123
submitted 10 months ago by RNAi@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Chump@hexbear.net 41 points 10 months ago

Think on that one again if you would. He served two terms under the old constitution, the constitutional court ruled that the terms served under the old constitution didn't apply to the new one, then he (attempted to) served two more terms under the new constitution. Like, disagree with that if you want, but saying it was definitely illegitimate is definitely wrong, because the courts definitely ruled that it was legitimate.

[-] ikilledtheradiostar@hexbear.net 26 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

but have you considered us-foreign-policy ?

It's lib political thought 101. 102 of course being everything filtered through blockbuster ip.

[-] Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 10 months ago

The court ruled that the first term didn't count since the constitution was changed during that term, meaning it would only apply to terms started after the new constitution was adopted. Questionable but fair enough.

After serving another term and during the third, the MAS initiated a referendum to increase the amount of terms a president could serve. Very good, if the population wanted to keep this president, this was their way to do it.

However, the proposal was voted down, meaning the majority of the population was against an increase in the term limit. The democratic thing to do then would have been to start looking for another candidate.

this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
123 points (99.2% liked)

chapotraphouse

13465 readers
919 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS