Balance of United States’ power or Venezuela’s rule of law…

www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=24040

VHeadline.com guest commentarist Arthur Shaw writes: Last week, the capitalist press more or less zeroed in on the rule of law, enshrined in Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, in its propaganda attacks on the process in Venezuela.

The occasion for these attacks was the swearing in of 17 new judges on the supreme court of Venezuela under the new law of judicial reform.

The capitalist press oozed nonsense and denunciations against the Venezuela government, especially Hugo Chavez, about the loss of judicial independence, court-packing, degrading the rule of law, undermining the separation of powers, and politicizing the judiciary, and on and on.

When President Chavez became President in 1999, he inherited a judiciary that had been plagued for years by influence-peddling, political interference, and, above all, corruption. Lawyers from across the political spectrum described a system in which justice had often been for sale to the highest bidder … and the public entertained an opinion about the system that was even lower than the lawyer from across the political spectrum.

In other words, before Chavez became president the judges, in the main, were bought, sold, and owned, so that the system had very little to do with the rule of law, rather the system operated, if that is right word, by the rule of cash. Cash was the law that ruled and rules.

Clearly, the swearing in of the 17 new judges cannot in the least degrade or destroy the rule of law which largely disappeared before Chavez took office.

Chavez is determined to clean up the mess.

The capitalist press worldwide latched on the issue of the simple majority vote versus a 2/3 majority vote which the press insists Article 203 of the Venezuelan Constitution requires for a bill reforming the courts.

This is nonsense.

www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=6822 Article 203 of the Constitution clearly says “Any bill for the enactment of an organic law, except in the case of those defined as such in the Constitution itself, must first be accepted by the National Assembly, by a two thirds vote of the members* present, before the beginning of debate on the bill. This qualifying vote shall also apply to the process of amending organic acts.”

The structure and operation of the judiciary is a matter of organic law and the recent bill reforming the courts apply to the process of amending an organic law.

Article 203 doesn’t require that a judicial reform bill be accepted by two-thirds of the members of the National Assembly, but by 2/3 of the members present during the debate on the bill.

Two-thirds of the members present during the debate on the bill did in fact accept it and it later became law in strict observance of the constitution and the rule of law. But the capitalist press … ignoring the facts and the provisions of Article 203 … is still spreading lies, everywhere, about the alleged unconstitutionality of the judicial reform law.

There is a small element of the capitalist press that isn’t as crude as its mainstream.

This element surprisingly concedes the constitutionality of the new law, but argues it’s still “court packing,” Even if constitutionally accomplished, “court packing,” it argues, degrades the rule of law, judicial independence, separation of powers, and so on.

But what rule of law is being degraded?

By common consent, there was no or, at most, very little rule of law under the unpacked court … the unpacked court, prior to and during Chavez’ term, produced the ‘rule of cash’ in the administration of justice, not law. The rule of law was completely and shamelessly degraded before the enactment of the 2004 judicial reform law.

Perhaps “packing” is exactly what the supreme court needs since it performed so poorly when it was unpacked.

The new “court-packing law” increases the supreme court from twenty to thirty-two judges, adding two justices to each of the court‚s six chambers. It seems that capitalist press and the regime in Washington are less concerned about the rule of law than about the partisan balance of power within the judicial branch of the Venezuelan government and within the state as a whole.

Corrupt judges, who represent the two bourgeois parties which for decades ruled Venezuela and who have for years demonstrated their contempt for the rule of law, have until now held on to a considerable amount of power within the judiciary and therefore within the state.

Now, with the expansion of the court under the new law, their power will likely be further diluted.

The imperialists and the capitalist press presume or, at least, tries to make us believe that a judge who doesn’t oppose the process and Chavez will disregard the rule of law.

There is no evidence that supports their presumptuousness.

Arthur Shaw
mailto:belial4444@aol.com