Post by nurnobi85 on Feb 12, 2024 5:01:04 GMT
Now claims to be able to say when the Federal Supreme Court is wrong and when it is right? The Federal Supreme Court , Gentlemen, although it is not infallible , can make mistakes , but someone must have the right to make mistakes last , to decide last , to say something that should be considered as error or as truth. ” ( emphasis added ) In a word , Mr President: the political nature of parliamentary acts is not enough , in itself, to remove them from the sphere of jurisdictional control, as it will always be up to this Supreme Court, upon formal provocation from the injured party, to exercise the constitutional jurisdiction - which is inherent to it -, in cases where a current or imminent offense to an individual right.
Is alleged, as no Power of the Republic has the legitimacy to disrespect the Constitution or to harm the public and private rights of its citizens. It should not be said , therefore, from the perspective of the case under examination, that the action of the Federal Supreme Court, in the event of damage to Dubai Email List subjective rights protected by the State's legal system, would constitute illegitimate intervention by the Judiciary in the sphere of activity of the National Congress. Any divergences in the interpretation of the positive order do not translate or constitute a situation of institutional conflict, especially because, above any dispute, lies the authority of the Constitution and the laws of the Republic. This means , in the politica.
l formula of the democratic regime, that none of the Powers of the Republic are above the Constitution and the laws. No organ of the State – be it the Judiciary, the Executive or the Legislative Branch – is immune to the rule of law and the hierarchical-normative force of the Constitution . Having established these premises, I proceed to examine the precautionary postulation now deduced by the petitioner. There are several grounds on which this writ of mandamus is based. I will , however, analyze the one that seems to me to have the greatest legal importance. I refer to the alleged non-compliance , by the Ethics and Parliamentary Decorum Council of the Chamber of Deputies, with the clause included in section.
Is alleged, as no Power of the Republic has the legitimacy to disrespect the Constitution or to harm the public and private rights of its citizens. It should not be said , therefore, from the perspective of the case under examination, that the action of the Federal Supreme Court, in the event of damage to Dubai Email List subjective rights protected by the State's legal system, would constitute illegitimate intervention by the Judiciary in the sphere of activity of the National Congress. Any divergences in the interpretation of the positive order do not translate or constitute a situation of institutional conflict, especially because, above any dispute, lies the authority of the Constitution and the laws of the Republic. This means , in the politica.
l formula of the democratic regime, that none of the Powers of the Republic are above the Constitution and the laws. No organ of the State – be it the Judiciary, the Executive or the Legislative Branch – is immune to the rule of law and the hierarchical-normative force of the Constitution . Having established these premises, I proceed to examine the precautionary postulation now deduced by the petitioner. There are several grounds on which this writ of mandamus is based. I will , however, analyze the one that seems to me to have the greatest legal importance. I refer to the alleged non-compliance , by the Ethics and Parliamentary Decorum Council of the Chamber of Deputies, with the clause included in section.