Constitution to be changed

Once again we can see that Janusz Korwin-Mikke was right to criticize the current constitution. I voted against, too, because you cannot limit your aspirations and approve of crap caused by propaganda. How will someone build a house with a hole in the wall? Because 3 walls are good? He won’t. Yes, and with the constitution you have to be a perfectionist.

The current quarrel is caused by the discrepancy between the subjective perception of the Udecko-post-pezetpeer-professor circles and the reality: it was supposed to be that the requirements of the judges of the tribunal would cause them to stand above even their political sympathies and make impartial judgments, because this is how the community wanted be seen. Objectively, however, it consists of ideological, devoid of any sense of decency political functionaries, which was proved by prof. Rzepiński, president of the unfortunate Constitutional Tribunal. Several professors (Zoll) and M.Sc. Stępień, flying from one television to another like a cat with a bladder. We could see typical careful censorship, that is, placing everything on carefully selected media functions, and the opinion of the environment is unknown to us. The so-called Kraków was still moving, known for its Proudec sympathies. That’s it.

I will show the way of thinking of these circles on an example detached from the topic: editor Ziemkiewicz caught on Tłiter and professor Ewa Woydyłło Osiatyńska smeared it in the Tygodnik Powszechny magazine. Well, that ONCE wrote to the Psychological Association, is it a standard that she toured his parents button knowing about them and without a diagnosis. Well, the Peer Court dared to handle the case and found a violation (http://dorzeczy.pl/subotnik-ziemkiewicza/id.7617/Burza-w-korporacyjna-szklance.html). And the commodity fell into a frenzy, they called, prof. Osiatyński was foaming at the meeting. This is how this environment works. But the new generation isn’t breaking down, it’s just doing its job, which generates a fury of frustrated people. It was not for nothing that Michnik threatened that he would not give Poland back to bullies. As steadfast, Katonych want to see themselves, and you see what comes out.

And likewise, in the case of the Tribunal, they followed the gang terrified by the vision of triumphant writers acting boldly and decisively – just like non-pens. The well-known social activist Józef Orzeł (Ronin Club) even claims that they will win, which seems completely unlikely. If they adopted the tactic of quick strikes one after the other, this is Korwinian thinking.

II

The legal community seems to be conditioned by Pavlov and his dog: when they get a seemingly innocent question that involves some taboo, they fall into strange transient states. For example, what will happen if the president does not take the oath because not and that’s it? There should be no such legal structures, especially in our country. The law should carefully limit the possibilities of rollers, because the Civic Platform has proved that it will not stop at anything and we must be prepared for the worst. The solutions adopted by us are the result of some sick mentality. Some examples:

1. The controlling role of the Seym vis-à-vis the government: In practice, the government has a patting majority, the marshal of the Seym is an officer subordinated to the prime minister. And what? The presidential system would be a remedy here, but I have no illusions that they will. How many stools could you save? The individual departments of the president’s office duplicate the respective ministries, and that would be one. I am talking of course about a pure presidential system without a prime minister. As it is in France with the prime minister and cohabitation it makes no sense.

2. Obligation to consult with various such decisions there. Such opinions can be thrown to the trash, so if they want to block it, they do not send it at all. Nonsense.

3. The requirement that the president had to slap things off, like the judges’ oaths. And if he doesn’t do what?

4. The tribunal should only adjudicate very specific things and there should be severe penalties for arbitrary extensions of powers. And the very temporary suspension of the president should be brought under the Tribunal of State. Pisiory adds a strange legend to this suspension:

The relevant act of the Civic Platform concluded:

Chapter 10

Proceedings to establish an obstacle to the exercise of the office by the President of the Republic of Poland

Art. 116

The Marshal of the Sejm, in the motion to find an obstacle to the exercise of the office by the President of the Republic of Poland, indicates the circumstances that temporarily prevent the President of the Republic of Poland from holding the office and prevent the Marshal of the Sejm from being notified about it.

Art. 117

1. The Tribunal examines the motion of the Marshal of the Sejm immediately, however not later than within 24 hours from its submission.
2. The Tribunal examines the motion at a hearing, with the exception of openness.
3. The participants in the proceedings are:
1) the Marshal of the Sejm,
2) the Marshal of the Senate,
3) the First President of the Supreme Court,
4) the Public Prosecutor General;
5) Head of the Chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland
4. If a participant in the proceedings cannot attend the hearing in person, he / she may appoint his / her representative.
5. The representative of:
1) the Marshal of the Sejm may be the Deputy Speaker of the Sejm authorized by him;
2) the Marshal of the Senate may be authorized by him by the Deputy Speaker of the Senate;
3) the First President of the Supreme Court may be authorized by him by the President of the Supreme Court;
4) the Public Prosecutor General may be authorized by him by the Deputy Public Prosecutor General;
5) The Head of the Chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland may be authorized by the Head of the Chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland.
6. The absence of a participant in the proceedings or his representative at the hearing shall not suspend the examination of the application.

Art. 118

1. If, during the hearing, doubts arise as to the circumstances referred to in Art. 116, the Tribunal may, by way of a decision, order the Public Prosecutor General to perform specific activities within the prescribed period and adjourn the hearing.
2. The hearing may not be adjourned for more than 24 hours.
3. The Public Prosecutor General shall immediately notify the Tribunal of the results of the actions taken to implement the decision referred to in para. 1.

Art. 119

1. The Tribunal shall issue a decision on the impediment to the exercise of the office by the President of the Republic of Poland and on entrusting the Marshal of the Sejm, for no longer than 3 months, with the temporary performance of the duties of the President of the Republic of Poland.
2. The decision shall become invalid if:
1) the President of the Republic of Poland notifies the Marshal of the Sejm and the Tribunal about the possibility of holding the office before the expiry of the period specified therein;
2) the circumstances referred to in Art. 131 paragraph 2 point 1, 2, 4 or 5 of the Constitution.

Art. 120

1. In the event that, after the expiry of the period for which the Tribunal entrusted the Marshal of the Sejm with the temporary performance of the duties of the President of the Republic of Poland, the circumstances which temporarily prevent the President from exercising his office have not ceased, the Marshal of the Sejm may, once again, submit a request to the Tribunal regarding the impediment to the exercise of the office. office by the President of the Republic of Poland.

2. The provisions of Art. 117-119.

And what?

There is nothing about substantive issues here, it is about random events. So, for example, the president is in the mountains and it is impossible to get to him – not that he has not sworn a judge of the tribunal. However, it is ineptly formulated, and under favorable circumstances they could struggle.

Number of views:
0