Card Game Frustration Instructions

FIRST IMPRESSIONS AFTER THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT JUDGEMENT ON THE STATUS OF CATALUNYA

After learning of the 'first act' of the ruling of TC on the Statute of Catalonia, pick up phrases here have impacted me most of the chroniclers of a leading newspaper:


MIQUEL ROCA (One of the parents the constitution):

been declared unconstitutional for other communities which remains perfectly valid and current. How to explain this without invoking an intolerable discrimination? How do I accept that the state ask its citizens to Catalunya pursuant to a statute that was endorsed by the popular will has been maimed by a court of anomalous composition?
JORDI

BARBET (Summarizing the Judgement):

References to Catalonia as a nation in the statute is not unconstitutional simply no legal effect. Catalan language can not be "preferential" government, and the distribution of resources among regions should not be taken into account the fiscal effort of the Catalans.


FRANCESC RACE:

constitutional precepts affected exceed forty, the vast majority of great relevance. Therefore previously used the term "severe setback" while trying to make a first assessment provisional.

JOAN
Vintró:

The disappearance of one of the criteria determining the contribution of the Government to solidarity with other areas, namely that they carry out a similar tax effort, leaving the regulation of the financing system without a their most important legal principles. ANTONI


PUIGVERD:

The judges have been very sympathetic to their own limitations. But they are freezing to a fundamental problem of democracy: is it legal, yes, but it makes sense that in a democracy the judges rectify a popular vote? "Such action does not require an explanation friendly, respectful and educational? Do not need an explanation of court citizens naively believe that democracy is the people's voice?


Francesc-Marc Álvaro:

We are told with a solemn delay, that the statute passed by the Parliament, by the English Cortes and Catalan citizenship referendum goes, no good. Nothing like that had happened ever since the restoration of democracy. I repeat: nothing like this ...

The substance is that a few judges, supreme interpreters of the Constitution of 1978, have more power than the legislators and the people called to the polls. The question, of course, is political, not legal. He who does not see in this circumstance a historic break large and unpredictable effects should see an ophthalmologist quickly. You are considered central, regional, federalism, independence or indifferent, should know that, from the afternoon of Monday, we have entered a radically new stage.