I heard them. They sounded like the others. They gave the same sound. But they couldn’t be heard the same. Because they mean: words mean
The law is interpretable. The Constitution is interpretable. Are words and concepts interpretable? If they are interpretable, are they such concepts? There is no dialogue or conversation if we do not start from common bases. Is violence a common concept or an interpretable entelechy? The environmental violence that nobody saw. Is public order a common concept or is it a set of syllables that can mutate its meaning depending on whether more or less brilliant minds consider it at will?
Is there an absolute relativism when it comes to misleading the concepts? Do we hope that the people can continue to trust in a system whose bases are mutable, alternating, whose story depends on ingenuity or will or ends? Is everything a matter of speeches and elaborations? The people will flee. It is not bearable. Is it what you are looking for? They accuse us journalists of anti-establishment because they consider that our criticisms undermine their authorites but they do not realize that they are their own undertakers and, at the same time, ours.
Understand me, I know the sex of the angels over which they dispute. I know well that the central nucleus of the debate resides in the concept of “suspension” of rights and the material nucleus in the definition of “alteration of the public order” but I have already seen them, one and the other, create so many realities ad hoc that overflows with satiety. The doctrine that cut down the popular accusation for a banker was very suggestive and what he considered a “tumultuous uprising” something ethereal and willful that served a purpose but did not match any previous concept has given much of itself. The same is happening now with that altered “public order” that forced the decree of a state of exception. Constructions, lucubrations, entertaining for their seminars at € 500 per presentation, Byzantine subtleties, but impossible to control an unprecedented catastrophe in which citizens are dying by the hundreds.
One person, one person, one single vote makes it unconstitutional, which if there was not a member resigned or the body had been renewed, it might not be. Unconstitutional after a belated analysis that does not resist the journalistic transformation of the determination of the formal constitutional rule into an “illegal” act of the Government, as the headlines have claimed. If the TC had told us now that the current and constitutional Law – no one has ever said otherwise or modified it – that regulates the states of exception is crap, because it could understand it. If the wise heads of that constitutional body or of other spheres were to say that we have an unintelligible system of states of exception and that it must be improved, then they would gladly accept it. No, what is being said is that the Government chose wrongly – and with it the entire Congress – and the common sense thesis is that with the current law in hand, it could not opt for anything else and less with the urgent crisis situation. and of political anger.
By a single opinion the Constitutional Court tells us that the state of exception should have been chosen but the law that regulates it says in its article 13:
The free exercise of the rights and freedoms of citizens
The normal functioning of democratic institutions
The essential public services for the community or any other aspect of public order are so seriously altered that the exercise of ordinary powers is insufficient to restore it.
The Government may (…) Declare a state of exception.
Since the Civil Code makes it clear that in the interpretation of the rules, the first place must be “the proper meaning of their words,” if Pérez Reverte and his colleagues had been called, they would have made it clear that this phrase is a conditional adverbial subordinate clause (prothasis) and that its grammatical function is to indicate a necessary and essential condition for the main proposition (apodosis) to occur. The Grammar of the RAE is fatter than the Penal Code even but it also has scholars and it is evident that in this wording of the legislator the government apodosis can only occur if any of the assumptions of the prostasis, which are valued, are fulfilled.
That is why in their ingenuity they have had to remove from their sleeve that the pandemic itself was a disturbance of public order, as if the coronavirus were a dangerous infiltrated Jewish-Masonic agent that put democratic institutions and public services at risk and public order by the mere fact of disrupting them with their effects. It is a conception of Francoist or delusional public order that they propose to us. It is a conception of public order that no one in their right mind would have had in January 2020.
They tell us that to confine ourselves it would have been better to opt for a more rigorous state that would have given the Government unthinkable powers to enforce it, from entering the homes of offenders to having them detained for 10 days just by notifying the judge or even having hijacked posts. They tell us that giving Sánchez this power was more constitutional and better than letting him put fines. They tell us that with 60 days – it is all that the state of emergency can last – the scared coronavirus would have been withdrawn. They tell us what we cannot believe and forget to send an emissary to Casado so that he will stop making a fool of himself with his new health law. Mr. Casado, with what the Constitutional Court has said, I could never make such a law.
Worst of all is that playing doctrinal demiurges they have not repaired or have not cared about the consequences that their ordeal will have not only in the future but right now. What difference does it make if that gives mine to artillery and if I win over my compadres! What difference does it make if I leave the current rulers and the judges who have to come into play unarmed against the spread of the virus! It is already being seen. The resolution of the High Court of Catalonia that authorizes the curfew in the towns with the highest incidence says that it does so “for the moment as long as the publication of the Constitutional Court ruling does not operate (…) to adjust to its dictates to which we are all obliged. ” That is the question because if the Government, backed by Parliament, requires a state of exception for what is considered a suspension of rights, what are the judges going to do now? They cannot ratify those administrative restrictions. Judges using health laws can immobilize patients or their contacts with names and surnames and little else.
There is another shameful question that is reflected in that paragraph of the TSJC: we all know the sentence not born and also the Catalan judges but from the press. They have not been able to hold out, although there are those who say that they almost ended up with slaps. They have made public a ruling that served as a pimpampum but that had no arguments. They have then filtered those arguments and, in the face of defenselessness, the dissenting sector has filtered their individual votes. They are very sad. A group of journalists with an exclusive or a production company with an ending to their successful series is more capable of keeping their vote of silence than the members of the highest constitutional body. They are of a moral and professional frivolity that scares no matter how important you see yourself when you put your arms between the fists.
A system that has no certainties is a failed system.
A system that depends on the names of those who are called to defend them is a source of absolute defections.
You are burying the system. You are the antisystem.