Usage et mésusage du véto présidentiel en Uruguay : le cas des lois sur l’avortement (2008) et l’amnistie (2011)
Since the historic victory of the left in Uruguay (2005), it has been possible to use or even misuse the presidential veto on the basis of simple personal or moral precepts, putting into question the democratic legitimacy of such a procedure. From the cross-perspective analysis of the two most contr...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN FR PT |
| Publicado: |
Centre de Recherches sur les Mondes Américains
2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/db4c9453b1d041cfa0e53b5eb33b0863 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Since the historic victory of the left in Uruguay (2005), it has been possible to use or even misuse the presidential veto on the basis of simple personal or moral precepts, putting into question the democratic legitimacy of such a procedure. From the cross-perspective analysis of the two most controversial reforms of the last thirty years in the country, this article aims to explain the reasons why President Mujica, following the controversial decision of his predecessor, President Vázquez, to veto the law decriminalizing abortion which had been approved by his own parliamentary majority (2008), refused acting in the same way against the law repealing the military amnesty (2011), while he was supported by public opinion. Contested use in one case and surprising rejection in the other, veto power is a discretionary constitutional weapon, for which we try to break the mystery in the Uruguayan case. |
|---|