"There may be legislative initiative of citizens tax issues, character, Amnesty international and reprieve" (the Romanian Constitution, Art. 74, Al. 2).
At first reading of this paragraph there is a legitimate question: what is the justification for a restriction of citizens ' rights in a document intended to protect their rights? in the absence of a solid justification, such a provision would constitute an argument in favor of point of view according to which policy is the art to Prevent people to deal with what concerns them.
The Constitution represents the ensemble of principles and rules that organize the operation of political power for the purpose of reducing it. Separation of powers in the State is not the final goal of a Constitution but only the means through which limited political power over citizens. A Constitution that does not ensure effective limitation is devoid of meaning, and intellectual rigor undertakes to use another term to refer to that text.
From historical point of view, the texts and constitutional function-starting with the Magna Charta-focussed on limiting the monarchical power over its citizens (State) (nobles, Freemen and, in a lesser extent, those non-free). in their framework, taxation was a chapter always present. Rebellions, revolutions and wars of independence broke out because of tax abuses on the part of the authorities.
Article 90 of the Constitution of Romania stipulates that a referendum can be initiated only by the President, without having to remember the possibility of citizen initiatives in this respect. A liberal reading of this article would allow citizens to initiate a referendum because it is not forbidden by the law. Furthermore, according to article 29(2); 2, "national sovereignty belongs to the roman people, who exercised through its representative bodies established through periodic free elections and fair, as well as through referendum." interpreting the Constitution as forbidding citizens initiated referenda would mean actually as popular sovereignty is exercised (by referendum) only with the permission of the authorities (i.e. President): sovereignty that needs permission to someone else is a contradiction in terms. Like the Constitutional Court interpret article 90?
Citizens ' legislative initiative variant remains, but in this case, the decision belongs to the Parliament. This initiative may not involve tax matters but, among others.
That was the motivation for exclusion of taxation from the scope of application of the citizens ' legislative initiative? It was considered that Romanian citizens does not have the required education or competency to properly appreciate the consequences of their decisions in one area so complex? Or wanted to prevent the demagogic ignorance?
The first point is neconvingator and contradictory. He is neconvingator because, for example, the Constitution allows for a referendum in Switzerland in 1874, including in the field of taxation (50,000 citizens may seek a referendum for blocking any laws). I have considered constitutionali the Romans did the experts on their fellow citizens more involved or less intelligent than they were big food push urged a century ago? Point of view is contradictory because it recalled the taxation is an area less complex than others which are not explicitly excluded from the scope of the legislative popular initiative.
The second justification seems more legitimate since it is important to Fall as most of the tax burden to throw on a minorities. However, achieving this objective cannot be achieved by paragraph 2 of article 74 as legislative initiatives on citizens ' aren't the only ones who can be demagogic. What is annoying in that paragraph is that it Prevents an initiative of Proposal 13 ", the only method by which Californians (inspired by Ronald Reagan) have managed to reduce tax rates that atinsesera excessive levels.
Representative democracy mechanisms make groups of minority interests to wladigato and get privileges in the damage of the majority and of the general interest. This is possible because public spending are more visible than it is for their beneficiaries how their taxpayer funding. In other words, apply the "take a little bit of happy and give much to the few". The result is a tendency to increase public spending and taxes up to levels beyond optimality. The referendum appears as a means-perhaps the only-which can block this "ratchet effect" increasing public expenditure, taxes that are funded and hence the power of the State over its citizens.
If you accept the idea that the Constitution is meant to guarantee citizens ' rights and limit the power of the State over them, then among its provisions must include the right of citizens to take initiatives in the field of taxation. Even in these circumstances, the citizens would not be a tax shelter that their Governments voracitatea. Some additional protections would not be superfluous.
First of all, we can mention the cumulative limitative enumeration of taxes and fees that may be levied by the authorities. It would protect taxpayers from creativity in that area authorities. Secondly-article 128 of the Constitution also Switzerland-an indication of the percentage or maximum level that you can have every direct and indirect tax. Thirdly, to prevent the processing of tax referendums in a dezlantuire of invidiilor, it would be necessary for a reference to the principle of proportionality and universalitatii tax burdens. Social protection would thus be achieved by its public expenditure, not through tax differentiation prelevarilor. Article 56 which refers to the financial contributions it is neither sufficiently clear nor sufficiently protective to taxpayers ' rights. Thus, as a final guarantee, a mechanism should be provided for the revision of the asymmetrical tax system, so that increasing taxes to require validation of the referendum with a majority voting (2/3 or 3/4 for example), but their reduction (for all taxpayers) can be made with a simple majority, or parliamentary, either through a referendum initiated by citizens or by the President.
The problem of taxes cannot be dissociated from that of public expenditure and Government intervention level desired by the majority of voters. Maybe not everyone is aware that a Government that is strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough that I'll take everything you have. ultimately, the ability of a Constitution to protect the rights of its citizens depend on the values Shared by them and their ability to resist its temptations demagogic.