We were so calm us down the road of development of the Constitution. There were some ominous traveler who told us that this road was finished soon, at a crossroads and deciding that we should go and where to go.
The fact is that within what little remained, there were new Statute of Autonomy. And the fact is that, more or less long process, recent times have brought us the undisputed result of that, or the Constitution we has become small (which is sensed) or we have serious problems with certain organs (ie the Constitutional Court because of others is to discuss another day) or we have serious problems with half a parliamentary spectrum.
The first example, chronologically, of late, is the Statute of Castilla - La Mancha, whose wording was removed from the Parliament by the trick that the PP has done to the citizens of Castilla - La Mancha, saying one thing in the Cortes of Toledo and its opposite in the Carrera de San Jerónimo. There is no more guilty than the PP, lacking sufficient internal consistency to put his forces according to Murcia with Castilla - La Mancha.
The second example, most notorious, and impossible for more complex is the Statute of Catalonia.
First, the problem we have as a society and as a country when we take for normal to have delays of four years on things so serious. No one else, public power, authority or official is aware that waste of time, to show in a few weeks the case was quick solution if the will is concerned.
Secondly, we have a serious problem with the Constitutional Court when one begins to read the third item of Article 159 of the Constitution. In summary, some judges have issued their opinion when the Constitution is limited to the exercise of their functions. If the Constitution had wanted to regulate by law the three-year term of office is extensible, malleable, ductile, was said. Of course, on the non-renewal of judges has the PP a lot to say, much more than the judges involved. That said, expect to renew the current judges with new ones would have been a long wait, much more.
Thirdly, we have a serious problem of judicial review when challenged to the same provisions are in force in Catalonia Spain. A failed model of constitutional justice, a model that generates painful asymmetries between regions. But this is almost a procedural issue, a bad consequence of the sentence, a bad measurement range.
Fourth, it has become clear, and that being benevolent expression, the kitchen has brought the judges of papers for the public to come and go and interchangeable items like trading cards. This really is attributable to them. And this lack of prudence collides with the discretion of the framers, outraged because in 1978, a leaked draft of the Constitution.
And finally, it is clear that the sentence was clearly not to politicize the Court (which would for many more lines) but to overreach the Court not only in their functions, but in the invasion that entails the role of the legislature. The Constitutional Court of popular sovereignty resides. It is a state power. And your sentence, far from bring a law to the Constitution, have made a new law is neither the Parliament approved by a certain majority nor ratified the Catalans. This is not a problem of the Tribunal, required to solve, but, again, a problem of the consequences of the sentence, which the Court did not choose.
Here I am left with an article by Professor Pérez Royo
that his theory about the possible lack of competence of the Constitutional Court theory as plausible as its opposite, but at least call into question the two things that are competent and are not, are possible. And if you can shuffle this uncertainty into something so serious, then something fails.
Within the inevitability of the political judgments of the Constitutional Court, and within that office is the preservation of the most consistent with the constitutional text, is not it more in line with the political and constitutional order is left as a text that has spent four years working without problems instead of creating a constitutional disorder severe for the country in general and Catalonia in particular? Is not that a better defense policy and legal protection of the Constitution? This is a matter of opinion, but it is clear that, in practice, the regulation of the statute did not affect the daily life of the state.
The last problem I have with the return to PP. Presumably, or so they said in the Faculty, which processes and legal life in general were governed by good faith. Can we talk in good faith when the plaintiff, or PP, used for items that approves Catalonia to Andalusia? Twisting a little argument "had the Constitutional Court is admissible to Members of the PP when the appearance of good right to the claims of the PP was compromised because the same members line gave the Constitution by identical items but for Andalusia? Have we said one thing and its opposite? From this, the Court was not to blame, but again a serious procedural problem. A flat rejection of own performance based on the PP had been, oddly enough, a more equitable decision.
Thus, there are brakes on the development of the Constitution. One is called PP and with that we already had. Part of his ideas, which we consider reprehensible, but it is their ideas.
The other has just laid bare: the regulation of the Constitutional Court, which again look like the bad guy by regulation allowing intentions, PP, far from the constitutional consensus.
When you can go to court and because it has lost in the street, and voting, we must readjust the courts, through no fault of all, although part of the courts themselves.
