Talk:Aníbal Cavaco Silva
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
Protect for a while?
Someone set this page protected and it was reverted. Wouldn't it be reasonable to effectively protect this page for a while? It has been much vandalized since the electins... --Rotring 14:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Protection is a last resort. There does not seem to be an overwhelming amount of vandalism on this article. Now, while the news is fresh, is a time when many contributors might add new information to the article. We just need to be vigilant. --Nelson Ricardo 17:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Article cleanup needed?
I was reading this article (the reason was pending legislation on same-gender marriage), but I noticed that most of the article feels like a translation of the original Portuguese. I think some clean up is needed to make it more syntactically correct in English. Thanks Reidca (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The article refers to a few 'controversial' moments in Silva's presidency. Neither are these supposed controversies backed up with citations or do they seem especially controversial. For example:
The assembly of the republic passes a bill for the holding of a pre-legislative referendum on the legalisation of abortion in Portugal…
Bill is approved by parliament (no word is given to whether this itself was controversial, drawn out or approved by an unusually narrow margin). The bill is for a pre-legislative referendum.
So in essence the elected representatives of Portugal table and pass a bill for a public vote for the legalisation of abortion. The President's omission to veto the bill which would override both the legislature and judiciary is somehow considered controversial. Surely it would be controversial for the President to overrule both the chamber of elected representatives and the highest court in the land which found the bill constitutional.
This is compounded by the fact that the bill was not even to legalise abortion itself but merely to put the question to the people directly by holding a referendum.
Even when the supposedly controversial referendum went ahead barely a quorum of the electorate responded. Surely if the issue itself was controversial (ie. giving rise to public disagreement) then the turnout would be extremely high?
Of those who voted a majority voted for legalisation. Undermining the notion that legalisation of abortion is a controversial issue for Portugal, but that is entirely besides the point. What is intimated in the article is that not that legalisation of abortion is a controversial issue in Portugal but that the President's decision not to veto a bill is controversial.
I find it hard to accept that a decision or non-decision not to veto can be considered controversial in these circumstances.
The article goes on to state (almost incredulously) that President chose not to wield his veto power when the low-turnout of the referendum rendered it non-binding. Is this noteworthy? Do we expect all Presidents to veto wherever possible? Just because he could of used his veto doesn't give us any reason to believe that it is noteworthy that he didn't.
Similar arguments can be applied to the case of the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Portugal. Why is it controversial that he chose not to veto a bill that parliament had passed? It isn't a case of 'to veto or not to veto'. Its not a dilemma that the President faces whenever a law is about to be passed. As far as I'm aware you don't veto unless you have strong constitutional (or other) grounds to fly in the face of the elected majority and supreme court. It is a part of the checks and balances of the system of government in Portugal, not a mere alternative to assent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)