1F. A march that stains
As a preface, it is necessary to bring up article 1 of our Magna Carta, which reads, … “The Argentine nation adopts the republican and federal representative form for its government…”. Now, with regard to the second of its characters (“republican”), it is necessary to emphasize that it basically means to us, among other things, that there is a division of powers (Executive Power, Legislative Power and Judicial Power), the which turns out to be the central topic this day since a cluster of people who boast of being “patriots” want to take the highest head of the judiciary, technically called Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, for mere conflicting political interests, brutally corrupting with a harmonious rule of law.
Back in the year 1748, a remarkable individual named Montesquieu He was the one who materialized the aforementioned division of powers, which it is worth clarifying had already been devised by John Locke according to history, with the purpose of achieving a balance and cooperation between the different powers, generating a system of “counterweights”, maintaining each one its most precious character, being “independent”. Such theory was welcomed by a range of countries where the Argentine Republic is located, which tried to water and impregnate it in its Magna Carta, and that in these hours can be thrown overboard and trampled as a consequence, of the onslaught of a “gang”, who knows little of such a humble book and consequently goes for everything.
Although the march called for February 1 by the national ruling party and those close to it is not subject to criticism, since every citizen has the right to go out to demonstrate, since it is constitutionally legitimized, what is questioned is the perverse object that has the same, which consists of attacking the judges that make up the highest court of justice, alleging as a basis their poor performance only for having failed according to law and not to political pretensions imposed by the power of the day. It is clear that an independent justice system does not serve them, but rather a dependent one, which fails in accordance with what the Executive demands to achieve the end that constitutes one of its bases “impunity”, since when they are innocent we have an agile and effective justice but when they are guilty it is merely a matter of “lawafare”, a hackneyed argument, since when the Court has had to rule, it has done so with resolutions based on law, keeping in mind the deep-rooted doctrine on criminal law of act, not author, that is to say They judge by the fact, not by the person.
To conclude, what has been described allows me to refute, subjectively, a popular saying expressed in legal jargon that infers “…When life entered through the door, law jumped out the window…” This is happening today, only that it is not life that on this occasion arrived through the door but rather the caste K.