2009-07-03 00:19:23 - "Caracas Metropolitan Mayor, Antonio Ledezma has slammed the government for double-talk on human rights, arguing that on the one hand, the government is defending the rights of the deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, while on the other hand, depriving the Caracas Metropolitan Mayor of his functions and attributes," VHeadline News Editor Patrick J. O'Donoghue reported July 2, 2009.

VHeadline commentarist Arthur Shaw writes:

The Venezuelan Government has not deprived Caracas Metropolitan Mayor Antonio Ledezma of his functions and attributes. The governance of the Capital District in Caracas, under Article 156 (10) of the Venezuelan Constitution, is a function and attribute of the National Government ... not a function and attribute of the Caracas Metropolitan Mayor.

Article 156 (10) says

it: "The organization and governance of the Capital District ... is of the competence of the National Public Power."

The "National Public Power" is the national government of Venezuela. Ledezma, a Mayor, is not the national government. So, Ledezma is not the national public power, although he pretends he is...

Article 156 (10) clearly delegates the organization and governance of the Capital District to the national government. But contrary to Article 156 (10), Ledezma goes around town everyday and tells lies that he is supposed to organize and govern the Capital District. A law passed by the National Assembly in March 2000 put the Capital District under the Metro Mayor. Another law passed in April 2009 took the Capital District away from the Metro Mayor. The 2009 law that took away the power of the Metro Mayor over the Capital District is just as legal and just consistent with Article 156 (10) of the Constitution as the law passed by National Assembly in 2000.

On April 14, 2009, we examined in detail Antonio Ledezma's lies and deceits about the Constitution, the law and the facts pertaining to the organization and governance of the Capital District, in a VHeadline.com piece titled "Who has a Constitutional right to govern the Capital District in Caracas?" We found Ledezma's arguments and representations about the law and about the facts as devoid of merit and as twisted as Ledezma is.

Citing his perverse ideas about law, the state, and constitutionality, Ledezma, in state of rage, defends the dictatorship established in Honduras on Sunday June 28, 2009 after the overthrow of democracy. Ledezma compares the refusal of the Honduran Supreme Court to allow an non-binding referendum on a rewrite of the constitution and the refusal, this year, of the National Electoral Council in Venezuela to grant his request for a consultative referendum on the 2009 Special Law on the Organization and Governance of the Capital District, a law which restores national power over the Capital District in Caracas to the detriment of the prestige of the metro Mayor.

"Ledezma comments that what Zelaya is doing in Honduras, apart from being unconstitutional, seems to be all right for Chavez but when he Ledezma asked for, and was denied, a referendum in Caracas for people to decide whether they agreed with hand-picking a person that acted against the sovereign will of the people, then it's a matter of "sauce for the goose but not for the gander!" VHeadline News Editor Patrick J. O'Donoghue wrote.

So, Ledezma raises a new matter or a new question about the relation between the opportunity to hold referenda and dictatorships. We did not have an opportunity to discuss this important question in our above-mentioned piece published at VHeadline.com on April 14, this year.

Ledezma asked for an referendum under Article 71 of the Venezuelan Constitution but he refused to comply with the requirements for the referendum, because he knew he would lose the referendum. Ledezma argues that April 2009 law, passed by the National Assembly, which takes away the power of the Metro Mayor over the Capital District is unconstitutional, illegal, and very unpopular with the voters and a referendum should be held that consults with the people about these alleged irregularities.

Article 71 of the Venezuelan Constitution says:
"Matters of special national transcendence may be referred to a consultative referendum, on the initiative of the President* of the Republic, taken at a meeting of the Cabinet; by resolution of the National Assembly, passed by a majority vote; or at the request of a number of voters constituting at least 10% of all voters* registered on the national, civil and electoral registry. Matters of special state, municipal and parish transcendence may also be referred to a consultative referendum. The initiative shall be taken by the Parish Board, the Municipal Council and to the Legislative Council, by the vote of two third of its members; by the Mayor* and the Governor* or by a number of voters constituting at least 10% of the total number of voters registered in the pertinent circumscription."

So, the first step under Article 71 is the determination of what kind of special "transcendence" is involved in the matter to be referred to a consultative referendum. The special "transcendence" can be either national or state or municipal or parish in nature? The "either/or" is what makes it special.

With total disregard for the facts of his case and to assure he would not get the consultative referendum, Ledezma decided that the special "transcendence" was municipal.

How can the matter of special "transcendence" be municipal when the matter deals with the organization and governance of the Capital District and Article 156 (10) of the Constitution clearly says the organization and governance of the Capital District lies in the competence of the national government?

Again, how can the matter of special "transcendence" be municipal when the matter deals with a law passed by the National Assembly, not a law passed by municipal council?

Once again, how can the matter of special "transcendence" be municipal when the matter deals with the Capital District which is the capital of all of Venezuela, not the capital of just Metro Caracas?

Obviously, Ledezma didn't want a referendum under Article 71 or any other article of the Constitution because he went downtown to the National Electoral Council (CNE) and started to talk foolishness and pretended to be an idiot, babbling about the "municipal transcendence" of matters which Art. 156 (10) places in the national competence, muttering about the "municipal transcendence" of a statute passed by the National Assembly, and speaking gibberish about the "municipal transcendence" of the national capital.

The National Electoral Council was shocked and stunned by Ledezma's exhibition of idiocy and the strange noises that escaped from him.

Ledezma refused to recognized the transparent national transcendence of the matter he asked to be referred to a consultative referendum, because if the matter was of national transcendence, then Ledezma, under Article 71, had to get 10% of the registered voters in the country to sign a petition supporting the idea of the referendum and all the voters in the country would be entitled to vote in the referendum. Getting 10% of the voters to sign a petition should have been easy for Ledezma, presuming he had the support of the bourgeois-led opposition. But Ledezma knew he could never beat Chavez in a national election. If, however, the matter to be referred to referendum was only of municipal transcendence, then, under Article 71, the Mayor alone ... that is, Ledezma alone ... could refer it to referendum and, under Article 71, only residents of Caracas, Ledezma's base of support, would vote in referendum.

Ledezma knows he can have his referendum anytime he wants it, by filing with the National Electoral Council a petition for the referendum containing the names of 10% of the voters across the country. A Mayor of a City, under Article 71 has no authority to ask for the referral of a matter of national transcendence to a referendum. Under Article 71, only the (1) President or (2) the National Assembly, or (3) 10% of all the voters in the country can refer a matter of national transcendence to referendum. In his state of dementia, Ledezma may believe he is one of the three possibilities.

Ledezma doesn't want the referendum, because Chavez most likely will get 90% of the vote in such a referendum. Such a referendum would be a nice win for Chavez and for the Revolution.

Ledezma, who is only the Mayor of Caracas, is turning people off, putting on airs of being the President of Venezuela, talking in tongues while in public places, and, from city hall, trying to decide things that lie in the national competence.

Arthur Shaw
arthur.shaw@vheadline.com

www.vheadline.com/shaw

www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=81433