The Real News network's excellent report on the Chavez health crisis in Venezuela

[Peace Patriot]

6. The National Assembly has the power to grant the President leave for 90 says, and extend...

...to another 90 days. It's been mentioned numerous times in these discussions. This 90 days plus 90 days law is tied to the 30 days to a new election provision in the Constitution. When the 180 days expire--if granted by the National Assembly--the 30 days deadline kicks in. It doesn't matter whether the 180 days provision is specified by the Constitution or was enacted by the National Assembly. It is THE LAW OF THE LAND. Not everything that our federal government does is specified in the U.S. Constitution (by a long shot). Legislatures INTERPRET the Constitution and WRITE LAWS accordingly. And if they err in their interpretation, in the Supreme Court's opinion, the Supreme Court can declare the law unconstitutional. The Venezuelan Supreme Court did not do so--so presumably the 180 day leave provision IS in the Constitution or it doesn't matter that it isn't--it is a logical legal development out of the Constitution, enacted by Venezuela's elected legislature and thus far approved by the Supreme Court, which recently issued its opinion that postponing the inauguration IS constitutional.

So what are you belly-aching about? That the rightwing did not succeed in throwing the duly elected President out of office AGAIN, this time because he is ill?

Venezuelan law WISELY provides for a time period to determine the President-elect's ability to govern. He is the elected president of the country, by a big margin (10%). His government's policies are the clear choice of the Venezuelan people, given his recent electoral victory and the overwhelming chavista win in the governor elections on top of that. To throw him out because he is ill would be obscene and wrong. So the National Assembly has or will grant him leave (I believe they have already done so) and the Supreme Court agreed to postponement of the inauguration. Everyone with any sense realizes that to do anything else is to violate the will of the people and to INVITE destabilization of the country.

Say he was a rightwinger and the same thing had happened--just elected by a big margin and the same party wins most of the governors' elections--and the rightwing president falls ill before the inauguration. Wouldn't you wish the government and relevant authorities to honor that election, and to provide the president-elect time to recover from his illness before acting as if he had died (will never recover; will never be capable of governing)?

This is an unusual situation, to be sure. I can't think of any precedent for it, here or anywhere. But it seems to me that Venezuelan law covers it better than any I've heard of. They HAVE a provision for this. (The 90 plus 90 law.) Why shouldn't they implement their law? If Chavez was a usurper--was, in truth, a "dictator" or had stolen the election (and remember that Jimmy Carter recently said that Venezuela "has the best election system in the world&quot , here would be their chance to get rid of him. But no one is doing that--not Maduro (VP), not Cabello (president of the National Assembly), not the military, nor the Supreme Court, nor any other leader or faction with the power to do so. And the people of Venezuela are certainly NOT calling for Chavez's removal--they are calling for the opposite, for their votes to be respected, if that is possible (if Chavez has a chance to recover).

It is the right thing to do. It is the legal thing to do. It is the peoples' will. The Supreme Court agrees. They are giving their president-elect time to recover and assume his duties if possible.

Your posts are 100% anti-Chavez (in stark contradiction to the views of the majority of Venezuelans). So I can see that it would bug the hell out of you that Chavez was re-elected, that the chavistas won 20 of 23 governorships, that Chavez may recover from his illness, that most Venezuelans hope that he will, and that, if he doesn't, his VP Nicholas Maduro will very likely win a special election. But hating all this is one thing--holding views that are the polar opposite of the majority of Venezuelans is one thing--and wishing it all away is quite another; and seeking to impugn Venezuelan law in this case, when, in truth, you wouldn't do so if rightwingers had won, is quite another. What bugs the hell out of you is that the law is working as it should, that the country remains stable and that the will of the people is being respected. THAT is the reality. You are arguing against reality, as you so often have done.