Chavez has no respect for constitution

The Venezuelan vote to allow Chavez to run again was a disappointing one.

Though the U.S. Constitution may be amended, it is open to a wide array of interpretations by our judicial system and is filled with vague ideas and compromising, self-conflicting premises, the foundation that it set forth for this nation has been firmly cemented and built upon since the documentâÄôs inception. Washington lawmakers frequently argue what is in the best interest of the Constitution or what is closest to a constitutional piece of public policy. While the United States and countless other countries strive to keep the relevance and power of their foundational legislation alive, there are other nations that use the idea of a constitution as a means in which to utilize power and control effectively and quickly, with little foresight into the posterity of the population they affect. Regardless of the political position held by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the Socialist reformer has once again conducted a vote in his country pertaining to the subject of whether he should be allowed to run for another term of office, which is directly in contrast with a constitution that he and his party crafted in 1999. The practice of constitutional manipulation is not new to world politics. From countries as influential as the former United Soviet Socialist Republics to small countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, constitutional violations have been common practice for regimes paranoid of losing power or simply hungry for more. Corruption and fraud have been undesirable, bad behaviors of the global political system âÄî the United States included. However, should not a constitution âÄî the very fundamental document which dictates the inception and course a nation is to undertake âÄî be held in a higher esteem than petty power tripping? This editorial, accessed via UWire, was originally published in the Indiana Statesman at Indiana State University. Please send comments to [email protected]