Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:50 PM - Edit history (3)
http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scon/Enero/02-9113-2013-12-1358.html
I loved the English computer translation, most I could follow for I know enough about Civil Law Jurisdiction to understand this appears to follow French practice as to Constitutional challengers to law. Unlike the US, where we are comfortable with Courts throwing out Laws passed by Legislatures for violating the Constitution, The French have had a trouble with it for it flys against their position of Legislature supremacy. Most of this became the French View, due to the use of the Courts and the Executive branch under the Kings of France to by pass the legislature (and in effect, just never call the legislature into session from 1614 to 1789).
To counter and prevent such a suspension the French made the Legislature supreme. This policy had its ups and downs from 1789 to 1871 but it has been a solid policy ever since in France (Through De Gaulle strengthen the Presidency of France when he established the Fifth Republic in the mid 1950s).
Most Civil Law Jurisdiction have adopted some sort of variation of the French Model. The French were hostile to courts throwing out acts of the Legislature, but also knew it sometimes would have to occur when the legislature did something it should not have. Thus the French invented a Constitutional Court that decides such issues, independent of other issues of law. Venezuela seems to follow this same policy.
Now, as a Common Law Lawyer, a lot of this is opposite of what I was taught. It is NOT wrong, just different. The idea that the Supreme Court for All other legal matter is different from the Supreme Court for Constitutional matter is something odd to me but it is characteristic of Civil Law Jurisdiction that follow the French model.
I mention that for the Computer Translation into English can be strange and if I was NOT familiar with the French Model I would have been hopelessly lost. The Computer translation mention the duty of the President to appear on January 10 in front of the National Assembly, but then added the following: "will the Supreme Court of Justice". It took me some time, but then I realized it meant that the Supreme Court of Justice was an alternative to the National Assembly and the Phase was just a bad translation.
This is a problem with Computer Translation. At the end of the opinion, I notice some of the deciders where called "Judge" others "Magistrate" I had my suspicions given the name of the deciders and look at the Spanish version and notice the difference was "Magistrada" for the women, which the computer translated into English word "Judge" while the Word "Magistrado" for the men, which the computer translated into the English word "Magistrate". i.e all the men were Magistrates, all of the Women were Judges. Thus two different words were used, when one would have suffice AND it should have been the same no matter the sex of the Judge/Magistrate. This problem was due to the fact the same word had two different ending in Spanish, depending on whether the Judge/Magistrate was male or female. This problem was due to the Spanish language need that titles reflects the gender of who holds the title, something that applies generally only in Nobility titles in English (i.e Count and Countess, Duke and Duchess, Knight and Lady for example) not to titles of occupations (i.e President, judge, magistrate etc).
Please note I use the term "Generally" for when a position ends in "man" or "woman" gender is important, such as Chairman or Chairwoman, Congressman or Congresswomen etc. (Through I once knew a radical feminist who wanted to be called "Chairman" not "Chairwoman" for "Chairwoman" implies the holder was they because she was a woman NOT that she actually held the power. Chairman implied male, but also all of the power that a traditional male Chairman had, and it was that power she wanted NOT a token title).
= new reply since forum marked as read
