THE amendment is still being IMMORAL does little more than one month said that our President is committed to forcing the Venezuelans to go to the polls to express our opinion on his re-election or not. We argued that the amendment not is illegal is IMMORAL, ANTITHETICAL and UNDEMOCRATIC. The amendment is a mechanism constitutional, substantially different from the formal point of view to reform. It is absolutely legal President or any Venezuelan request fulfilling the constitutional formalities for an amendment. Now in the world of the law the lawyers know that above the law and its lyrics, by being in a referential and circumstantial framework this justice, respect for the will of the sovereign. Law is the daughter of junior interests many times men but the justice, the latest and top end of society. The problem is not the interpretation of the 345 or 340 of the Constitution the unusual is that on 2 December 2007, the people told him not to article 230 of the constitutional reform bill which envisaged, as is It intends to do with the request for amendment, the possibility of re-election, so indefinite or continuous as says the jurist CILIA FLORES and what most characterizes a Government that will define how democratic is not respect the Division of powers or the autonomy of each of them, that it is equally important, but respect for the will of the majorities.

The amendment is not illegal, it’s IMMORAL and this if you must worry about the President. THE request for amendment is a EUPHEMISM JURIDICO which repeats tomorrow to be defeated Chavez then talk of presenting a new Constitution. Until when we are in this game? What they really want? LIFETIME DEMOCRACY? Or all will be IMMORAL La democracy imposes a free game and not as intended do CHAVEZ, virtually to the force. Popular participation is being sought through mechanisms devised in a situational room, in the best style of Nazi Germany.