Orwell stressed that high party officials needed to commit wholeheartedly to Doublethink – the ability to hold directly contradictory ideas in their mind simultaneously and to accept both of them. This sounded to me dangerously close to the definition of schizophrenia. ...
(But) In yet another decision...adds more to their prontuario than to their jurisprudence, the Justices showed the terrifying prescience of Orwell’s vision.
... This is not just about creatively qualifying and arbitrarily limiting the powers the Constitution reserves to the Assembly, this is about directly contradicting the plain meaning of the constitutional text.
The point that jumps out at me has to do with the Assembly’s subpoena powers. The constitution is anything but opaque on this point. Article 223 is, actually, entirely explicit.
All public employees are obligated, subject to the penalties established by law, to appear before the Assembly’s committees and to provide the information and the documents needed to accomplish its functions. This obligation includes also private individual; safeguarding the rights and guarantees this Constitution enshrines.
The language is sweeping, explicit and categorical. Ahí no hay pa donde coger. Right?
You’d think so. But you shouldn’t doublethink so.
In its decision yesterday, the court takes the simple, legible, straightforward, entirely plain meaning of Article 223 and shoots it full of holes. From the power to demand an appearance in person, as well as answers and documentary evidence from, in effect, anyone – including any public servant, yes, but also any private individual as well – we get to a circumscribed power to subpoena only public servants “subject to political control” working for the executive branch, but not including the military, and then giving them the preferential option to submit their answers in writing, and a long series of potential excuses not to, if they – not the Assembly, but they – feel that doing so might negatively affect the conduct of public administration.
Inside the chavista imagination, you safeguard the constitution by negating it. You sustain its legitimacy by ignoring its content. The defense of the constitution and the shredding of the constitution are one and the same thing.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.