Chavez says he won't give up decree powers

[Zorro]

Source: AP

President Hugo Chavez said Thursday he won't relinquish special legislative powers — a possibility he raised last week as a means of seeking reconciliation with Venezuela's opposition.

Chavez's offer to reduce the period of time he has to enact laws by decree through the "Enabling Law" surprised opposition leaders, who welcomed his overture while expressing doubts regarding the president's call for mutual respect and dialogue between political rivals.

"I'm not going to return the Enabling Law," said Chavez, speaking in a televised address. "I made a call to encourage courteous and respectful dialogue, but look at their response."

Chavez first said that he needed special legislative powers for 18 months, which were approved by a lame-duck congress dominated by his allies in December, to swiftly approve disaster-relief measures after severe floods and mudslides that left thousands homeless last year.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110121/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_venezuela_chavez

---

That Hugo, what a gentleman. Someone known throughout the world for his courteous and respectful dialog, and who expects the same from his political adversaries...

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FLPanhandle]

2. Only the most naive Chavez cheerleader ever believed him when he said he would.

The guy likes his power.

[TheWraith]

3. Kicked and recommended.

Although the unreccers have already been here.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catherina]

4. "a possibility he raised last week as a means of seeking reconciliation with Venezuela's opposition.

And why should he give them up early? He's under no obligation to do so.

The key is right here "I made a call to encourage courteous and respectful dialogue, but look at their response."

Their response is to continue demonizing him and trying to destabilize the democratically elected government of Venezuela for more horrendous plundering by the rich.

Go Chavez. Don't give em shit. They're against the people's revolution and would lynch you in a heartbeat.

[EFerrari]

5. Good. Don't give them anything. n/t

[hack89]

16. The people gave them their votes - that should be enough. nt

[Catherina]

6. President Chavez Uses Legislative Authority to Create “Law for Dignified Refuge” in Venezuela

President Chavez Uses Legislative Authority to Create “Law for Dignified Refuge” in Venezuela

by Juan Reardon - Venezuelanalysis.com
Published on Jan 20th 2011 at 7.40pm

Mérida, January 20th 2011 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez issued a law-decree on Tuesday to address “rights and justice” of the roughly 125,000 Venezuelans made homeless during last year’s record-setting rains and floods. The ‘Law for Dignified Refuge,’ according to Chávez, serves to, “institutionalize the figure of a dignified and humane refuge, and begins by establishing responsibilities of the government, the people, and the different sectors of national life.”

The enactment of the law is also consistent with a pledge made by Chávez last week to speed up his use and return legislative authority granted to him by Venezuela’s national assembly late last year in response to the rains.

Chávez made the announcement during a ceremony at Miraflores Presidential Palace in which he presented dozens of families from the improvised “Club Unión Mirador” shelter – in Caracas’s low-income 23 de Enero neighborhood – with a newly designed ‘petro-refuge’ that meets the “dignified living” criteria laid out in the new law.

As of Thursday, 25 “dignified refuges” including ‘petro-refuges’ (see image) have been handed over to residents, with a total of 60 expected to be up and running in the coming days.

According to Chávez, legally transforming shelters into “institutions of the state” helps to overcome the tendency of creating “spaces to see how people will survive in total abandonment” as has often been the case with housing shelters in Venezuela.

“This is an old story,” said Chávez. “Caracas super populated and the poor living in their shacks on the hillsides…The national government must take on, with greater depth, the cancellation of this social debt,” he affirmed in reference to historically precarious living conditions in poor neighborhoods throughout Venezuela.

...

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5948

[Archae]

13. Is Hugo going to make the trains run on time, too?

[Arctic Dave]

7. And the winner for most out of context headline is...

Don't worry TG, maybe one day Chavez will give you the hug you so desperately crave from him.

[Zorro]

22. Care to comment on the contents of the article?

Do you support the extraordinary authority given to Chavez that diminishes the power and oversight abilities of the new legislature?

Do you consider that a shining example of Bolivaran democracy?

You do have the opportunity to contribute to a discussion of the posted topic, instead of using it as a platform to demonstrate ignoranusness, you know.

[David__77]

9. He should offer the coupmakers prison, not political power.

Chavez's leniency with those who wish to impose fascism is astounding. I can understand tactical retreats, but at key junctures, Chavez has surrendered power. I hope that is not another such time.

[hack89]

17. Are all those voters that rejected him all imposing fascism?

this is happening because he lost the plurality of votes in the last election. He is imposing fascism.

[joshcryer]

10. What a shock.

[mwrguy]

11. He was granted those powers through a democratic process

Why should he give them up prematurely? He has important things to accomplish.

[hack89]

15. He is using those powers to circumvent democracy

the opposition won more power in the incoming parliament due to his opponents winning the plurality of the popular vote. The outgoing parliament in essence gave away the new parliament's power to ensure Chavez got his way.

How you you react if a Republican congress gave decree power to Bush months after the Democrats won a congressional majority?

[EFerrari]

24. That's right. He should just use secret signing statements

as our executives do.

[hack89]

27. The President can't pass laws

huge difference. Besides, I agree with you that both are wrong.

[joshcryer]

31. Executive orders are not the same thing as law making decrees.

The differences are insurmountable. Executive orders apply to government employees. Law making decrees apply to citizens.

[NYC Liberal]

23. So if Congress had voted to give Bush those powers,

it'd be OK?

The democratically-elected Congress voted for the PATRIOT Act. The democratically-elected Congress voted to OK Bush's invasion of Iraq.

[EFerrari]

25. The legislature didn't make up those powers. It was already the law

in Venezuela. It is a tool their governments use and have used without consequence. There is no comparison with our government.

This entire flap is made up bs, a shiny thing.

[joshcryer]

32. Actually the constitution is new.

And I'd reckon at least some of the drafters of the constitution are still around who put decree powers in there.

And of course, when you have a Pinochet using decree powers, well, it's not OK then.

[Archae]

12. Next decree from Hugo...

"President For Life."

[CJvR]

18. Prez 4 life...

Being President for life doesn't mean you have job security.

[txlibdem]

14. BushCo sure gave up their extraordinary powers granted by congress.. NOT

Look a little closer to home, freepers. You might just see the true villains of the world.

[dipsydoodle]

19. Good

and if there's anything about "good" anyone can't quite grasp then just deal with it anyway.

[Bacchus39]

21. what an ass!!! using a disaster as an excuse to grab more power n/t

s

[Xenotime]

37. It's a smart move if you ask me

[socialshockwave]

20. Oh-ho, what a surprise...

Chavez, who's already a pseudo-dictator, is keeping hold of his "emergency powers" longer then he said he would.

[EFerrari]

26. No, that's not what the OP says. LOL.

[joshcryer]

33. You are correct, Chavez never said he would give up those powers before the 18 months.

There were rumors that he might, but of course, once he has them, and likely the last time he'll have them, he's not going to give them up.

I expect more blood to shed in Venezuela before all is said and done.

[Peace Patriot]

28. Smart Chavez and smart Chavistas in the National Assembly could smell a "Tea Party"

(i.e., government-wreckers) who would have done EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER--as the minority party that deigned to participate in the recent election--to BLOCK any effective Chavez government action to house, clothe, feed and restore the communities of tens of thousands of Venezuelans hit by catastrophic floods.

What did Bushwhacks do during Katrina? Put a guy with a specialty in horse racing in charge of FEMA, got Blackwater in there with no-bid contracts, diverted emergency workers to fix the Texas-to-the-East Coast oil pipeline (Cheney directive), even diverted a battleship (with hospitals) from helping and just let people drown and die. And their "reconstruction" was about as good as their one in Iraq.

Same kind of folks in the Venezuelan "opposition." They consider the poor to be subhumans. And if they can score by preventing the Chavez government from restoring these peoples' lives, all the better. Let 'em wallow in tents. Let 'em starve. "Drown government in the bathtub!"

They would have blocked every effort!

Latin American legislatures often grant time-limited, issue-limited powers to the executive, to address various crises. That is exactly what this was and is, with the added impetus out-maneuvering Venezuela's "Tea Party."

The Chavistas have been familiar with the behavior of rightwing thugs and scumbags, working the multinational corporate/war profiteer agenda, a lot longer than we have. We are shocked at the thugs and scumbags that have taken over Congress here, and that are permitted to outshout (and outshoot) everybody else in the corpo-fascist media. But the Chavistas have been dealing with this phenomenon since 2002, when the rightwing in Venezuela mounted a coup d'etat, and the first thing they did--after kidnapping the elected president and threatening his life--was to suspend the Constitution, the courts, the National Assembly and all civil rights!

This kind of rightwinger DOES NOT BELIEVE IN DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. They believe in autocratic rule by the rich, for the rich. THEY are the tyrants.

And I'm very glad they got out-maneuvered!

This same brand of maniacal rightwing also called FDR a "dictator."

I'd say housing, clothing, feeding, employing and educating, and restoring the communities of, tens of thousands of homeless people, or--in FDR's case--putting millions back to work starting with government projects--are the acts of a DEMOCRAT. And NOT letting the rightwing obstruct you from doing it--while remaining within the law--is the moral, ethical, legal and political OBLIGATION of a democratic leader.

To do what's right, you need power. FDR sought and utilized power for what was right. So has Chavez. There is absolutely no evidence that either leader has done this for his own enrichment or glorification.

And you gotta figure it was fun stomping on the rightwing and outfoxing the U.S.A.. Millions of USAID dollars (our tax dollars) poured into the rightwing in Venezuela, in the last election, to insure that they could blockade Chavez action on this disaster--foiled! Ha-ha!

For the Chavistas and "New Dealers" everywhere....

:bounce: :applause: :bounce: :applause: :hi: :applause: :bounce: :applause: :bounce:

[Bacchus39]

29. Obama should have asked for rule by decree during lame duck session

to thwart republicans. too late now.

[Peace Patriot]

30. We don't have that law here, but, hey, FDR used perfectly legal means, like Chavez did,

to try to stop the Supreme Court from declaring every "New Deal" measure to alleviate the Great Depression "unconstitutional." He tried to "pack the Supreme Court"--the way the rightwing described it--but what he actually did was to seek expansion of the number of Supreme Court justices, which is not specified in the Constitution, in order to appoint younger judges, to balance out the dinosaurs of the prior regimes who had CAUSED the Great Depression with their irresponsible devotion to Big Business. He was perfectly within his rights to propose this. It was perfectly legal.

There was such a hue and cry from the dinosaur elements, that he withdrew the proposal, but not before he had convinced one Supreme Court justice to change his mind about the "New Deal." Thus, Social Security was SAVED.

This is what a strong use of power by a leftist leader can do! That is all that Chavez is doing. He is just like FDR, not afraid to use power ON BEHALF OF THE POOR.

Tell me this. How is it illegal? And how is it harmful?

Both of these qualities need to be present--legal and beneficial--to judge such an action. If it's illegal and beneficial, well, that's probably not a good precedent, though possibly understandable. If it's legal and NOT beneficial, then there is probably something wrong with the political system (i.e., the Nazi's using "legal" means to identify, isolate, rob, imprison and kill Jews and others; or, say, the state of California selling off public properties because the rich ruined the financial system--legal but not beneficial, and the political system is very askew). If it's illegal and not beneficial, then of course those are alarm signals and usually there are laws that apply (against bribes by developers, or insider trading, etc.).

In this case--the law enabling Chavez to address the flood catastrophe--to get the housing and other infrastructure and loans and job development, and immediate aid and long term aid, all going quickly, to alleviate suffering and to repair the economic damage, with the notorious rightwing having gained enough of a minority position to obstruct every effort--was both legal and beneficial.

I mean, what did these rightwingers do when the catastrophic draught hit Venezuela's hydroelectric power system last year? They GLOATED! They used it as a campaign "talking point" (probably tutored by the USAID). They didn't have any IDEAS. They are useless government-wreckers, as far as I can see--just like the Mad Tea Party here.

Chavez's request and the National Assembly's response were legal, beneficial AND justified. There is no "power grab" or Chavez becoming "president for life." He's the elected president--elected by big margins (and still very popular, despite losses in the by-election--a frequent phenomenon for leaders in office for more than one term--happens here a lot, mid-term losses). He has every right and duty to exercise this power, for the time specified and the issues specified. It is comparable to (but not exactly like) our "declaration of a state of emergency" by presidents and governors, when a natural disaster occurs.

Say, a big earthquake hit Los Angeles and a hundred thousand people were suddenly homeless. The governor doesn't have the power or money to house them or to rebuild what was destroyed. He has to "declare a state of emergency" to acquire the powers to move money around, and move agencies into action, to deal with short and long term disaster problems--and often needs the help of a federal "declaration" as well (more money, more agency help).

Is this "power-grabbing"? I suppose it could be. But is it now? Is it inherently a "power grab" to need and ask for the powers necessary to deal with a big natural disaster--especially with Mad Tea Partyers breathing down your neck, wanting you to fail, not caring if the poor suffer while they make you fail, not believing in government unless it lines the pockets of the rich, and gloating and leering at the prospects for obstructing you?

This is just another bullshit, rightwiing "talking point" about "Chavez the dictator." They know damn well that they intended to use this disaster to bring him down and to end Venezuela's "New Deal." They intended to block every effort to address this disaster, and the Chavistas out-maneuvered them!

I love it! That's what we need here--smart, determined leftist leaders who know how to outflank the government-wreckers and are not afraid to do it!

They can whine all the way to their Cayman Island banksters about "Chavez the dictator"! To Hell with them. Seriously. We need good debate in both countries--but we don't need Koch brothers-funded or USAID-funded liars!

[ChangoLoa]

35. Mendacity on rails

You'd be applauding the same way if the late Assembly had given him full powers for 3 more years. You'd be saying "that's the law".

How can the floods justify that the executive takes over the legislative power for one and a half years??! Especially when the deputies giving away that 18 months mandate only had one week of mandate left themselves!

Do you believe yourself?

[joshcryer]

34. Chavez still had the majority, as social_critic said, it was merely do quell debate.

While Chavez' side did not get a plurality of the votes (yet still retained control, kinda like Bush vs Gore 2000), he appears that he'll have all the votes necessary to get things passed. Basically, Chavez didn't want to have to listen to the opposition side debate various things on the floor.

BTW, on a scheme of things, practically every Latin American "right winger" is likely left of our left wingers. Just for perspective here. From my point of view as soon as you run into censorship and quelling political discourse, you have went right wing.

[ChangoLoa]

36. He doesn't have the 2/3 majority

Chavez doesn't have the qualified 2/3 majority which is necessary to pass organic laws. With the "ley habilitante", he can pass any type of law.

He'll leave it in may, people are very unhappy with this law.

[Forkboy]

38. It's almost as if he won't prosecute genuine war criminals or something.