About the new Constitution of the Russian Federation: comments

After reviewing a part of the (small) comments from readers in an article about the “amendments” to the Constitution, I decided to continue the topic.

And the first thing that inspired me to do this was a demonstration of a complete misunderstanding of the issue by readers.

The main mass that lives in a constant struggle with the terrible disease “The First Channel of the Brain” and which comes to “VO” exclusively to express its Personal Opinion and show how damaged the author is is dedicated.

Instead of an epigraph:

"The author is a liberal of pure water .. in fact a traitor to the MOTHERLAND! who ever ran this article here? question to administrators .. WHO allowed a traitor to write an article here? the author is a lying parasite .... that climbs out who really writes articles here .... An article is custom-made pure water .. Constitutional changes it is IMPORTANT to vote for it MANDATORY! and to the author of the article there is a desire to solder the TIME for INFRASCIA and alarmism! ! "

Spelling and punctuation of the original are fully preserved.

The portrait of a true patriot is evident. It reminds me very much of one European country. There were such vogue performances from the rostrum and on the radio. How it ended, everyone remembers?

For almost 10 years of work at VO, I have long concluded for myself that there are a lot of smart people. That's just to speak, they are no longer torn in the front ranks, but this is understandable. Messi will not go to play Erchim for any money, even considering that this club is a 9-time champion. Mongolia, true, but still ... I think the analogy here is clear.

Therefore, it does not pull to argue and spend arguments.

But there is another. Here it is:

“Not a word about the ban on the alienation of the territories of Russia, the author is against this amendment, why are you silent. Not a word about the ban on foreign citizens being officials (ban on second citizenship). Not a word about an attempt to change the relationship between international norms and rules and Russian laws, if international is harmful to us, we are guided by our laws. So far, we are guided by the instructions of the IMF, RRB, etc. ”

Okay, there was an attempt made. Because - let's go.

So, about the alienation of territories. A very important point? No, it is clear that after introducing this paragraph into the Constitution, if Vanya Vetkin says / writes in Odnoklassniki that “they failed, the Kuril Islands”, Vanya will have to be imprisoned. As I understand it, this is exactly what the “patriots” want.

Excuse me, can Vanya give the Kuril Islands? Not. Is it stupid? Stupid.

And who can? No, is that real?

And let’s Khrushchev in the next world alone leave. He transferred this Crimea from one republic of the USSR to another. Another question that Yeltsin did not want to take ...

Or another moment. Rejection, transmission is bad. And when is it under the brand name of “demarcation” - how is it? Yes, I’m talking about September 5, 2010, when with a stroke of the pen, Medvedev and Putin suddenly gave the Norwegians 80 square kilometers of the shelf. Together with fishing grounds and oil reserves.

And do not say that Putin has "nothing to do with it, it’s Medvedev who is all a scoundrel." Medvedev, he poor fellow, only on Twitter could write something without the permission of his prime minister.

And the islands on the Amur? Ah, demarcation too ...

Here, in fact, is the answer to the question: how to give territory correctly, if you really want to. Already itchy when. Demarcation. At the request of the “one”, the parties specified, measured and so on.

So ... All these screams somehow don't look very good. To ban the tearing away of the territory suddenly decided by those who gave them quite normally. Yes, at first they gave it away, then it was banned. In addition to demarcation. The loophole remained, otherwise in general “bees against honey” turned out.

Second part. International law and the rejection of its prevalence over national.

I don’t know why everyone was so excited about this business. I don’t “understand”, but I don’t know how to eat it. Because from a legal point of view, you can make different calculations, but without international legal organizations you can’t get far.

I repeat and quote my reader again:

“Not a word about an attempt to change the relationship between international norms and rules and Russian laws, if international is harmful to us, we are guided by our laws. So far, we are guided by the instructions of the IMF, RRB, etc. ”

The reader has piled together international law and international financial institutions.

Meanwhile, existing international norms are not ignored, but do not govern the domestic legal systems in most countries of the world.

So, in the United States in the event of a conflict between the rule of international law and domestic law (and in particular a precedent), the judge will always be guided by the latter. In the UK, a judge has no competence to apply international law if it does not comply with national law. If in France an international obligation contains a provision contrary to the constitution, then permission to ratify or approve it can be given only after a constitutional review.

Who is against this? Yes, no one. I do not mind, although some readers attribute it to me.

Another question: when does it work?

Perhaps it is worth recalling what the Constitution is. She, the Constitution, is defined as The basic Law, and all other normative acts, laws, rules that apply in the territory of the Russian Federation, must not contradict it.

You see, if, say, an international treaty contradicts the Constitution of the Russian Federation, then the Constitution is in force. And no one in the world will say anything, everyone has the same thing.

Yes, of course, the supremacy of the Constitution is wonderful. The whole secret here is that the Constitution, as our American partners say, is not a self-fulfilling law. Her, darling, it is necessary to execute. But it’s more difficult to get to the Constitutional Court here than to reach Berlin in 1941.

And in general, many were faced with the fact that on the basis of foreign laws they were inconvenient? Did many feel Uncle Sam's heavy hand on his neck? International law and international laws strangling our weak Constitution?

I understand that there is a definition of international law. But, alas, there is neither an international criminal code in it, nor any other. International law is a set of agreements and national laws of all countries.

There is, of course, the International Criminal Court in The Hague. But he operates with concepts that are in the legislation of any normal country: genocide, war crimes and so on.

UN International Court of Justice. Also an interesting organization.

When considering a case and making decisions, the Court applies the sources of law, which are defined in article 38 of its Statute:
- international conventions and treaties;
- international custom;
- general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
- court decisions and doctrines of the most qualified specialists in international law.

In addition, if the parties to the dispute agree, the Court may decide the case on the basis of the principle ex aequo et bono, that is, in fairness, without limiting itself to the applicable rules of international law.

And the most interesting.

It seems to many of our readers that if the Constitution is prescribed that international law does not prevail over national law, it will somehow be able to solve all the problems. Say, we don’t recognize, we are sending, we are all so proud and independent that right now we will calibrate everyone!

Yeah ... And who will tell me why Gazprom, having lost the court with Naftogaz, losing slippers, rushed to transfer money? Yes, and considering that cheap got off?

We are all so cool ... With Caliber!

Everything is simple. There are international standards under which ALL parties to proceedings are required to act. And if one of the parties decides that international law is for the wimps, then be sure that this side will be immediately understood.

And not aircraft carriers.

If Gazprom, having lost the court of last resort to Naftogaz, refused to pay, then it would simply run into the confiscation of its assets on the territory of those countries that are civilized. And given the fact that it’s kind of like a state-owned company, it could easily be possible to seize any property of the Russian Federation around the world against Gazprom’s legal debts.

And if someone does not believe, then I advise you to recall how the embassies in the United States were closed.

To summarize, I can say the following. The coolest country in terms of democracy, the United States, has 7 articles in the Constitution. And it’s very, I note, that it lives quite well.

For comparison: the Indian Constitution consists of 465 articles, 12 major annexes, more than 70 amendments.

It’s not a question, you can fuck everything in the constitution. At least a change of signals at a traffic light. Anything. The constitution becomes the basic law only when it is strictly implemented. And it is not a toy for everyone who can afford to reach it.

So far, in Russia it turns out that way. A huge number of amendments are aimed solely at ensuring the rule of those who today really have power in Russia. That is, the oligarchy.

Want an example? Easy.

Central Bank type regulator. Which should be the first to guard the interests of the ruble. So far, for all of her rule, Ms. Nabiullina has fulfilled ONE promise: to let the ruble go into free fall and not support it.

He, sickly, has since fallen. The only question is how quickly it will reach 100 per dollar. In what comes - no doubt. All prerequisites are created.

Of course, gentlemen, our patriots are sure that as soon as the Constitution of the Russian Federation is added that the Central Bank is obliged to take care of the ruble exchange rate, it will immediately become 30 per dollar.

Well, dream it is not forbidden.

No, it’s clear that agents of the State Department were to blame for the catastrophic fall of the ruble, who pushed Novak out of the OPEC meeting room and broke his pen so that he couldn’t sign anything.

The best slogan: “vote, or lose.” The funniest thing is that they vote. And they lose. With the stubbornness of neighbors whose rake dances are national fun. But at least they can afford to experiment with the presidents. What if you're lucky?

Unlucky. But ours do not even try. What for?

We must accept the amendments, because Putin so wanted - we will accept. Without going into details that 97% of the Constitution is dedicated to the fact that a handful of politicians and oligarchs will rule almost forever. What for? The main thing is that the family will only be treated as a union of a man and a woman. There are no other problems in Russia, right? And God is officially recognized.

Dual citizenship will be banned for officials ... Wow, what a progressive step ... God, whoever needs it, whoever steals, he just then, having vacated his chair, will buy this citizenship and calmly leave there, to live honestly worked out.

Chubais does not have a second citizenship. No, Nabiullina. No, Medvedev. No Gref. No Sechin. No Serdyukov. Do you feel better, gentlemen, patriots? I have listed, it turns out, the most worthy and honest, who do not have citizenship other than Russian. Everything is fine, we are building a crowd and bring down a bright future.

Well, or accept the new Constitution. Because, it turns out, it’s important to accept all the amendments. Of course, it’s important. The only question is to whom.

After all, everything is already thought out, it remains only to vote. For the Constitution, which undoubtedly, as soon as it is adopted, it will make everyone rich and drag it into a brighter future.

Gentlemen, doesn’t it bother you that the same people as 10 years ago will execute the Constitution? And they will obviously perform in exactly the same way?

It doesn’t bother. Clear.

For the rest, who are not among them, I will allow myself to give only one call to action. Think. Think and draw conclusions. The conclusions are primarily about how much what is being declared today is in line with expectations and reality. How much can you believe those who do things like pension robbery, Plato, games with the ruble and gas prices that grow only in Russia. And further down the list.

Think. For smart people, perhaps the future.
Photos used:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in