El 27/05/08, Sebastian Bassi <[email protected]> escribió:
2008/5/27 Alejandro René Fernández Blanco <[email protected]>:
http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/0-4999/804/norma.htm CONSTITUCION DE LA NACION ARGENTINA Artículo 17.- La propiedad es inviolable, y ningún habitante de la ....
¿Como se aplica esto en relación a lo que mandó Diego?
Hola a todos. En el artículo que pasó Diego se menciona posibilidad de **confiscar** bienes (...) "iPods, iPhones, portátiles y otros dispositivos digitales podrían ser confiscados por funcionarios de aduanas de todo el mundo conforme a un nuevo acuerdo confidencial para hacer cumplir las leyes de propiedad intelectual que se está negociando actualmente entre las naciones G8." lo que contradice a nuestra constitución que en la oración final de su artículo 17 declara abolida la confiscación de bienes en Argentina y no creo que seamos el único país en el mundo que tiene prohibida la confiscación de bienes Esto es parte de la Constitución de Estados Unidos: November 1, 1996: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt5.html (hay mucha jurisprudencia en este enlace): Discrimination.--``Unlike the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifth contains no equal protection clause and it provides no guaranty against discriminatory legislation by Congress.''\66\ At other times, however, the Court assumed that ``discrimination, if gross enough, is equivalent to confiscation and subject under the Fifth Amendment to challenge and annulment.''\67\ The theory that was to prevail seems first to have been enunciated by Chief Justice Taft, who observed that the due process and equal protection clauses are ``associated'' and that ``[i]t may be that they overlap, that a violation of one may involve at times the violation of the other, but the spheres of the protection they offer are not coterminous. . . . [Due process] tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it makes a required minimum of protection for every one's right of life, liberty and property, which the Congress or the legislature may not withhold. Our whole system of law is predicated on the general, fundamental principle of equality of application of the law.''\68\ Thus, in Bolling v. Sharpe,\69\ a companion case to Brown v. Board of Education,\70\ the Court held that segregation of pupils in the public schools of the District of Columbia violated the due process clause. ``The Fifth Amendment, which is applicable in the District of Columbia, does not contain an equal protection clause as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the states. But the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The `equal protection of the laws' is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than `due process of law,' and, therefore, we do not imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process. Acá tenés todas las ediciones actuales de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/ Recién en un suplemento de 2006 la Constitución de Estados Unidos menciona la confiscación de bienes y dice así ( http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/2006supplement.pdf ) "State Laws Affecting Foreign Relations — Dormant Federal Power and Preemption If the foreign relations power is truly an exclusive federal power, with no role for the states, a logical consequence, the Supreme Court has held, is that some state laws impinging on foreign relations are invalid even in the absence of a relevant federal policy. There is, in effect, a ''dormant'' foreign relations power. The scope of this power remains undefined, however, and its constitutional basis is debated by scholars". "The exclusive nature of the federal foreign relations power has long been asserted by the Supreme Court. In 1840, for example, the Court declared that ''it was one of the main objects of the constitution to make us, so far as regarded our foreign relations, one people, and one nation; and to cut off all communications between foreign governments, and the several state authorities.'' 18 A hundred years later the Court remained emphatic about federal exclusivity. ''No State can rewrite our foreign policy to conform to its own domestic policies. Power over external affairs is not shared by the States; it is vested in the national government exclusively. It need not be so exercised as to conform to State laws or State policies, whether they be expressed in constitutions, statutes, or judicial decrees. And the policies of the States become wholly irrelevant to judicial inquiry when the United States, acting within its constitutional sphere, seeks enforcement of its foreign policy in the courts.'' 19" "It was not until 1968, however, that the Court applied the general principle to invalidate a state law for impinging on the nation's foreign policy interests in the absence of an established federal policy. In Zschernig v. Miller,20 the Court invalidated an Oregon escheat law that operated to prevent inheritance by citizens of Communist countries. The law conditioned inheritance by nonresident aliens on a showing that U.S. citizens would be allowed to inherit estates in the alien's country, and that the alien heir would be allowed to receive payments from the Oregon estate ''without confiscation.'' 21 Although a Justice Department amicus brief asserted that application of the Oregon law in this one case would not cause any ''undu[e] interfer[ence] with the United States' conduct of foreign relations,'' the Court saw a ''persistent and subtle'' effect on international relations stemming from the ''notorious'' practice of state probate courts in denying payments to persons from Communist countries.22 Regulation of descent and distribution of estates is an area traditionally regulated by states, but such ''state regulations must give way if they impair the effective exercise of the Nation's foreign policy.'' If there are to be travel, probate, or other restraints on citizens of Communist countries, the Court concluded, such restraints ''must be provided by the Federal Government.'' 23" "18 Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 540, 575-76 (1840). See also United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 331 (1937) (''The external powers of the United" "19 United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 233-34 (1942). Chief Justice Stone and Justice Roberts dissented". "20 389 U.S. 429 (1968)". "21 In Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503 (1947), the Court had upheld a simple reciprocity requirement that did not have the additional requirement relating to confiscation". "22 389 U.S. at 440". "23 389 U.S. at 440, 441". La Constitución de Francia (ni siquiera habla de confiscar bienes): http://www.senat.fr/lng/es/constitution.html http://www.senat.fr/connaitre/constitution_02_08.pdf -- Alejandro Rene "El Corrector Empedernido" Fernandez Blanco Fecha Definitiva para el Cuarto Festival Latinoamericano de Instalación de SOftware Libre (FLISOL 2008): 26 de Abril de 2008 Software Freedom Day: tercer Sabado de cada Septiembre. Encuentro Estratégico de Software Libre - CRISOL Argentina: ¿Segundo sábado de cada septiembre? Miembro de PLUG (Argentina). www.plug.org.ar Petitorio contra el Programa de Malversacion miPC http://www.petitiononline.com/noamipc1/ Colaborador Segundo Encuentro Estratégico de Software Libre - CRISOL Argentina 2006 http://www.crisolargentina.org.ar Coordinador General de FLISOL La Plata 2005 y 2007 http://www.flisol.info/FLISOL2008/Argentina/LaPlata