I was reading the constitution that michelle bachelet postulate about the reform and it scares the living shit out of...

I was reading the constitution that michelle bachelet postulate about the reform and it scares the living shit out of me when she talks about "Estado de Derecho", in which its very ambiguos..

Do any person cuald know what it implies?

Attached: 1024px-Flag_of_Chile.svg.png (1024x683, 4.35K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estado_de_derecho
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Going for broad concepts in law is always a bad idea. Same logic applies to "social function of contracts" we have here, and nobody knows what this social function is supposed to be, it seems they tried to fix this mistake with a recent law in 2019 tho.

tl;dr get ready to some fuckery

comming from barchelet: nothing good.

Will it make Chile communist? If so, I approve it

Be careful when you see ambiguity in the law.

>Do any person cuald know what it implies?

Attached: alberso7.jpg (2048x1393, 826.52K)

"Estado de derecho" is basically the same as "this State is restricted by law on what it can/can't do towards its citizens". It's a Germanic law concept, for further info see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat

Same as And I don't know whatever else was said, but at least this expression itself is not ambiguous.

Im sorry for my bad english argentinian bro, never knew you could be this sensible

I don't know what estado de derecho means but over here I only hear sjws spouting this word out there

Estado de derecho just means that they state is supposed limiteded by law and only acts within the law. That's it. Not to be mean but you're very dumb and if you can't figure that one out. Seriously take more of an interest in educating yourself.

I've heard it a lot from Uribe actually. that and "seguridad democratica." whatever it means.

Thats the definition in your country? or did you just read it from the internet?

That's what it means here, that's how it's used. You can easily get it from context but of course I just searched online to double check and it matches what I knew.

Yeah , the thing is right now Chile is ruling in a "Estado de Derecho"...

The thing is, its not explicitly in the constitution..

So my question is, does it matter that the first definition of our country is "Chile es un estado de Derecho" and if that could affect in the long run?

we should just have rule of law dont'cha think?

That's the definition of it.

Chile being an "Estado de derecho" should go without saying. Makin it explicit in the constitution seems unnecessary, but not bad.
It's just saying we are a country and people that follows the laws.
I'm no legal expert but I don't see how it could make any difference at all to put it in the constitution because the constitution will already say in it that people and officials will obey the constitution and laws of the country.
It's just tautology.

It matters, yes, and it will definitely have effects in the future, but read the definition and ask yourself: wasn't Chile already a "estado de derecho"? I think so, and in that case the addition of the term in the constitution would be just a reaffirmation of that, but I could be wrong.

Chilean bro just paste the fucking thing already so we can read what got you so upset.

What scares me its that the politician and people could interpret this definition of "Estado de Derecho" has giving people the most expensive "rights" and in the long run it cant be sustainaible for a country that has diminished there growth in the economic sector, living the country in fiscal debt

>I don't know bro rights sound expensive
Dear god man. You sound like the straw man of the right the left will make up in shitty comics.
Having a estado de derecho is a good thing. It just means it's explicit that law is there to be followed. Just read the damn thing
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estado_de_derecho

i wasnt implying that chilebro, my english suck

Attached: i dont feel so good.jpg (759x755, 140.23K)

it implies that right now Pinera is able to do something that is at the same time legal and violates the "estado de derecho". right?

I like you mexican bro.

Thanks for everything. I just think that the Chilean people could interpret it wrongly when its explicit.

How is Mexico this days?

Take me back to Providencia. Life was good there.

Attached: IMG_3650.jpg (3264x2448, 2.63M)

Its all right argentian bro, no hard feeling.

You are a swell guy.

>scares the living shit out of me when she talks about "Estado de Derecho",

¿Es una broma, verdad? Porque significa simplemente que se cumpla la ley y se garanticen los derechos.

Imagine all that people with mask.

Thats providencia this days.

Not a lot of fun.

Lo siento amigo. I'm sorry to hear things are bad in Chile with Covid.

I really liked your country. I miss seeing the Andes towering over Santiago.

El tema con el "Estado de Derecho" es que si lo metes en la constitución de forma explicita como por 10 veces, me da la sensación que los políticos van a endeudar el país de forma permanente como lo que ha pasado con nuestros vecinos.

Dentro de la constitución actual en Chile, ya están los derechos que corresponde en la ONU sin decir que son un Estado de Derecho...

Lo que me pasa es que este pensamiento le podria dar mas poder a los politicos en endeudar el pais de forma fiscal y dejarnos como nuestros vecinos.

Es una preocupación muy tonta?

que ha evitado que se endeuden hasta ahora?

>Es una preocupación muy tonta?

Me temo que si, no sé de donde sacas la equiparación "Estado de Derecho" con endeudamiento. En EUA lo llamarían "Rule of Law", es decir, que se cumplan las leyes y los derechos. Al ponerlo en la constitución solo se remarca que es el objetivo de que siempre se cumplan.

Y sobre el endeudamiento, es algo muy subjetivo y no me preocuparía tanto, Japón tiene una deuda más del 200% de su PIB y nadie dice nada, lo que importa es la capacidad de pago.

Pero no tiene nada que ver con el "Estado de Derecho"

>Japón tiene una deuda más del 200% de su PIB

Pero no es externa.

Sí lo es, no implica endeudarse. El problema puede ser que al ser algo tan amplio y ambiguo quieran englobar otras cosas como "derechos", como los caprichos de minorias, de migrantes etc.