Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 0:25:13 GMT -6
The sensation of feeling above good and evil, of floating with happiness in the midst of the fortunes and misfortunes of others, of your supposed subjects – an inevitable monarchical vision from the position of monarch – that must be an unmatched and unforgettable. And not even the rich can feel that if they have responsibilities in some way. But the former (de)merited Juan Carlos I must have had that feeling, that of being able to do whatever he wants with other people's money and without responsibility, neither political nor personal. This situation has objective components or, rather, objective and subjective causes. The first are due to the fact that Spain is a monarchy and that the Constitution itself includes the inviolability of the monarch, although limited to his political role as the highest figure in the structure of the State and referring, supposedly, to the acts of his office.
The alleged misdeeds of Juan Carlos I in Arab lands with the corresponding sheikhs are neither ethical nor should they go unpunished. Does the Constitution cover the alleged misdeeds of the former monarch, whatever he does, any action, even if it is not typical of his position, even when he is no longer monarch? His constitutional prerogatives, his privileges do not seem to reach that much, the thing is the subject of legal discussion among constitutionalists and Australia Phone Number the efforts in the newspaper El País ( The Return of King Juan Carlos ) of constitutionalists such as Pedro Cruz Villalón are striking – even pathetic professor of the subject, to try to justify what, at least from ethics, is not. Hunting elephants would not be unconstitutional, but their alleged misdeeds in Arab lands with the corresponding sheikhs – even if it is to facilitate Spanish investments in those lands – is neither ethical nor should it go unpunished. To those of us who are not monarchists either for fundamental reasons or for political tactics, for real-politik , we do not want to end the Monarchy due to the unpunished tradition of the misdeeds of the Bourbons since the great-grandson of Philip IV (penultimate Austria) became in in Philip V, king of Spain.
Those of us on the left do not want the monarchy for reasons of principle; Those who are on the right do not care about these things and do care about who the corresponding monarch shares the bed with if it is not with the consort; Those of us on the left don't care about the current corinas . We non-monarchists look at the waste of the institution, those on the right-wing monarchists look at other supposed wastes – even if they are false – but they do not care about those of the Crown. And as for the merits earned by his figure, those of us on the left would like to recognize his role as a pillar of democracy if we were sure that this pillar is well founded by the facts, which are made of granite and not baked clay. The problem is that we have doubts and certainties, and we would like to have only certainties, but these are not even firm when reading Javier Cercas in Anatomy of a Moment . The Emeritus Knave Because for those of us who are not monarchists, the figure of a monarch as head of an institution like the Crown seems incoherent and a contradiction with the principles of the Rule of Law.
The alleged misdeeds of Juan Carlos I in Arab lands with the corresponding sheikhs are neither ethical nor should they go unpunished. Does the Constitution cover the alleged misdeeds of the former monarch, whatever he does, any action, even if it is not typical of his position, even when he is no longer monarch? His constitutional prerogatives, his privileges do not seem to reach that much, the thing is the subject of legal discussion among constitutionalists and Australia Phone Number the efforts in the newspaper El País ( The Return of King Juan Carlos ) of constitutionalists such as Pedro Cruz Villalón are striking – even pathetic professor of the subject, to try to justify what, at least from ethics, is not. Hunting elephants would not be unconstitutional, but their alleged misdeeds in Arab lands with the corresponding sheikhs – even if it is to facilitate Spanish investments in those lands – is neither ethical nor should it go unpunished. To those of us who are not monarchists either for fundamental reasons or for political tactics, for real-politik , we do not want to end the Monarchy due to the unpunished tradition of the misdeeds of the Bourbons since the great-grandson of Philip IV (penultimate Austria) became in in Philip V, king of Spain.
Those of us on the left do not want the monarchy for reasons of principle; Those who are on the right do not care about these things and do care about who the corresponding monarch shares the bed with if it is not with the consort; Those of us on the left don't care about the current corinas . We non-monarchists look at the waste of the institution, those on the right-wing monarchists look at other supposed wastes – even if they are false – but they do not care about those of the Crown. And as for the merits earned by his figure, those of us on the left would like to recognize his role as a pillar of democracy if we were sure that this pillar is well founded by the facts, which are made of granite and not baked clay. The problem is that we have doubts and certainties, and we would like to have only certainties, but these are not even firm when reading Javier Cercas in Anatomy of a Moment . The Emeritus Knave Because for those of us who are not monarchists, the figure of a monarch as head of an institution like the Crown seems incoherent and a contradiction with the principles of the Rule of Law.