God, the Constitution, the USSR

The Kremlin is determined with the plans for the basic law

Vladimir Putin introduced his amendments to the State Duma to the second reading of the law on amendments to the Constitution. They consist of two parts: the first is the substantive, the second is the justification of the “special order” of the entry into force of amendments to the Constitution following the results of “All -Russian vote” not provided for in Article 136. In fact, this is an attempt to get around this article, which is included in the 9th chapter, which is among the legal assembly, which means that the federal assembly is among the legal equalibrics and the Constitutional Court. It is actually not such a violation of the constitution. In parallel with this, the adoption of the amendments themselves is forced.

March 10 and 11 - the second and third reading in the obedient State Duma (with a clear result, given the unanimous vote during the first reading of the supposedly “opposition” from the Communist Party, LDPR and Socialist -Revolutionaries). March 11 - approval by the obedient council of the Federation. March 12 is a simultaneous vote throughout the country in regional parliaments (the team has already been given, they have already begun to warn about extraordinary meetings of deputies), and should be imitated the same approvams. And April 22 - the mentioned "all -Russian vote".

What is the new Putin offers? Almost everything is expected and already voiced.

• To prohibit actions aimed at alienation of Russian territories, and calls to them.

• To declare Russia the successor of the USSR in relation to membership in international organizations, their bodies, participation in international treaties, as well as in relation to the “stipulated by international treaties, the obligations and assets of the USSR outside the territory of the Russian Federation”. To put it mildly, it is doubtful - but what about the other former members of the USSR Union, disagreeing with the “seizure of succession” and especially the seizure of assets?

• Write down that the Russian Federation, "united by a millennium history, preserving the memory of the ancestors who conveyed the ideals and faith in God to us ... recognizes the historically established state unity." Again, doubtful - and with unbelievers how to be, who did not give any faith? And what about the norm of the Constitution about the secular state?

• Write down that the Russian Federation "provides protection of historical truth", and "the diminution of the meaning of the feat of the people in the protection of the Fatherland is not allowed." Immediately the question: who will determine that there is a “historical truth”? And what is meant by "belittling the meaning of the feat"? The statements that Stalin and Hitler were the actual allies in 1939-1941 - is this a violation of “historical truth”? And the statements that millions of Soviet soldiers died due to orders of those who considered people as cannon fodder-is it “diminishing the meaning of the feat”?

• The Constitution proposes to write down that “the Russian Federation provides support to compatriots living abroad, in the exercise of their rights, ensuring the protection of their interests and maintaining all -Russian cultural identity. Again, the question is: what rights are we talking about? And what kind of "interests" of compatriots are proposed to protect? To support "polite people"?

• And in parallel with this, the norm is that “the Russian Federation takes measures to maintain and strengthen international peace and security, ensure peaceful coexistence of states and peoples, and prevent intervention in the internal affairs of the state.” After the Crimea, Donbass and Syria, it sounds just mockingly.

• Further - the proposal (and ardently approved by professional defenders of “traditional values”) the proposal for the Institute of Marriage as a “union of men and women”, and the declaration of supporting non -profit organizations and their participation in the development and pursuance of state policy (again it sounds mockingly against the backdrop of the mass announcement of NGOs of “foreign agents”).

• The State Duma and the Federation Council are vested with the right to parliamentary control - including requests to "heads of state bodies and local authorities on issues within the competence of these bodies and officials." However, the procedure for this control will still be determined by federal laws and regulations of the chambers of the Federal Assembly.

• Finally, local governments are proposed to oblige, in accordance with the Federal Law, "to ensure, within their competence, the availability of medical care." The question remains open whether they will also give them money for this - or everything will be on the principle of “you have five rubles and don’t deny yourself anything” ...

And then the most interesting begins - the procedure for entering the amendments.

It would seem that everything that is necessary has already been written in the 136th article of the Constitution: “Amendments to chapters 3-8 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation are adopted in the manner prescribed for the adoption of the Federal Constitutional Law, and enter into force after their approval by the legislative authorities at least two-thirds of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.”

The procedure is established in Article 108: “The Federal Constitutional Law is considered adopted if it is approved by a majority of at least three quarters of the total number of members of the Federation Council and at least two -thirds of the total number of deputies of the State Duma. The adopted federal constitutional law within fourteen days is subject to signing by the President of the Russian Federation and publication. ”

In other words, after two -thirds of the regional parliaments are supported by the amendments adopted by the State Duma and the Federation Council, they enter into force. Without any "all -Russian vote."

And without any President’s right to “approve” or “not approve”, to sign or not sign: the president in this design is deprived of the right of the veto, his signature is formal.

It is impossible to change this procedure with any federal law (and even constitutional law) - this will mean a direct contradiction with Article 136. The Federal Assembly itself cannot change the very Article 136.

There is also a federal law of 1998 - on the procedure for adoption and entry into force of amendments to the Constitution.

It says that after the amendments are accepted by the State Duma and the Federation Council, regional parliaments vote on them and send decisions on adoption to the Federation Council within two weeks.

The Federation Council calculates the number of approving and, if there are at least two -thirds of the total number, within the week sends this information to the president.

Which within two weeks is obliged to sign the law and publish it. We emphasize - obliged . The president has no “freedom of hands”.

He does not have the right to sign. And he does not have the right to connect the entry into force of the law with any “all -Russian votes”.

But if it is impossible, but I really want what is possible - and President Putin wants a mandatory popular approval. And he says at a meeting with the “working group” of actors, musicians, astronauts and jumpers to the side: “It is important for me that this law on amendments to the Constitution enters only after summing up the results of the All -Russian vote so that it is real plebiscite and that it is Russian citizens to be the authors of these amendments to the basic law ... If people during the vote confirm that they support this, they support this, they support this This means that the law comes into force, and amendments to the Constitution are introduced. If they do not confirm, then amendments to the Constitution will not be made. ”

For the legal support of his desire, Putin in his amendments offers a “special order” of entry into force of his amendments (follow your hands).

After approval by two thirds of regional parliaments, only the following (and forming a separate article 3 of the presidential bill on amendments to the Constitution) “special procedure” is entered into force - but not the very amendments to the Constitution specified in Article 1, and is not the norm on the conduct of the “all -Russian voting” specified in Article 2.

After that, the president sends a request to the Constitutional Court - on “compliance with the provisions of chapters 1, 2 and 9 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which have not entered into force of the provisions of this Law, as well as on the compliance of the Constitution of the Russian Federation of the procedure for the entry into force of Article 1 of this Law.”

We emphasize: to check the provisions that have not yet entered into force that it violates the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” (only adopted and already published, with number and date, laws are subject to verification).

The Constitutional Court should inform for seven days if there are no contradictions with the constitution. We remind you that chapter 1 is the foundations of the constitutional system, chapter 2 is the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, chapter 9 - constitutional amendments and a revision of the Constitution. It is in it that the indicated article 136 is located.

If there are contradictions, all -Russian vote is not held. If there are no contradictions, it is carried out.

After that, article 1 (directly amendments) comes into force from the day of the official publication of the results of the all -Russian vote, if "more than half of the citizens of the Russian Federation who took part in all -Russian voting voted for changes in the constitution.

And only after that the president publishes the constitution with amendments.

We summarize: the constitutional court will be invited to say that the direct violation of Article 136 of the Constitution, which indicates an unambiguous procedure for entering into force, is actually not.

What answer will be given - it is not difficult to assume, given the upcoming reduction in the Constitutional Court and granting the president the right to offer the Federation Council to “dismiss” the COP judges.

Last. An analysis of the Center for Legislative Initiatives of the Yabloko party, led by a well -deserved lawyer of Russia and in the past, does not leave a long -term member of the CEC Elena Dubrovina on a stone, does not leave both Putin's amendments and the procedure for their adoption and entry into force.

But this analysis, as well as information on alternative amendments to the Constitution, which “Yablons” proposed along with the Public Constitutional Council (restriction of the President’s power, expanding the capabilities of the parliament, the independence of the vessels, the election of the Federation Council and Governors, the declaration of torture with a serious crime, the abolition of military diligence, and others), can be discussed in the “Novaya Gazeta” or on “Echo”, but all this is categorically not It is allowed to the federal television.

And it is clear why: two myths are immediately destroyed at once. About the "wonderful" amendments of Putin and that "the opposition offers nothing."

PS

Meanwhile, a member of the Moscow PEC-2566 with a ruling vote, Alexander Artemyev challenged in the Supreme Court an order of the President of the Russian Federation “On the organization of preparation of the all-Russian vote on the issue of approval of changes to the Constitution of the Russian Federation”. According to Artemyev, the president is not entitled to lay the powers not provided for by law on election commissions (and hence him as a member of the PEC). The law obliges the election commission to engage in the organization and holding of elections and referenda - but not by “all -Russian voting”, which is not provided for by the law. “With the same ease and equally unlawfully, the president could oblige the commission to distribute breakfast to primary school students,” Artemyev notes.