Kirill Rogov: "Totally fake constitutionalism"

“All this epic operetta with the adoption of amendments, and officially,“ amendments ”(!) To the constitution, of course, is somewhat impressed by an unbiased and unprepared imagination,” the political scientist writes on his Facebook page.

"On the one hand, the amendments, as has already been shown repeatedly, in reality, brutally expanding the already bloated powers of the Russian president, including by reducing the powers of representative and regional authorities and organizational submission of the Higher courts and the prosecutor's office of the presidential authority. On the other hand, experts say, de facto, these powers were mainly in the president, although this was contradictory and contradictable to the spirit and the spirit and the spirit The letter of the constitution.

But this is not so. The fact is that the amendments are introduced into the 3–8 chapters of the Constitution, but in terms of meaning they contradict the provisions of the basic 1-2 chapters, which, according to the same constitution, have an unconditional priority. In this sense, the provisions of 3-8 chapters that contradict the provisions of 1-2 chapters, in fact, should be considered as legally insignificant and not acting. Clause 2 of Article 16 of the Russian Constitution directly indicates that "no other provisions of this Constitution may contradict the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation" described in chapter 1.

But, since, according to the actual provision of cases and new amendments, the Constitutional Court is the pocket body of the presidential authority, of course, the new provisions of the following chapters contradict the provisions of the 1st of the chapter not contradictory and valid. On this assumption, in general, there is a new constitutional structure.

The situation, in essence, looks absurd. The fake of the same level (the inconsistency of the actual state of cases described in the Constitution) is solemnly and pompous is replaced by a fake of a different level: the provisions of the Constitution in its first part are supplemented by the contradictory provisions of the subsequent units in anticipation that the constitutional court subordinate to the non -recognition of this contradiction.

Moreover. In order to give “illegal”, which contradict 1 and 2 to the chapters of the amendments, greater legitimacy is carried out just a popular vote on the “amendment”, which is actually the sum of numerous heterogeneous amendments. These "amendments", contrary to any meaning and obviousness, are called "adjustment" so that you can vote for them in a lot and could not express their attitude towards them separately. And this vote itself should, as if to equalize the political weight of "illegal" amendments with the weight of the provisions of the legitimate 1 and 2 chapters. But in itself, this procedure for adopting amendments conflicts with the order established by the Constitution. That is, in order to equalize the content of 1-2 chapters with them in weight, contradicting the norms of 3-8 chapters to them, we violate the norms of the 9th chapter.

Some kind of fake constitutionalism! Here the free mind comes into a state of shock-renewal: is it all for the hell? Is this imitation of "right" by piling up contradictions, substitutions and switches? Why change a fake of the same type to a bulky new fake, to conduct a popular vote on it and declare this a holiday of new constitutionalism?

The answer, apparently, lies in the value-dyl plane. Previously, we simply did not fulfill the Constitution, but now we will live with fake-constitution. Previously, we lived in the conditions of the dominance of the official doctrine of law and informally profanated it. And now we will live in accordance with the doctrine of the fake right and completely, consistently correspond to it. "