In spite of California putting the hex on us, 2 major polls across the nation show widespread support for SB1070. There also is a CBS/NY Times Poll that shows 78% of “us” agree with the need to stop illegal immigration. The “us” I used came from the lips of none other than CBS’s own Katie Couric. Suppose that was a “Freudian slip”????
Why is there such a hue and cry over something as simple as the “Rule of law”? Although there really is no precise definition, and its meaning varies between different nations it shouldn’t take a Rhodes scholar to figure it out, should it? The long and short of it is that laws are created by nations and their citizens are expected to abide by them. If it is the opinion of the masses that the laws need changed, then they have the option of proceeding with a systematic approach to changing them.
Maybe we need to review a little background on the Rule of law in Mexico. Unfortunately, this document is long and tedious to say the least, so I have taken the liberty of presenting a short snippet in an effort to help me better understand the Hispanic as they might relate to the “Rule of Law.
“Plagued by doubts regarding the cost, timeliness, and fairness of legal procedures and remedies, Mexico’s citizens and merchants frequently attempt to structure their personal and business affairs around informal and/or reputation-based networks of familial or personal contacts, thereby precluding the formation of the arms length credit and transactional relationships that lie at the heart of dynamic markets. This long-recognized phenomenon (its intellectual roots can be traced at least as far back as Thomas Hobbes) is implicated in the Center for Development Research’s (Centro de Investigación para el Desarrollo, A.C., or “CIDAC”) observation that “In Mexico, illegality appears to be a constant. There is no absolute divorce between norms and daily conduct.”
Maybe we need to amend our constitution to allow for the Law of Mexico as an alternative to the Rule of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment