[mtgx]

Politicians tend to become worse and worse thinking and seeing from experience that they can "get away with it". But in reality all this time, the population gets more and more frustrated, and it's only a matter of time before the population revolts.

So far the Brazilian politicians have been lucky that all these 1 million people haven't become violent and ask for their blood. Because to be honest, I think at least some of the corrupt leaders need to be punished severely, possibly even with the death penalty (like Ceausescu was in Romania).

It's really the only way they'll learn their lesson, and more importantly, future generations of politicians will know now to upset the population to the point where they'll revolt and ask for their execution. I'm not usually pro-death penalty, but if there's anyone deserving it, it's the oppressive/corrupt leaders that make millions of people suffer through their ruling.

I definitely think the leaders intentionally abusing their own Constitution deserve the death penalty, because if they don't get that, then it's just an invitation for future leaders to abuse it. They swore to protect it and obey it, and there needs to be a way to force them to do just that. Otherwise what's the point? Imagine how different things would be in US, if politicians would fear death penalty if they abuse the Constitution, and keep passing unconstitutional laws.

I feel almost the same way about bankers who get away with their crimes. How are they supposed to learn their lesson if they aren't even threatened by prison time, even though they lost the pensions and deposits of millions of people? If they think they have the potential to earn tens of billions of hundreds of billions from risking the money of those people, they'll be much more inclined to do it if they only risk a couple of billion in penalty, and that's it.

The population is supposed to rectify these sort of abuses by the elite in a society. It's up to the population to ultimately decide how much of a punishment these people get, and if their "representatives" aren't up for it, then they need to change them, or at least scare them into applying their will.

[Fargren]

But the any constitution may have(read, HAS) things that are wrong. Constitutions were written by people too. People are fallible, and the possibility exists that going against what they wrote ten-score years ago is just plain wrong, and going against it is the correct thing to do. I don't think leaders should fear correcting the wrongs in the building blocks of their countries; it should be their utmost responsibility.

Now, this is not what is happening here. Not at all. But taking the constitution as sacrosanct and making going against it punishable by death is not a good idea. Is dogmatic and wrong. The responsibility of politicians is towards the people, not towards the constitution.

[andrewflnr]

There's a pretty measurable difference between trying to fix the constitution and "abusing" it, which generally entails flagrantly ignoring it.

Personally, I don't think the death penalty should be used for anything less than willfully causing the death of of an innocent victim.

[blueprint]

Before denying something as wrong, you should point out the concrete problems.

I agree that laws are made by men. But the US constitution was written for the living people. Corrupt leaders are corrupted because they in fact don't serve the living. Over time, the man-made laws have changed as well.

However, just like in math, it's possible to prove whether something is right or wrong by verifying on a fixed principle. All the answers are determined by the questions. So we can only tell if laws are right or wrong by evaluating them case-by-case.

If the equation in math changes, we will get many answers from a single question. That's why to evaluate truth and justice we need one principle, not many.

[wslh]

The responsibility of politicians is towards the people, not towards the constitution.

Do you mean to the current people? and/or the future generations? and/or the past ones?

[Fargren]

The current people, and the future generations inasmuch as their well-being is relevant and important to the current ones.

[wslh]

For example, what do you think about the current constitutional issues in Argentina? do you agree with the supreme court ruling?

[Fargren]

Are we talking about the judicial system reform? I believe the current system of choosing the magistrate is quite bad, but the alternative that's being suggested is rife with it's own problems. As such, I don't think it's worth changing the constitution. I really like the current composition of the Supreme Court, and I trust their decision. I do think there are ways to change the system for the best, and I hope there'll be a joint effort to come up with a better alternative to the current system.

[arturhoo]

As a fellow brazilian, I totally agree with you. I believe we should not allow party flags to be raised right now. The truth is that politicians from all parties (supportive or not to the present government) were involved in some sort of corruption across Brazil.

As violent and absurd this may sound, I believe those who live in Brasília should go to undoubtedly corrupt politician's homes (like Renan Calheiros') and destroy it, the same way people have been doing with banks, telecom, and media companies (entities that literally have raped and manipulated us for decades) in several capitals.

Although I believe this may not prevent corrupt politicians from being in power in the future (only a properly educated population can ensure that), we need to act now. Our political system is broken and there is no way change will come from those in power - their own interest is holding control.

[thiagoharry]

I agree with gverri. Sorry, but your comment is very naive, nd not informed. These people with political flags were the people attacked by the police earlier, the people who started everything and now they are being attacked by the new protesters with poor political understanding.

Your notion of "party" is even inaccurate. A party don't need to participate in elections (there are lots of not electoral parties). And between parties who act in elections, there are those who do it not to be elected (in fact, they are almost never elected), but to spread their message in the TV during elections. Just trying to use the system against the system. Even there are parties (PT, PSOL), that are in fact a huge aggregation of different groups (like sub-parties), and those groups can be very diverse, some of them not wishing to concentrate in government, but acting with social movements.

The current acts against political parties in Brazil is a huge ignorance spread by right wing groups. Is indeed a very fascist thing.

[gverri]

You are so wrong. This only show how you must improve your knowledge of Brazilian politics.

Not all parties were involved in some sort of corruption. And those who didn't are the ones having their flags burnt by protesters.

Lot's of activists from PSTU died protesting against big farmers violence against the indigenous. Activists from PSOL, PSTU, and other left wing parties have a LONG history of protesting. Just search google: Pinheirinhos, Belo Monte, União Homoafetiva, Marcha das Vadias, Marcha da Maconha. They were always there, fighting for what they believed was right.

[maratd]

> future generations of politicians will know now to upset the population to the point where they'll revolt and ask for their execution.

I agree with your post, except for this. If history has shown us anything, it's that they never learn.

[PavlovsCat]

Then let them eat fate :P