Military Review

Does Russia need a new constitution?

106
With all the doubts of skeptics, the political life of the country is surprisingly surprising for its diversity. The Udaltsov calls to go outside and stand until the time when the power in the Kremlin passes into the hands of the “right” political forces had barely subsided as soon as Ksenia Sobchak managed to return her honestly earned 1,5 million euros, and the barely scandalous punk band managed for everything Of the “progressive” West to appear as “prisoners of conscience,” as a surprising political activity has suddenly manifested itself on a completely different flank.


We are talking about a round table held not so long ago within the walls of the State Duma, which bore the rather intriguing title “The Constitution as the basis of sovereignty”. The main actor who opened the round table was the Russian legislator, a member of the Duma faction of United Russia, the state adviser of the Russian Federation, Yevgeny Fedorov. He invited all those present to express their views on the modern Russian Constitution, which is the main Russian law since 1993.

It would seem that if the meeting itself is opened by a deputy from the United Russia party, and also by a member of its Central Political Council, then in the statements of those gathered about the current Constitution one can hardly expect critical notes. However, during the speeches of the audience, it was heard not that critical notes, but a whole alarm, the sound of which boiled down to the fact that the current version of the basic Russian law is simply unacceptable for Russian citizens, that is, for each of the participants, and, accordingly, for each of us. At the same time, it seemed that after a speech criticizing the Constitution, the next speaker would have a different point of view. But the speakers replaced each other, and the more time passed since the discussion began, the more it became clear that the so-called round table turned out to be a very filtered audience, which was completely inclined to believe that the Constitution should certainly be changed.

Surprisingly at the table turned out to be the person who brought with him, as much as possible, the draft of the new Russian Constitution, printed in a printed version. This man appeared Stepan Sulakshin, who is the Director General of the organization called "Center for Problem Analysis and State-Management Design." By the way, on the website of the organization headed by S.Sulakshin, there is a description of such work as the “Scientific model of the new Constitution of Russia”.

Mr. Sulakshin in a very original form told the audience that the current basic law is simply useless, because many points are not spelled out in it, which, in the opinion of the expert, necessarily require clarification. In particular, Sulakshin says that it is necessary not only to indicate that Russia is a sovereign state, but also to carefully state what this very sovereignty is, because the absence of such a concept supposedly gives rise to the prosperity of all kinds of extremist organizations. In his “Constitution”, Stepan Stepanovich explains in detail what sovereignty is, and also gives detailed and frankly ornate definitions of other common notions. At the same time, the author himself is frankly proud that the new Constitution he prepared is three times more “old”, and, apparently, she should have more chances to turn out to be the main law in Russia ...

Of course, no one thinks to doubt the talent of Stepan Sulakshin, but, frankly, neither the “new Constitution” itself, nor many of its provisions, evoke proper piety. Here is how Mr. Sulakshin himself defines the “stuffing” of the prepared document and other authors from the organization he heads:

"A substantive and legal-technical methodology for constructing a constitution, which embodies an identical logical-mathematicized success algorithm applicable for each country, is proposed."


If this phrase is intended to explain to the ordinary average Russian the meaning of the new Constitution, then you can only say one thing: it's time to drain the water ... It is terrible to imagine how grandmothers will be separated from the shops at the entrances, or ordinary workers in the shops of the factories try to understand this document, which is “legal” -technical "and even in the appendage and" identical logical and mathematized. " Here, with the current basic law, the problems of understanding are present for many, and the work of the Center for Problem Analysis will be a complete stupor.

But even if we try to reject all this terminological plaque, which Stepan Sulakshin (the author of the draft of the “new Constitution”) skillfully presented, then many of the provisions of this document and in the usual reading raise questions.

Firstly, it is completely incomprehensible why the risk of extremism and separatism in Russia should come to naught if Stepan Stepanovich takes and even prescribes what “Russian sovereignty” is in his work. Are bearded terrorists hiding in the mountain forests of the North Caucasus, or their Saudi sponsors, conduct their anti-state activities, referring exclusively to the Russian Constitution? Like, aha! - there is no necessary definition in the basic law - it means, where are the suicide bombers there? - Here they all! But there would be definitions - then, no, no ...

Secondly, Mr. Sulakshin announces that the Constitution should prescribe a mechanism for public evaluation of the activities of the country's president with the possibility of public warnings about the incompatibility of the position. Based on these public assessments, in the opinion of the same author of the draft, it is possible to declare to the president three times that his work does not comply with certain defining norms and rules, after which he is called impeachment. However, in this case it is not clear what the “public assessment” means. It may be necessary to convene a popular assembly in the squares of Russian cities. But such, excuse me, “veche” we have lately been associated with far from the majority opinion, but with the far-fetched principles cast off from the outside. It may be that this is a parliamentary assessment of the president’s activities, but Russia is for the time being clearly not the country where the opinion of parliament embodies the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Russian citizens.

Mr. Sulakshin and others gathered agreed that, since the current Constitution was adopted in the 1993 year (in the Yeltsin era), it must be immediately dumped stories. The current Constitution was called frankly Russophobic, because the word “Russian” appears only once in it, and even then with reference to the concept “Russian language”. At the same time, everyone agreed on the opinion that the phrase “Russian people and other nations” should be used. This would supposedly be much more accurate in defining the essence of the Russian Federation.

No, of course, the idea of ​​promoting the Russian nation is understandable, because it was the Russian nation that acted and is the state-forming factor. But on the other hand, Russia is a multinational and multiconfessional state (true, according to the current version of the basic law). It is interesting how the authors of the new idea would react to the phrase “and other nations” if they themselves belonged to these peoples. It turns out that if the current Constitution is Russophobic, then it is also a Chechen-phobian, and Udmurtophobian, and Tatarophobian, as there are no references to these and other peoples in it. Then the new project is openly discriminatory. Yes, the concept of “representative of another nation” is clearly alarming for any adequate ethnic Russian citizen of Russia.

Interestingly, during the round table, the question was raised about the so-called Russian viability curve. According to the schedule presented in the consultative hall of the State Duma, where the round table was held, it turns out that today's Russia is at about the same level of social and political development and state viability, which corresponds to 1800 year ... In other words, our country, judging by historical analogies, very soon enters a large-scale war ... It’s hard to say where such “analytical” assessments came from, but this is not even the main thing. The main thing is that the United Russia deputy, reflecting on the information of the presented schedule, declares that it is necessary to change the Constitution, of course, but today the level of our political development does not allow it. They say that we are almost on the verge of a “Napoleonic” war, and therefore we just need to wait a little for its completion, and then go ahead, Mr. Sulakshin with his project ...

In general, you can continue to describe the events that took place during the discussion in the State Duma 11 of October 2012, but the fact is that it looked like all this strange performance. The performance is clearly delayed, since in the 140 minute one of its participants even "pecked a nose", apparently, under the flood of dreams about a new constitutional system of Russia ... At the same time, it is not even clear what the purpose of this performance is. After all, by and large, it was observed that those gathered in the building of the Russian Parliament calmly discussed plans for either a coup or pressure on the public to reconsider the principles of the existence of the Russian state.

It’s just that everyone who gathered at the same round table needs to be reminded that games to change the Constitution for any convenient and uncomfortable occasion do not lead to anything good. Even if there are any complaints about the existing basic law, then redrawing this law completely is a step close to counterproductive. In the end, if you write new Constitutions once in 15-20 years and once in 15-20 years to accept them, then our country will be thrown out of the fire and into the fire. What is the basis of sovereignty here ...
Author:
106 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. zadotov
    zadotov 20 October 2012 09: 20 New
    0
    must observe the old! cancel all recent amendments and changes, the constitution should be a dogma, not a drawbar. All amendments and changes from the evil one
    1. YARY
      YARY 20 October 2012 09: 30 New
      +5
      To begin with, we need a constitution of RUSSIA!
      1. vanya
        vanya 20 October 2012 12: 00 New
        +13
        as we unite, so we will adopt the constitution
      2. Hon
        Hon 20 October 2012 14: 09 New
        +12
        Actually, we have the Russian Federation, not Russia. If there is a constitution of Russia, then claims to secession of our national republics will be justified. Forward!!! Let's put the integrity of the state at risk ...
        1. nikoli25
          nikoli25 20 October 2012 14: 15 New
          +16
          but the constitution still needs to be changed, it was written on the advice of the United States, it is necessary to rewrite without them.
          1. zadotov
            zadotov 20 October 2012 14: 45 New
            +2
            What is the use of any constitution if each next president does not think how to observe it, but sleeps and sees how to change it for himself? with such a piece of paper, even if it was written by God, you can only wipe it-through three presidents it will not look like the original source i.e. clean

            my koment above was bombarded by people who will not please
            1. crazyrom
              crazyrom 20 October 2012 23: 48 New
              +3
              Quote:
              What is the use of any constitution if each next president does not think how to observe it, but sleeps and sees how to change it for himself? with such a piece of paper, even if it was written by God, you can only wipe it-through three presidents it will not look like the original source i.e. clean

              my koment above was bombarded by people who will not please


              Comrade, you don’t understand anything. If you are truly a patriot and wish your country good, then watch the video and learn, you will learn a lot. Also watch the video of Evgeny Fedorov himself (efedorov.ru). The new constitution is not for itself, but for the Russian people (and the old one is for the USA!), So you need to change it, watch the video and you will understand.
              1. Botanologist
                Botanologist 21 October 2012 20: 24 New
                +1
                The new constitution is not for itself, but for the Russian people (and the old one is for the USA!), So you need to change it, watch the video and you will understand.
                To begin with, the money from the work of Sulakshin was given by a gentleman from Russian Railways. And since Russian Railways is a natural monopoly, it is clear that money gave power.
                I had a conversation with Sulakshin. And the draft of his scribble came to me last year. Frankly speaking, there are much more questions than answers. I mean the legal technique.
                And finally, I suppose that this event is aimed more at changing the constitution in general than at considering a specific document. I think there will be many more options, and from more intelligent people.
                And what about the current constitution - and what's the point in its quality of writing, if the laws directly contradict it. In particular, the Constitution states that the only source of power is the people of Russia. And in laws, political parties are indirectly a source of power (only they can nominate governors, deputies, etc.).
                As V.I. Lenin wrote, it is formally correct, and judging by sheer mockery.
          2. Hon
            Hon 20 October 2012 22: 31 New
            0
            And what exactly needs to be changed in our constitution?
            1. crazyrom
              crazyrom 20 October 2012 23: 53 New
              +5
              Simple 3 examples:
              1) in the current constitution - the central bank is not controlled by the government (but controlled by the US Federal Reserve). It must be controlled by the government.
              2) Under the current constitution, natural resources do not belong to Russia. Therefore, the company produces oil and sells at its discretion, and the state pays miserable taxes. But it is necessary that all oil and so on belong to the state, and the company is only paid for the work of production.
              3) By constitution, we do not have the right to have an ideology - but we must have. Look, Putin is talking about ideology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9eut5ycflt0 (11 minutes)

              examples are still full, see the video in the article, very worth it.
              1. Saburov
                Saburov 21 October 2012 00: 57 New
                -2
                Are you talking nonsense, have you ever read the constitution at least once? The Constitution is the legal framework and provisions on which the state relies; there are no laws and regulations, and even more so about the bank, oil, etc., so do not panic.
              2. Hon
                Hon 21 October 2012 01: 58 New
                +1
                Have you read the constitution at all? About the central bank in the constitution, only one article says four lines. There is a law "On the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Bank of Russia)" If something needs to be changed in the activities of the central bank, then you need to change this law, and not rewrite the constitution.
                Chapter 1. Fundamentals of the constitutional order (Art. 1-16)
                Chapter 2. Rights and freedoms of man and citizen (Art. 17-64)
                Chapter 3. Federated device (Art. 65-79)
                Chapter 4. President of the Russian Federation (Art. 80-93)
                Chapter 5. Federal Assembly (Art. 94-109)
                Chapter 6. Government of the Russian Federation (Art. 110-117)
                Chapter 7. Judicial branch (Art. 118-129)
                Chapter 8. Local government (Art. 130-133)
                Chapter 9. Constitutional amendments and revision of the Constitution (article 134-137)
                Where do you think the constitution says about natural resources? Again, there are special laws. And by the way, under these laws, all natural resources belong to the Russian Federation.
                1. Saburov
                  Saburov 21 October 2012 11: 35 New
                  -1
                  So even then it is respected, the constitution, if you do not take legal jargon, is a state’s construction, in other words, the foundation, log house, roof + 10 ares and a restroom on the street and whoever lives there must shit in the restroom and sleep in the house, cook in the kitchen and It’s worked on hundreds, in fact these are the main provisions and legislative requirements, the constitution can be twisted and twisted as you like, if you know what I mean, and laws about banks, about oil, who receives from them, and from whom they receive, this is written down in other bad places))
                  PS I agree with one that our constitution was written under the dictation of s and much is not perfect there.
          3. valton
            valton 22 October 2012 18: 11 New
            +1
            That's right. Eltsin’s constitution was written on the recommendations of the “comrades” from the State Department. And until it is changed, until then, Russia will remain a vassal of these "comrades."

            Article -100.
        2. YARY
          YARY 20 October 2012 17: 13 New
          +3
          Excuse me, or Gon, but I would like to use Russian and first name
          And how did Russia exist until 1917?
          In my opinion there were no problems?
          The need for unification has been shouting with good obscenities for a long time. Unfairly cut borders (let Ukraine hiccup) give a false feeling among the rulers in the "republics" about some kind of their legitimacy. And they are pushing for thoughts of baseless independence! We must not follow the "disease "ah, go into her forehead!
          A unified state is one and united, a fact.
          1. Hon
            Hon 20 October 2012 22: 54 New
            -6
            Border issues are resolved without much interference with the constitution. Before 1917, there were a lot of problems in Russia, and two revolutions are proof of this. Independence is not so unfounded, assuming that Russia is Russia but not Ukraine should be annexed to Russia, but Russia to Ukraine. Let me remind you that Tatarstan, the republics of the North Caucasus, Chukotka, etc. were forcibly attached to Russia. How do you imagine the cohesion of a multinational state if one nation is singled out in it, as a titular nation? This is the basis for nationalism! Expressions like "go head-on" are beautifully written, but in life everything is not so beautiful and smooth.
    2. Chemist
      Chemist 20 October 2012 10: 31 New
      +15
      - You obviously didn’t read the constitution or figured out what I’m reading. I see a fig, an example: Article 13 h. 2. On the prohibition of having idiology. Only enemies could write it, those who know how to look far into the distance (I hint at the Americans) They wrote it for us from America with a love in 1993.
      CHANGE SHOULD BE UNIVERSAL.
      The article completely distorts the round table by 150%.
      1. Chemist
        Chemist 20 October 2012 11: 04 New
        +6
        And here is the RESULT of the round table 2 basic laws related to suverinet:
        1 Prohibition of having accounts and real estate for officials and relatives, including svatya-baba-barih. Here it is clear who keeps the money and you listen to music.
        2 On the nationalization of the Central Bank, it just affects the constitution.
        The article is distorted.
      2. zadotov
        zadotov 20 October 2012 15: 35 New
        -5
        what ideology do you need, who will develop the ideology, who will follow the right course, what will happen to those who are not happy with your ideology - please answer these questions before changing the constitution

        PS I read, one of the best constitutions with honest government
        1. B_O_B
          B_O_B 20 October 2012 18: 28 New
          +3
          Why create an ideology if there is a Concept of Public Security, which took place in parliamentary hearings in November 1995 and was recommended by deputies for implementation? Only now in power so far our (real patriots) are in the minority. But we are moving in the right direction, carrying out a weak maneuver.
          1. crazyrom
            crazyrom 21 October 2012 00: 00 New
            +1
            Our president explains why ideology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9eut5ycflt0 (11 minutes)
        2. Botanologist
          Botanologist 21 October 2012 20: 31 New
          0
          I read too. I doubt that it will be a living document. A lot of theory, a lot of norms with an unclear interpretation, duplication, definitions are not clearly spelled out. The document is very weak in terms of legal technology. Rather political.
      3. Van
        Van 20 October 2012 16: 36 New
        0
        My opinion about the Constitution is as follows: the Constitution is a certain code (foundation) of laws that is built (by blood) of the nation, for its unconditional compliance, in which the basic laws on self-determination, freedom, equality, religion and justice are observed ...

        Well, actually, something like that. what
      4. crazyrom
        crazyrom 20 October 2012 23: 58 New
        +3
        Indeed, the article is practically liberal, distorting and ridiculing instead of explaining. Watch the video, there is much more truth.
    3. ughhh
      ughhh 20 October 2012 11: 09 New
      +7
      must observe the old! discard all recent amendments and changes

      To you with the author on a minus. The author either intentionally does not understand the importance of the decisions made and discussed, or a provocateur. His hehanki, but hahanki are unclear to me.
      You minus, because sculpt nonsense, not guided by the issue. This is called a trepak.
      1. zadotov
        zadotov 20 October 2012 15: 19 New
        -1
        in which question? what questions do you have about the Constitution? for example, everything suited me until article 81 was changed, technical amendments are fine there about changes, something in the name of the federal lands, etc., the last chapter (sorry, I don’t remember reading 2 years ago) but the change the basics! Tomorrow a new gentleman will come to change the article where it says that the church is separated from the state and oply! some Mr. Churov says on TV that we now have the Theocracy, and even without Churov! so does that mean navigating the issue? OR, in another way, a flexible approach.
    4. npv554f
      npv554f 20 October 2012 23: 15 New
      +3
      Amendments and amendments to the Constitution, mainly, with the exception of one (Law of the Russian Federation on amendment of the Constitution of the Russian Federation of December 30, 2008 N 6-FKZ), relate to the names and borders of the subjects of the federation. But the amendment on the terms of office of the president and deputies GD dated December 30, 2008 N 6-FKZ should not be adopted. But there is one article in the Constitution, for the change of which I would vote with both hands. I think that would be the overwhelming majority of the population of our country. This is Article 9
      1. Land and other natural resources are used and protected in the Russian Federation as the basis of the life and activities of the peoples living in the relevant territory.
      2. Land and other natural resources may be in private, state, municipal and other forms of ownership.
      I would state paragraph 2 of this article, as it was spelled out in the Constitution of the USSR: “Article 11. ...
      The exclusive property of the state are: land,
      its bowels, water, forests ... "
      1. St Petrov
        St Petrov 21 October 2012 15: 50 New
        +2
        thanks to the constitution and such a national bank. billion a day



        1. St Petrov
          St Petrov 21 October 2012 15: 54 New
          0
          [media=http://vk.com/id1305011?z=video-38121615_163687937/7c7b4d7f79c2b41534]

          root cause
  2. omsbon
    omsbon 20 October 2012 09: 21 New
    -5
    A big bunch of loafers!
  3. gorkoxnumx
    gorkoxnumx 20 October 2012 09: 30 New
    -16
    The constitution cannot be changed !!!
    1. Gorchakov
      Gorchakov 20 October 2012 11: 18 New
      +12
      Quote: gorko83
      The constitution cannot be changed !!!

      The constitution that the enemies of Russia's sovereignty wrote after their victory in the Cold War needs to be rewritten !!! I think that Russia should become a strong STATE with a strong Sovereignty and with strong ambitions, enshrined in a strong fundamental Law of the country ...
      1. zadotov
        zadotov 20 October 2012 16: 00 New
        -1
        How does our Russian constitution prevent Russia from becoming a strong STATE?
        1. Gorchakov
          Gorchakov 20 October 2012 17: 10 New
          +1
          Quote:
          How does our Russian constitution prevent Russia from becoming a strong STATE?

          The current Russian Constitution has killed the Russian STATE .... !!!
        2. Botanologist
          Botanologist 21 October 2012 20: 37 New
          +2
          Well, for example, international treaties in Russia take precedence over national laws. We accepted some proposal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol - and tomorrow the guys from Geneva will take us for the eggs for non-compliance.
          In the USA, by the way, no international law can be applied if it is contrary to local law (including state law).
          This is so that you better understand the sovereignty and power of the state. I can continue, if interested.
          1. donchepano
            donchepano 22 October 2012 08: 39 New
            0
            continue in more detail
      2. donchepano
        donchepano 22 October 2012 08: 38 New
        0
        if you change the constitution, it’s only for the people’s, prepared from the people and not from above from the Kremlin. Again will be directed against the people
  4. valerakuz
    valerakuz 20 October 2012 09: 39 New
    +22
    In 1993, the constitution was written under the dictation of American advisers. Everyone knows that. So, make a conclusion ...........
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 20 October 2012 10: 39 New
      +8
      Quote: valerakuz

      In 1993, the constitution was dictated by American advisers

      There was a matter, and it seemed even at their expense. According to our constitution (I do not know how much the situation has changed now), natural resources were removed from state ownership.
      1. Chemist
        Chemist 20 October 2012 11: 09 New
        +6
        They were withdrawn, but in 2003 Putin canceled, (won) The law "On Production Sharing" was called, or more simply, Looting for all important resources. Could not recapture Sakhalin 1 and Sakhalin 2. Deposits controlled by Shell (USA) and do not bring us income.
        1. Karish
          Karish 20 October 2012 16: 46 New
          +3
          Quote: Chemist
          Could not recapture Sakhalin 1 and Sakhalin 2. Deposits controlled by Shell (USA) and do not bring us income

          On April 18, Sakhalin Energy shareholders conclude a sale and purchase agreement with Gazprom (Gazprom), in accordance with which the transfer of shares to Sakhalin Energy is carried out. In accordance with the new composition of Sakhalin Energy shareholders, Gazprom's stake is 50% plus one share, Shell - 27,5%, Mitsui - 12,5%, Mitsubishi - 10%. Sakhalin Energy retains its status as the operator of the Sakhalin-2 project, which will continue to be implemented on the basis of the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA), signed in 1994 between the Russian Federation and the company

          Gazprom 50% +1 share. Probably the questions have disappeared? Who owns
          In early 2011, Sakhalin Energy became the only Russian company to selected by the UN to participate in a new platform for sustainable corporate leadership - Global Compact LEAD.
          January The first well for the development of the oil rim at the Lunskoye field was completed.
          March Sakhalin Energy led the UN Global Compact Network in Russia - Andrey Galaev, Chief Executive Officer of the company, was elected Chairman of the Steering Committee of the UN Global Compact Network in Russia.
          1. donchepano
            donchepano 22 October 2012 08: 42 New
            0
            people clearly do not belong.
            Here in Turkmenistan, probably something for the people. there gas is free for the population
            1. ATY
              ATY 22 October 2012 14: 02 New
              -1
              And there people pay pensions or live in old age on money deferred from payment for gas
      2. Karish
        Karish 20 October 2012 16: 42 New
        0
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        natural resources were removed from state ownership.

        Not quite so, natural resources (such as land, forests, water) and minerals of federal importance are owned by the state.
        1. donchepano
          donchepano 22 October 2012 08: 43 New
          0
          then the gas should have a purely symbolic price-a penny.
          And why is it 4 rubles per cube
  5. Joker
    Joker 20 October 2012 09: 47 New
    -6
    They saw there is nothing? Already crap suffer. And so there is an excellent constitution, only to achieve compliance with it from everyone and everyone invents a bicycle sit. A trivial cut, in the case of making changes, you will have to spend money, by analogy with the police-police, they replaced one letter, for which I had to change tons of documentation, and this is a lot of money. They want to drink, how to give a drink.
    1. Chemist
      Chemist 20 October 2012 10: 35 New
      +4
      This is one side of the coin, but to the other in the law on the Central Bank, on the status of the bank, it refers to its non-membership in the Russian Federation specified in the constitution. Not a resident.
      1. zadotov
        zadotov 21 October 2012 18: 55 New
        -3
        Why are you attached to the Central Bank by God? here you are told about the basic principles of rights, freedoms, civil duties, well- the Central Bank belongs to the Russian Federation further what ???
      2. Hon
        Hon 22 October 2012 12: 00 New
        +1
        Quote: Chemist
        This is one side of the coin, but to the other in the law on the Central Bank, on the status of the bank, it refers to its non-membership in the Russian Federation specified in the constitution. Not a resident.

        What are you talking about? !!!
        Art. 75 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation:

        1. The monetary unit in the Russian Federation is the ruble. Monetary issue is carried out exclusively by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. Introduction and issue of other money in the Russian Federation are not allowed.

        2. Protecting and ensuring the stability of the ruble is the main function of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, which it exercises independently of other government bodies.

        3. The system of taxes levied on the federal budget and the general principles of taxation and fees in the Russian Federation are established by federal law.

        4. State loans are issued in the manner determined by federal law and are placed on a voluntary basis.

        With what recession did you see that the central bank does not belong to the Russian Federation? He is not dependent on other government bodies, these are different things !!!
  6. marsavin.yu
    marsavin.yu 20 October 2012 10: 13 New
    +11
    Not a patriot wrote ...
    1. NAV-STAR
      NAV-STAR 20 October 2012 13: 17 New
      +3
      He wrote a bad storyteller in an artistic style, pulled out an incomprehensible pharmacy and dances around it, and does not even touch on the main topics of conversation (about the Central Bank, about ideology, about the rights and obligations of citizens ......). The author is a mediocre provocateur.
  7. kasper
    kasper 20 October 2012 10: 14 New
    +1
    The new constitution may not be necessary, but the old must be significantly improved.
  8. iulai
    iulai 20 October 2012 10: 27 New
    0
    someone, for some reason, wants to rewrite for themselves. what kind of country we have, such as the new owner comes, so the history and constitution begin to be rewritten. no stability. Thanks to Lyudmila Putin, otherwise they already began to remake the Russian language. Moscow loafers constantly itch. Better deal with the translation of hours, holidays, bring less harm. and the number of deputies must be reduced, one person from each region, totaling about 80 people, scratching with the tongue is enough. 400 loafers are too much for such a country.
    1. olegyurjewitch
      olegyurjewitch 21 October 2012 16: 34 New
      0
      Quote: iulai
      someone, for some reason, wants to rewrite for themselves. what kind of country we have, such as the new owner comes, so the history and constitution begin to be rewritten

      No, pension law first, or pension reform laughing
  9. wk
    wk 20 October 2012 10: 39 New
    +11
    the current constitution is written by US puppets ..... a new CONSTITUTION from A ... to ... I ..... UNIVERSAL! based on the Constitution of the USSR of 1936.
  10. Roomata
    Roomata 20 October 2012 10: 46 New
    +1
    Yes, to be honest, the old is not respected but the new and even more so ...
    so chatter for eyes and images of violent activity
  11. anchonsha
    anchonsha 20 October 2012 10: 54 New
    0
    When a cat has nothing to do, he licks something meaningful to him. So Sulakshin with his logistic turns in speech finally logged in. The others with him in his company felt the same way that they did not bring any benefit to the country and began to show their archibourish activity in revising the basic principles of the constitution. Putin needs to drive such away from power structures.
  12. Gorchakov
    Gorchakov 20 October 2012 11: 06 New
    +6
    Considering that the Constitution of the Russian Federation, written under the leadership of Soros, does not correspond to the realities of life and national interests in Russia, given the fact that the last constitution was written for the vassal country of the West, completely destroying the sovereignty of the Russian state, I believe that it is time to prepare and adopt a new, legally competent, corresponding to the mentality of Russia, the Constitution .... The Constitution must fully support, first of all, the sovereignty and national interests of the state, which is not provided for in the current Constitution ...
    1. donchepano
      donchepano 22 October 2012 08: 46 New
      0
      INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE AT THE HEAD OF ANGLE BEFORE EVERYTHING
  13. markevo
    markevo 20 October 2012 11: 13 New
    -3
    I do not think so ....
  14. Sinope
    Sinope 20 October 2012 11: 20 New
    0
    The author of the article must learn to separate flies from cutlets. I read his various articles, so I didn’t fully understand whose side he was on, maybe he doesn’t have enough time for a deep analysis of the material.
  15. AK-74-1
    AK-74-1 20 October 2012 11: 24 New
    +6
    Dear author - Alexey Volodin! I would like to say that the problem of constitutional structure is a very complex topic. You most likely considered only part of the problem and a few in a negative way. Sorry for that, but you deserve a minus.
    Somehow I will try to answer you with a separate publication on the site, but in this comment I will point out the main shortcomings of the current Constitution of Russia.
    1. There is no equality of the subjects of the Russian Federation - that is, there are republics, regions and territories.
    2. There is no constitutional consolidation of the formation of the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and their direct subordination to the central government (here I would add that it would be correct to remove the election of governors and restore the existing appointment procedure with the possibility of recall).
    3. Fedorov spoke about the Central Bank and I agree with him.
    In addition, it would be nice to determine the activity of our state system by constitutional law, namely, the timing of responses to the consideration of citizens, the timing of the provision of information and the availability of information about the property of public owners.
    1. Chemist
      Chemist 20 October 2012 11: 31 New
      +4
      Everything is grammatical, the election of governors and their inviolability after the election rollback to 1996. Cancel it is necessary.
      1. Igor
        Igor 20 October 2012 12: 15 New
        -3
        Get involved with drugs, Chemist!
      2. Hon
        Hon 20 October 2012 23: 04 New
        0
        As shown by the practice of the Saratov region, that the elected governor, that appointed, one hell.
      3. Botanologist
        Botanologist 21 October 2012 20: 53 New
        0
        Tell me in more detail, where did you see the immunity of the governors? And then I missed something in modern law.
        They just do not plant them yet. The more electives there are, the more often they will plant them - after all, in this case the government is not directly responsible for them. So I am for the elections, despite the scum essence of our elections.
    2. zadotov
      zadotov 21 October 2012 19: 05 New
      -1
      Dear AK-74-1 why not!
      1. The Russian Federation consists of republics, territories, regions, cities of federal significance, an autonomous region, autonomous districts - equal subjects of the Russian Federation.
      About governors - must be elected by the people!
      About the Central Bank I wrote above
      1. Botanologist
        Botanologist 21 October 2012 20: 55 New
        0
        The Russian Federation consists of republics, territories, regions, cities of federal significance, the autonomous region, autonomous okrugs - equal subjects of the Russian Federation.

        Well, you’re so brave ... And did you compare the status of the republic with the status of the Autonomous Okrug? The republic has much wider powers!
    3. Botanologist
      Botanologist 21 October 2012 20: 50 New
      0
      There is no equality of the subjects of the Russian Federation - that is, there are republics, regions and territories.
      Absolutely agree. I add that the borders of these edges were drawn arbitrarily and voluntaristically.

      There is no constitutional consolidation of the formation of the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and their direct subordination to the central authority

      Controversial statement. And what do you mean by direct subordination? The distribution of powers is given in detail. Or should the governor receive a command for any action, as in the USSR? I doubt that it will be effective.
      But to create mechanisms for the election of normal, honest governors - this is necessary. And the filters should not be municipal, but the FSB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, etc.

      In addition, it would be nice to determine the activity of our state system by constitutional law, namely, the timing of responses to the consideration of citizens, the timing of the provision of information and the availability of information about the property of public owners

      Well, this is by no means subject to regulation of constitutional law. Isn't the ordinary law enough for you?
      The main problem is that it is executed.
  16. tarks
    tarks 20 October 2012 11: 27 New
    +9
    The current constitution of Russia in many ways is not a constitution of a sovereign state. those. and not a constitution at all.
    1. Hon
      Hon 20 October 2012 23: 05 New
      -3
      What are these specific signs?
  17. Mishael
    Mishael 20 October 2012 11: 37 New
    +2
    Dear, can anyone tell me the address of the offsite "Center for Problem Analysis and Public Administration Design"?
    I would like to understand whose products we are offered to shake ....
    1. Chemist
      Chemist 20 October 2012 12: 10 New
      0
      http://www.rusrand.ru/
      1. Mishael
        Mishael 20 October 2012 13: 51 New
        +1
        Quote: Chemist
        http://www.rusrand.ru/

        Thanks for the link, I’ve flipped through this page before, but didn’t know that this is an official site ...
        are we really able to accept the Main Zakrn from the hands of people who feed from behind the hillock?
        We are still living like that, why aggravate? !!!
  18. Samsebenaum
    Samsebenaum 20 October 2012 12: 01 New
    +3
    The old constitution, amended or new, is difficult for the population to understand and interpret ... The goal is clear - to break brains into pieces and braids to braid.
    Our authorities have no law written. As they did not observe and circumvented the old, so it will be with the new.
    Everything is tailored for you.
    I almost forgot: we have developed a tradition - each president is obliged to write his own Most Important Law.
    So we gathered about this ...
    1. donchepano
      donchepano 22 October 2012 08: 49 New
      0
      YES TO RUSSIAN IN RUSSIAN
  19. zz2003_1974
    zz2003_1974 20 October 2012 12: 10 New
    +9
    Everything that is brought in, everything that has been brought in by the West, everything needs to be swept out with a filthy broom, Russian peasant wake up, meet, until the Russians begin to breathe deeply, we will have sores on the body. Enough to become like and try to face the west !!!!! Please note that I myself am not Russian,
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 20 October 2012 15: 03 New
      0
      Sweep a potato too? Not to mention later borrowing?
      1. Login1
        Login1 21 October 2012 01: 16 New
        +1
        You can and potatoes. In this way they send us GMOs ...
      2. valton
        valton 22 October 2012 18: 33 New
        0
        Sweep EVERYTHING that prevents Russia from developing.
    2. donchepano
      donchepano 22 October 2012 08: 53 New
      0
      FOOD PRODUCTS SHOULD NOT BE USED FROM BOUGRA.
      HAVE YOURSELF WITH TRAILER ONLY, SUBSIDED, HELP YOURSELF TO THE PRODUCERS
  20. AK-74-1
    AK-74-1 20 October 2012 12: 12 New
    +3
    Actually, an interesting opinion of the gentleman from the "Center ..." (watched the video). I would also like to exclude the possibility of having several citizenships among officials and persons engaged in certain types of activities, for example, human rights.
  21. spok
    spok 20 October 2012 14: 29 New
    -2
    It’s interesting to rewrite, but what will change?
    Money from the foreign banks of our elite - to their homeland. The property abroad is taken away, and as a result, we will have a new president.
    And what will change?
  22. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 20 October 2012 14: 58 New
    +1
    Of course, a new Constitution is needed - with the current one they have come to a standstill ...
    But who will write it? The current government, well .... the heads of EdRa, or the no less advanced inhabitants of ParNaS? And they will write, and others will write this ...
    1. Hon
      Hon 20 October 2012 23: 56 New
      +1
      IMHO, we did not get into a dead end because of the constitution; in general, the constitution has much less significance than is considered.
  23. Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 20 October 2012 15: 33 New
    +1
    Any amendment, the slightest amendment of the Constitution should be adopted only by the National Referendum, with more than half of the votes in favor, counting from the total number of voters, and not just those who participated. And no other way.
    1. Login1
      Login1 21 October 2012 01: 11 New
      +2
      Just this rule was ignored when adopting the current "occupation" constitution.
    2. zadotov
      zadotov 21 October 2012 19: 11 New
      +1
      the only thing I agree with unconditionally
    3. donchepano
      donchepano 22 October 2012 08: 56 New
      0
      TWO THREE VOTES AND AT LEAST. PEOPLE SHOULD ANY CHANGE ACCEPTED BY SOUL
  24. wax
    wax 20 October 2012 16: 59 New
    0
    The guys were going to populite, to drink and have a bite for free. They were satisfied with themselves and the food. They will also release a transcript: copyright, editorial, layout, tables ... It’s worth a lot. Vigil, Schaub, we are not lost.
  25. Imperial
    Imperial 20 October 2012 17: 00 New
    +3
    Does Russia need a new Constitution? Russia needs a new one-Stalin, the constitution will wait.
    1. Andriuha077
      Andriuha077 20 October 2012 21: 39 New
      +3
      And the Stalinist Constitution of the USSR 1936 of the year - "The Constitution of victorious socialism"
  26. anfreezer
    anfreezer 20 October 2012 17: 41 New
    +5
    The constitution is not a dogma. It is accepted by the people and the people have the right to change it. I am an ordinary citizen of Russia, I am not a member of any party, I do not represent the interests of any group, I do not have power. But I communicate with my friends, I know the opinions of people. But ... Article 134 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: "Proposals for amendments and revisions to the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation may be made by the President of the Russian Federation, the Council of the Federation, the State Duma, the government of the Russian Federation, the legislative (representative) bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as a group of at least one fifth of the members of the Federation Council or deputies of the State Duma. " This is the Constitutional Assembly (100 deputies of the Duma, all from SovFed, 100 representatives of the President (who is this? belay ), 19 members of the Constitutional Court, Chairmen of the Supreme Armed Forces and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation ... Familiarization with the personnel of the Constitutional Assembly suggests that this Constitutional Assembly is able to adopt any draft of the new Constitution of the country, right up to the appointment of Vladimir Putin as the life emperor laughing .. And here is the question, do you trust such a Constitutional Assembly ?! I personally have been voting all my life for those whom I don’t see in the Duma (and I only see the Great Edar sectarians), do you trust the honorary exiles-governors in SovFed? I have already expressed my surprise about the representatives of the President ... That is, the main problem with the option of amending the current Constitution of the Russian Federation is the lowest level of confidence in the legitimacy of the Constitutional Assembly. In the eyes of most citizens of the country, the Constitutional Assembly will be practically no different from such an extra-constitutional body as the Public Chamber. And take a new one in a referendum ... ?? Today, the people in Russia are the subject of manipulation by the mass consciousness, the subject of control through fear, but not the subject of politics. The change in the political system of the country after the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 takes place within the framework of the consistent removal of the rights of real influence on social and political processes from citizens of the country. Until recently, the governors did not trust you to choose (and even now, the honesty and order of these elections are in doubt), and you are saying a referendum ... no But, of course, it is necessary to do something with the Constitution (for example, at least somewhere here I wrote about the incompatibility of her darling with the RF law "On Subsoil" in matters of ownership of these very subsoil), only how !? request
    1. Andriuha077
      Andriuha077 20 October 2012 21: 43 New
      +3
      The Federation Council shall represent the votes of each voter in the country who personally delegated his vote to his representative chosen personally by him. And not those interests of the oligarchic bunch of tyrants, among whom in the afternoon with fire you can’t find a decent manager.
  27. viktor1227
    viktor1227 20 October 2012 17: 46 New
    +3
    The author or the provocateur or did not understand anything, but rather did not look and did not listen. The topic is very relevant, and Sulakshin spoke professionally and convincingly. The constitution must be developed together with society, and the current one is already behind. And if it’s clean, it’s an occupational, slavish constitution.
    1. donchepano
      donchepano 22 October 2012 08: 59 New
      0
      AND WILL TAKE MORE HARMFUL IF FLATING EARS
  28. Mikhalych1
    Mikhalych1 20 October 2012 19: 10 New
    +1
    "At the same time, everyone agreed that the phrase" the Russian people and other peoples "should be used. It would supposedly be much more accurate to determine the essence of the Russian Federation."
    what a glitch ... maybe it would be more correct to be "Russian" or "Rosiyans" although the second is somewhat reminiscent.
    It was just recently at a concert where a girl of about 6 sang a song. The key words for the song "After all, I'm Russian." In the hall, more than half of the spectators were Bashkirs, a holiday was arranged for them. So many were just jarred. They are proud of their nationality, but they also love Russia.
    I think I clearly explained.
    1. gen.meleshkin
      gen.meleshkin 21 October 2012 06: 04 New
      +1
      Correctly explained! We are all Russians and Russians and Bashkirs and Tatars and Mordovians .....
    2. zadotov
      zadotov 21 October 2012 18: 43 New
      -1
      from this your tolerance it hurts to vomit, if even she had performed for Russia at the Eurovision she would have sang "After all, I’m a Bashkir" I would not care, because she really is a Bashkir, what prevents it from loving Russia? stop thinking about other people, how they will perceive it, and how it looks live calmly.
  29. Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 20 October 2012 19: 20 New
    -1
    Now only one draft of the new constitution will take place- Putin is the king in an absolute monarchy
  30. Storyteller
    Storyteller 20 October 2012 21: 59 New
    +2
    Apparently, the author was in a hurry to give out material about the Round Table earlier than anyone else. There was no way to delve into the topic, and probably desire. Therefore, the whole article is at the level of sensations. Like, I feel that way. How would I be a representative of the common people and my vision is a slice of people's aspirations.
    I would like to wish the author not to demonstrate so clearly the level of his competence, and if the article is his position, he would advise posting it on sites with a less patriotic orientation.
  31. Farvil
    Farvil 21 October 2012 00: 05 New
    +1
    The authorities did not give a damn about this constitution, but they want a new one for themselves and not for us.
    1. gen.meleshkin
      gen.meleshkin 21 October 2012 06: 00 New
      -2
      And you go to live in England (like all Russian thieves and swindlers) or in Germany and you will live according to the constitutions there, which are not there. And better in Somalia, there you can do what you want and live as you want, and not by law.
  32. Login1
    Login1 21 October 2012 01: 08 New
    +1
    I recommend that everyone involved in the discussion watch the video. The author greatly distorted the meaning of the round table.
  33. spok
    spok 21 October 2012 02: 14 New
    -1
    Soon we will draw the rules by which we can not pull.
  34. gen.meleshkin
    gen.meleshkin 21 October 2012 05: 56 New
    +4
    As far as Volodin’s article provoked negative emotions, so much positive (rather more) emotions aroused the video clip of Russian political and public figures. The author just put everything upside down, and on the patient - his own. This is even a torn goat in our village knows that the existing Russian constitution is written by Californian boys invited by the Gaidar people to break up Russia from the inside. And the preservation of the Yeltsin’s constitution is similar to death for Russia, but this is not obvious to Volodin. And why?
  35. anoha68
    anoha68 21 October 2012 16: 32 New
    +1
    The authority rewrites the constitution, dreaming of being such for a very long time - the article was ordered by the current government, so that it is possible to probe, or too early.
  36. Cebep0317
    Cebep0317 21 October 2012 17: 17 New
    +5
    Article 13, paragraph 2. No ideology can be established as a state.

    An example of delirium from our current constitution. Definitely need to change, maybe it was written by those who destroyed our country.
  37. FATEMOGAN
    FATEMOGAN 21 October 2012 22: 28 New
    0
    it’s definitely necessary to change the constitution in order to erase all the dirt that dirty dirty shoes have left us. angry I just don’t understand comrades who ask like a parrot 300 times, but why change it, they will explain it, give examples, they have already attached the video - look, enlighten, think with your head .... a couple of minutes pass and it goes the same the question is, why change the constitution .......? Did the program freeze? laughing
  38. FATEMOGAN
    FATEMOGAN 21 October 2012 22: 33 New
    0
    it is definitely necessary to change the constitution in order to destroy with it all the dirt that dirty shoes were left for us. angry I just don’t understand comrades who ask like a parrot 300 times, but why change it, they will explain it, give examples, they have already attached the video - look, enlighten, think with your head .... a couple of minutes pass and it goes the same the question is, why change the constitution .......? program that hung? belay laughing
  39. FATEMOGAN
    FATEMOGAN 21 October 2012 22: 43 New
    +1
    it is definitely necessary to change the constitution in order to destroy with it all the dirt that dirty shoes were left for us. angry I just don’t understand comrades who ask like a parrot 300 times, but why change it, they will explain it, give examples, they have already attached the video - look, enlighten, think with your head .... a couple of minutes pass and it goes the same the question is, why change the constitution .......? program that hung? laughing

    “that we were left with dirty cue shoes.” three times already tried to write cue shoes, but only when adding comments, the word ovskie is cut off, that the word, already obscene, considering that they are already graying here? laughing
  40. Egoza
    Egoza 22 October 2012 07: 08 New
    +1
    Return the Stalinist Constitution, which even the lawyers in the cap.countries considered the best in Europe!
  41. Cebep0317
    Cebep0317 22 October 2012 14: 09 New
    +1
    By the way, the current constitution was adopted illegally, since 30% of the population voted for it in a referendum, instead of the due 50. In my opinion, this is a good reason to hold a new referendum. Of course, for another version of the constitution smile
  42. valton
    valton 22 October 2012 18: 13 New
    -1
    Article -100.