2 ms·
> and when the president sued the governors and mayors to force them to obey the constitution, the supreme court literally ruled the Virus is so dangerous that
by cesarb 6y ago
> and when the president sued the governors and mayors to force them to obey the constitution, the supreme court literally ruled the Virus is so dangerous that ignoring the constitution and eroding rights is fine.
Do you have a reference for that? The closest I could find is ADI 6341 (http://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=5880765 http://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=588... which seems to be the one talked about by https://noticias.uol.com.br/saude/ultimas-noticias/redacao/2020/04/15/stf-tem-4-votos-a-favor-de-autonomia-de-governadores-durante-a-pandemia.htm https://noticias.uol.com.br/saude/ultimas-noticias/redacao/2...), but that was a party (Partido Democrático Trabalhista - PDT) suing the president, not the president suing anyone, so you must be talking about a different event.
- speeder 6y agoThat was one of the cases yes. Just so you understand the context: To prevent a dictator abusing executive powers to prevent protests and whatnot, the constitution allow quarantines and lockdowns only under very specific conditions: 1. Only the president can call for a lockdown, curfew or quarantine. 2. Only because of war or another very serious emergency. 3. After the president calls for it, the congress must approve or deny in 24 hours. 4. After congress approval, it must be approved by the Republic Council (it has people like the vice president, senate leader, minister of justice, etc...) And the Defense Council (it has in it ministers and commanders relates to military). The supreme court decision is extremely dangerous, because the way it works is that now mayors and governors can literally suspend a citizen basic rights (free movement, free speech, right to assembly, etc...)