Page 126 - Supplemento 2-2016 (ENG)

Prof. Paolo maddalena

On the contrary, however, it can be affirmed that for the so-called
“against-limitations” legal principle (which, in the case of Germany, the
German Constitutional Court has repeated with two well-known sentences) it
is sufficient to refer simply to the Constitution rather than to European treaties
as, in our case, it is a matter of the “violation of human rights”, caused by the
recession imposed on us by Europe and established by the Monti government.

At this point it is up to legal experts to demonstrate that the entire system,
described above, rests on feet of clay, as everything is based on “private pro-
perty”, conceived as an absolute and inviolable right, when the history of insti-
tutions of ownership and the republican Constitution in force demonstrate that
it is not private property but rather “collective property” of the people, which
had an “historical precedence” and still has a “constitutional prevalence” on
private property, that is “inviolable and sovereign”. This speaks volumes about
the impelling necessity to avoid “privatization” that takes from the many to give
to the few, and to eliminate the overestimation of the powers of private inte-
rests, demonstrating the constitutional priority of public interests and, above
all, the “subordination” of private ownership to “collective ownership”.

As for the history of the juridical institutes of ownership, it is appropriate
to refer to what happens legally when a “Community policy” is constituted.
Taking, for example, the founding of Rome, it appears evident that, with the
“fines regere” of Romulus, that is with the tracing of the boundaries of the
nascent Civitas Quiritaria, three fundamental legal phenomena came to light: a)
the human aggregate (constituted by the three tribes of the Ramnes, the Tities
and the Luceres) formed the “Populus” on the basis of another key concept,
that of “ part and of the whole”, according to which each civis was considered
a “structural part” of the People, that is of the People all together. It followed
that the action of the single citizen, as a member of the Community, brought
benefit to both single individuals and the Community as a whole; b) the terrain
marked out by the boundary became “territorium”, from the words “terrae
torus”, bed of earth, the place on which the People were to settle, with whom
a relationship of “belonging” of an almost personal type was established, in
that the territory belonging to the People had to be used in a just way and han-
ded on, intact or improved, to future generations. It was just that type of belon-

124