Can Someone Have Herpes On Their Stomach

UNA POLITICA PICCOLA PICCOLA n° 6

stubbornly on what politicians and commentators still call "Constitutional immunity law," but could be called, more realistically for the casual citizen "award Berlusconi c." or "award Silvio c." or "award Fini c." or why not, "Casini award c.," I already written, but I want to do some integration.

First, many have already said and written, but I want to repeat, repetita iuvant, the term award is used incorrectly ... very loosely, as is the approximate policy so far expressed by the government. Lodo (Garzanti dictionary): "Decision issued jointly and in writing to arbitrate a dispute, which is enforceable by decree del pretore”.

La definizione è fin troppo chiara.
Degli “arbitri” sono chiamati a dirimere una vertenza.
Quale vertenza e tra chi?
La vertenza la conosciamo abbastanza bene, quindici anni di discussioni e di litigi istituzionali: il presidente del consiglio ha, per essere più uguale del resto dei cittadini italiani, bisogno di uno scudo dalla giustizia (e le leggi ad personam? … lasciamo perdere!), insomma non può essere giudicato nemmeno per i reati commessi ante, cioè prima della sua discesa in politica, e che tuttora sono in attesa di sentenza o … di prescrizione.
Il mio amico mi fa n0tare che sarebbe più semplice per Berlusconi andare in Tribunale e farsi giudicare, as it is proclaimed innocent.
- It means, I answer, that "our" president loves the path longer and more fraught with obstacles. The winner, fighting and engaging parliament and the country, gives him more satisfaction.
know the object of the dispute, now you need to know "from whom". Stakeholders are Silvio Berlusconi, but the children know this too, and the State. Yes! Just the state, even when the Berlusconi and his "good (Manzoni has nothing to do)" legal claim that the other judges are, the better gowns colored red, which are sometimes referred to as subversive.
No wonder, everyone can have his reasons. Just show her the relevant institutional bodies.
We have identified the subject of the dispute and the parties involved, only now it's up to the arbitrators, because the decision has not yet been taken ... at least officially (1 Alfano, the one rejected by the Advisory, and the current cause for such failure, were the rejected the first and the second is due), that is, by constitutional law.
The arbitrators chosen by the team's defensive president of the Council are the Minister of Justice Alfano and parliament, but only a part, the majority of el'Udc Casini.
Now you get into confusion and apparent conflict of interest. Part of the parliament becomes a party Minister Alfano and both are looking for the right (?) trial. Alfano made the proposal and their parliament approves it. And the opposition, we're doing? Better than the other side of the parliament is called to assume the role?
I think that parliament is not empowered to judge anyone, nor may make the law unconstitutional, or delegitimize the judiciary, nor prevent the court of law to an Italian citizen, just for the fact that the Prime Minister.
The award, therefore, not praise. It is a passapartout that demeans the justice and constitution-abiding citizens. Instead of resorting to childish ruminations, the majority would do more look good if he declares that the "award" is used to their president should not be judged, taking full responsibility of the case.