To follow the debate on the consultation, we are rehearsing answer specific questions about the content and scope. Here the questions, by the way the user / a (twitter and facebook) who sent your question?
1. Why not write laws that protect all living beings and not just put what the bulls for votes in the consultation? (Yrdep)
fact should be regulated under the general rules related to pets, basic rules for raising and slaughtering of animals we eat (eg slaughterhouses) and much stricter rules for the conservation of species. The question posed in the consultation does not include a comprehensive and refers not only to bulls. The question is designed to prohibit "public spectacles that have the aim of killing an animal" and cantonal jurisdiction is ... or could be legal in one county and banned in the neighboring town. No specific reference to bulls and could be used by the majority to prohibit cultural expressions of indigenous peoples (the cock buried or part of the celebration of Inty Raimi also contains some animal sacrifices, to give examples)
2. Annexes. The questions are the entrance, are the annexes are the main course? (Cveraq) (dan_gahe)
Indeed, the questions are general and in some cases difficult to understand its scope, through reforms annexes are much greater and also the President assumes legislative functions which entails an intrusion into separate functions (The executive can introduce bills and objections when-vetoes-approved, so it is an important co, but writing and "approve" articles on the Consultation directory exceeds that power).
(We will later a detailed analysis of the annexes)
3. "The people have the right to change the constitution? Or is there any procedure to prevent it? Who authorized this procedure? (Gerardobando)
course. The village is the origin of power in organizing a state, can change the Constitution through a Constituent Assembly and it must specifically authorize it (as was done for Montecristi convene the Assembly), or you can amend the Constitution and that the theory is called the derivative or representative constituent power, ie the same people in their Constitution provides mechanisms for reform are always more complex than such change a otherwise law because the Constitution has lost the hierarchy. Also in its Constitution the people can set limits as it did in Montecristi and regular such that you can make improvements or amendments or backward but never taking away rights, which is what the Constitution expressly forbids that in this consultation is to make through some questions.
4. If if it wins, will the Assembly must approve the text directly without reforms included in the annexes of the amendments or they enter into force directly without going through the Legislature? (Velafabricio)
This procedure of approving articles and legal reforms through the attachments are not regulated, I understand that not allowed for in Public Law can only do that to which they are expressly empowered to different functions. And that should have prevented or at least regulated by the Constitutional Court. My view is that if those questions yes wins anyway have to go through the legislative process in the National Assembly because nowhere in the Constitution provides that a law is issued in any other way.
5. What is the real extent of the suggested amendment to the alternatives?
None. In the question originally raised by the President the biggest change was that the detention for investigation to be 48 instead of 24 hours. This the Court did not allow it and ends up making a play on words: instead of article that says the imprisonment is exceptional, be reformed to the deprivation of liberty may not be the rule (!) And the law set some other rules for the implementation of precautionary measures. This has already said the Code of Procedure Criminal more than a year ago to replace prohibits preventive detention in certain crimes (crimes against life, sex crimes, kidnapping, etc.).
In summary, the question of the Executive had serious implications but was unconstitutional, the Court but instead allowed it to eliminate the reformulated question (I guess for not having even the slightest difference to the President).
6. Question 4 If you win, who will do the contests to reorganize the courts? Is the transitional Council? Does the Board of Citizen Participation and Social Control? (Velafabricio)
question 4 If you win, not just the National Court and the Courts Provincial, but all the judges, prosecutors, public defenders and notaries will be selected by the Tripartite Commission or the Constitutional Court called Transitional Council of the Judiciary is composed of one representative of the Executive, Legislative, and one each Function Transparency and Social Control (chaired by the Controller function.) Clearly then the interference of other functions throughout the judiciary.
7. I care about the powers to consult on issues which apply in jurisdictions. (Aldo_Vasquez_A)
Indeed, the scope of this question (only the death of public performances range of animals has cantonal) the President is spewing roles that correspond to the Cantonal Councils. Because it would be sufficient that each municipality to regulate these issues through ordinances (such as the Municipality of Cuenca years ago banned bullfighting).
8. Winning or losing the query, Correa will go home or just your typical theater that was accustomed to do? (LojanoAzul)
President should be asked.
9. As for domestic workers that must be secured in the IESS: If a couple earns 700 how do you recognize benefits? Not all earning well to keep a nanny especially those without children who leave (eperasso)
always been required to enroll the IESS or employees, the difference is that non-membership is punishable by fines and the obligation to pay and win the SI that question also be punished with imprisonment.
course it's expensive to have a support worker household chores, so only those with high salaries can afford. Another important issue here is that the state must take responsibility to provide (as part of the public education system) care services to children under 5 years, because imagine if you and your partner have trouble finding child care for their children, how does a woman who earns $ 260 a month. In Ecuador today, the public service is most lacking care of infants, it can only access 10% of those requiring it.
10. How do you ensure that in 18 months is going to restructure administrative monster as large as the Judiciary? (Galo Campaign)
not guarantee anything. The problems in the judiciary are structural and need structural reform also with a minimum agree. I do not think that what is proposed in the Consultation is the solution. If you try to change and justice, the next government say that these are the judges of Correa and will continue discussing the reform and the independence of the judiciary.
11. Does the Constitution is being respected? (Franklin Calderón)
No. Many people believe that the contents of the Consultation is violating the Constitution (clarified, the mechanism for consulting the people is constitutional and legitimate, the problem is what is asked and how it does).
12. Were not members of the Assembly who want to violate it? (Franklin Calderón)
Very generally not understand the question. Needless to members (in the Assembly there are 124 representatives) or what topic is concerned.
13. Are there laws that affect being exaggerated and do not represent the views of the majority, why have not made the reforms matter? (Franklin Calderón)
is also very general question and does not refer to any particular law. If it comes to criminal matters (I think it could be that the issue as it relates to the Consultation with the serious problem of insecurity in the country) in the last 5 years there have been 16 criminal reforms ... conclusion: the problem is in the law or reform.
14. Remember how was the election of the Council of the Judiciary, perhaps most those now in the Assembly had nothing to do with the formation of the famous Council of the Judiciary (Franklin Calderón)
The current Judicial Council was elected by the Constituent Assembly and the terms of the 1998 Constitution. Following the adoption of the Constitution of Montecristi the Constitutional Court dismissed two of its members under the principle that regulators can not be regulated. Neither the current nor the Constituent Assembly had anything to do with the formation of the current Board.
15. The question is about bullfighting or cockfighting? (Jess Suarez)
on anyone in particular, the question asks: Would you agree to ban public performances aiming at the death of an animal? Strange question and lends itself to much debate because I guess the purpose of any show is the animal's death, it could be argued that these are cultural expressions of traditional practices; of activities that aim to recreation, etc. Depending on the interpretation may prohibit all (even eating ceviche) or nothing.
