Of course, in any rule of law, when law and the state clash, it always loses law. It is not in vain that the State defines what the law is. In the States under the dictatorship, the oxymoron trap of the term the rule of law is evident. However, in democracies, the concept is a viral micro-zombie, an invisible poison embedded.

What is happening in Navarre with the updating of foreign civil law: As the Spanish Constitution defines the rule of law as a democratic deficit, the presumed constitutionalists have decided that certain provisions of the reform of our civil law clash with the Constitution, with the current Spanish rule of law. Interestingly, the PSOE at state level and Podemos have decided that it is unconstitutional and to bring to the courts of the Constitution that Navarre reform agreed between all Navarros parties, including their affiliates and experts.

A microscope or distorting glasses are what you see below. The rule of law of the Constitution is the distorting microscope that makes historic rights a unique guarantee of democracy and so outdated. As if all rights were not historical, that is, originated by history, by the circumstances of the past, either pacts of peace or disagreement, or political and social achievements, whatever they may be, and equally eliminated in one way or another, legitimately or in a perfidious way. The Constitutions themselves are historic, that is, obsolete as the “historical rights”, if they become so to speak.

The rule of law of the Spanish Constitution endorsed the Navarros historical rights, the civil law of the construction of the Navarros. The question is therefore inevitable (and as naïve as it is inconceivable after it has pronounced on the clash between the state and the law, but it is naive questions that often disturb the wisdom of the experts more deeply): What is more unconstitutional, the reform of our civil law, or the distorting microscope of the Spanish Government?