviors immediately decipherable, and the eternal game of subterfuge, oblique paths. After forcing the guidelines issued by the Minister Sacconi, revealed just a minor without legal basis, it became even more evident the need to follow paths constitutionally impeccable. Napolitano's letter is the testimony of a rare institutional care, a rigorous argument to which no one should sottrarsi.Nelle his statements, however, the prime minister reveals an abysmal away from the constitutional approach, a concept that the owner of an urgent decree , he said, would be completely exempt from any assessment by the President of the Republic. Thesis not constitutionally feasible, as in his letter had already clarified the President of the Republic signs that Berlusconi deliberately ignored, even through threats: states, in fact, that if they are not allowed to use the by-laws at will, change the Constitution. So, as we tested its habit, detached himself and his troops too docile for a new and devastating assault on the rule of law, following his proven script plebiscite that led him to ignore even what are the procedures for constitutional revision, given that states that would return "from the people to demand a change in the Constitution." Never statement was more revealing than this. The Constitution is not the rule of rules, but an embarrassment that we can leave quietly. The break is declared constitutional. Berlusconi played
So the government against the President of the Republic and is preparing to make another real threat. As the President of the Republic has already declared he will not sign a decree of "unconstitutional", will bring to Parliament a draft law on living wills to be approved in three days. So the government also played against the Parliament, explicitly downgraded by the Prince in the letterbox, a place where it will be ratified without debate.
opens, therefore, a time when the great theme of dying with dignity alongside that, great, the defense of the Constitution. Immediately, then becomes the responsibility of all political forces, bodies, institutions charged with a public assumption of responsibility for their own, as it has done, showing the sense and the rule of law, the President of the Chamber, Gianfranco Fini. Greater responsibility in that, albeit through questionable means of surveys, public opinion has been expressed and argued for 79% in favor of the death of decent Eluana and even to 83% in favor of a Church that speaks consciences and do not pretend to impose their faith through the acts of the legislature. Come back to memory the different spirit of the Catholic Democrats, who in her words said by Aldo Moro the National Council of DC in the aftermath of defeat in the referendum against the law on divorce, in 1974, by which he warned against forcing "the instrument of the law, with the authority of power, the common understanding and regulate, in some sensitive areas, human relationships, "and was advised" to make the defense of Christian principles and values \u200b\u200boutside of the institutions and laws, namely the heart, open and available fabric of our society. " But do not limit the intervention of the legislature has its basis only in reasons of expediency. We remember the words high and strong with which he closes the article 32 of the Constitution, mostly the fundamental right to health, then the government of his life: "The law can in no case violate the limits imposed by respect for the human person". This is exactly the case of Eluana and all those who want to freely decide how they die. There is a constitutional boundary that the legislature can not cross - not by decree or with other legislation - over which the person appears with its independence and its freedom.
Those polls, then, are a warning and a resource. A warning to the political forces, that citizens should be aware of those contacts. And it is a resource which are the same people have to use, raising strong voice because forcing the institutional steps. No dialogue, no political cooperation can develop in the institutional landscape littered with debris.
