The legal nature is what makes up the relations between the subjects, what they are in their form and the norms by which they are regulated. This is the assignment of a phenomenon to a certain legal category.
The legal nature of obligations is a civil legal relationship, money is movable property, murder is a crime against life, etc.
The Constitution is the fundamental law of the state. It is an act of the highest legal force. No legal act on the territory of the state can contradict the Constitution of the state. The special place of the Constitution in the system of normative acts is determined by its two main properties:
The constitution is of a constituent nature, i.e. establishes the foundations for regulating social relations, the foundations of the state, social system. The provisions of the Constitution find their development in sectoral legislation.
2) Federal constitutional laws
Federal constitutional laws (FKZ) are adopted only on issues expressly provided for by the Constitution. For example, federal constitutional laws regulate the activities of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Arbitration Court, the President, the Government, and a number of other issues. Constitutional laws develop the provisions of the constitution. They have the highest legal force in comparison with other laws.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation provides for the adoption of federal constitutional laws on a number of issues, for example: the basis and procedure for introducing a state of emergency on the territory of the Russian Federation and in its individual areas and the establishment of possible restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms in a state of emergency (Article 56); State flag, coat of arms and anthem of the Russian Federation, their description and procedure for official use (Article 70, Part 1); appointment of a referendum (Article 84, point “c”); So far, of the federal constitutional laws provided for by the Constitution, only the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Law on the Arbitration Court and the Law on the Referendum have been adopted.
Law - a normative act adopted in a special manner by the highest representative body of legislative power or by direct expression of the will of the population through a referendum and regulating the most important and stable social relations. Laws form the basis of the legal system of the state, its central part.
The supreme legal force of the law means that no body other than the supreme body of the legislature can repeal or change the law. The adoption of a new law inevitably entails the need to cancel or amend all other acts that contradict its content. The supreme legal force of the law also means that the acts of all other state bodies are of a derivative nature and cannot contradict it.
The highest legal force among the entire array of laws has the Constitution, as well as laws that amend and supplement the Constitution.
The Constitution is a state-political document of a constituent nature, the fundamental beginning of the entire legal system, the legal basis for current legislative and all law-making activities.
Constitutional laws are such acts, the need for adoption of which is provided directly by the Constitution.
In a federal state, laws can be issued both by the federal legislative authorities and by the legislative authorities of the constituent entities of the Federation.
TEST
discipline: “Jurisprudence”
on the topic: “The Constitution of the Russian Federation is the basic law of a legal society”
Introduction………………………………………………………....…………….…..3
The Constitution of the Russian Federation is the basic law of a legal society..4
Conclusion…………………………………..…………………....…………..….11
References………………………………………………....……………12
Introduction
The reforms taking place in the Russian Federation in almost all sectors of the life of the population need active legal support, and this process must be understood and supported by the population of the country.
Russian society has largely managed to avoid destructive upheavals, has achieved the maintenance of a socially acceptable level of political stability and civil accord, although further stratification of society is taking place. Nevertheless, today we can only speak with confidence about a significant improvement in the situation in the constitutional sphere, in the sphere of parliamentarism, federal relations, economics, land, customs law, etc.
Under the conditions of legal nihilism in Russia, the growing interest of society in matters of law is a significant phenomenon, since it means the involvement of society in its various manifestations, and society cannot do without legal regulation. Today, no decision of any significance can be made without programming it for compliance with the law.
1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation is the basic law of a legal society
The constitution is an attribute of the state. Currently, there are more than 200 constitutions in the world (taking into account the historical experience of constitutionalism, there are much more of them), one of which is the Constitution of Russia. The Constitution is the main source of constitutional law, since this act establishes legal norms of a general nature that mediate all Russian legislation: the Constitution of the Russian Federation has supremacy throughout the country (part 2 of article 4).
The Constitution is a normative legal act that has the highest legal force, regulates the relations that arise between a person (society) and the state, and also establishes the foundations for the organization of the state itself. Based on this, we can conclude that the priority goal of the constitution is related to the restriction of the arbitrariness of public authorities in relation to the rights and freedoms of persons under the jurisdiction of Russia.
At the end of 1993, as a result of a referendum, a new Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted. Compared with the previous Constitutions of the RSFSR and the USSR, the new Constitution marks a fundamentally different period in the development of Russia - a democratic Russia, free from the ideological shackles of Marxism-Leninism, which proclaimed adherence to international law, the priority of human and civil rights and freedoms.
The vote on the Constitution took place on December 12, 1993. 54.8% of all citizens-voters came to the polling stations. 58.4% were in favor of the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, 41.5% were against. Thus, in accordance with the established procedure, the new Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted and entered into force.
Note that the formal experience of constitutionalism in Russia began on July 10, 1918, when the first Constitution (Basic Law) of sovereign Russia was adopted. Since then, constitutions have been adopted in Russia on May 11, 1925, January 21, 1937, April 12, 1978. The last Constitution (Basic Law) during 1989-1992. more than 300 amendments were made, which changed not only its “letter”, but also its “spirit”. This circumstance gives reason to say that in Russia there were not 5, but 6 constitutions.
The new Constitution of the Russian Federation is an important legal document. Its adoption and the holding of parliamentary elections is a major milestone in the development of Russia as a new democratic state. The Constitution of the Russian Federation drew a line under the communist system that existed in the country and laid the foundations for a new social system focused on the best examples of Western civilization.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation is characterized by the content breadth of the norms established in it, which cover political, economic, social, spiritual relations.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation has the highest legal force, direct effect and is applied throughout the territory of Russia, which is established by the Constitution itself. Laws and legal acts adopted in Russia must not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Part 1, Article 15).
The Constitution of the Russian Federation consolidated those political, economic and social changes that occurred as a result of the ongoing reforms. In accordance with the Constitution, the Russian state is democratic and legal. The principle of real democracy is fixed. Private property is recognized and protected by the state along with state and municipal property. Ideological diversity and multi-party system are recognized.
The supremacy of the Constitution means that it is an act of the highest legal force, its norms are the fundamental source of not only constitutional law, but also other branches of law - civil, administrative, etc.; current laws and other regulations must be adopted only by state bodies specified in the Constitution and consistent with the Constitution; state bodies, local self-government bodies, officials, citizens and their associations are obliged to observe the Constitution.
The supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system of Russia is ensured by a special mechanism for its implementation and protection. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (Article 125 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) deals with issues of ensuring the constitutionality of laws and other legal acts, interpretation of constitutional provisions.
The theory of the constitution resorts to such a method of studying it as a classification, which allows us to characterize this legal act from various angles. So, by origin, constitutions are distinguished by oktroirovannye (granted) and established by the will of the people. The current Russian Constitution was adopted by popular vote. Consequently, the norms established in it act as a form of embodiment of the state will of the people; it establishes in a legal form the goals that society sets for itself, and the principles of its organization and life. According to the unity of the document, codified and non-codified (for example, in the UK) constitutions are distinguished. The Russian Constitution is codified, since it is a single legal act.
The constitution is designed to give the country the long-awaited stability. For the first time, it clearly defines and delimits the rights of the President. Federal Assembly. Governments. The temptation and the possibility of power structures to “pull the blanket” on themselves is excluded. The democratic principle of the separation of powers insures Russia against a repeat of the acute political crisis of the autumn of 1993. It creates the necessary mechanism of counterbalances that excludes attempts (and the possibility) of seizing power by one of its branches. The state needs a strong President and Government, but in combination with a full-fledged parliament with broad enough powers to prevent the emergence of an authoritarian regime.
In the process of preparing the draft Constitution, a lot of work was done by representatives of federal authorities and constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as a result of which it was possible to find a compromise formula for combining all-Russian and regional interests. The results of the compromise: Russia remains united for all Russians, and the subjects of the Federation receive opportunities for their full development.
As in all parliamentary democracies, in Russia, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the functions of the chambers of the Federal Assembly are separated. The principle of equality of subjects of the Federation was consistently carried out in the formation of the Federation Council. The introduction of a new institute of the state for Russia is envisaged - the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation contains another fundamental novel. In the Russian Federation, local self-government bodies are not included in the system of state authorities. Democratically elected and based on municipal property and the local budget, local self-government bodies will have to become the most important element in the structure of civil society.
In the legal system of the state, the Constitution of the Russian Federation has the highest legal force. Its supremacy means that the Constitution of the Russian Federation is the fundamental law, constitutes the pinnacle of the legal system and is valid throughout Russia. The supreme legal force of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is determined by the degree of its compulsion. All public authorities, local self-government bodies, officials, citizens and their associations must comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The obligatory nature of the Constitution also means that all laws and other normative acts must not contradict it (Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). Otherwise, they are recognized as unconstitutional, subject to cancellation and are considered invalid from the moment of their adoption.
The position and role of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the legal system is guaranteed by its stability, which is expressed in the complex procedure for its change and revision. Thus, the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes a narrower circle of subjects that have the right to make proposals for amendments and revision of the Constitution in comparison with the right of legislative initiative under other laws. This right is vested in: the President of the Russian Federation, the Federation Council and the State Duma, the Government of the Russian Federation, the legislative (representative) bodies of the constituent entities of the Federation, as well as at least "/5 members of the Federation Council or deputies of the State Duma (Article 134).
The most complex procedure is envisaged for changing the content of Chapter 1 (Fundamentals of the constitutional system), Chapter 2 (Rights and freedoms of man and citizen) and Chapter 9 (Constitutional amendments and revision of the Constitution). The complicated procedure is determined by the importance of the consequences of the decisions being made, the revision of these chapters entails a significant change in the Constitution, and this is almost tantamount to the adoption of a new Constitution. That is why these chapters have the right to revise only a special Constitutional Assembly. It is convened in accordance with federal constitutional law for the sole purpose of revising the Constitution. However, the implementation of this procedure is possible only if the proposal to revise the Constitution is supported by 3/5 of the total number of members of the Federation Council and deputies of the State Duma (clause 2, article 135).
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
1) one or more normative acts that together form (officially or in fact) the constitution of the state. For example, the Constitution of Austria is officially called the Federal Constitutional Law; 2) a law that regulates certain social relations instead of the chapter of the constitution canceled with its adoption or in addition to the constitution. Such a KZ acts together with the constitution, becomes part of it:
3) laws on amendments and additions to the constitution; 4) declarations on the adoption of the constitution, the proclamation of the constitution, on the procedure for putting it into effect: 5) all those laws, the adoption of which is either directly provided for, or follows from the constitution; 6) laws on a fairly specific range of issues indicated in the constitution, moreover, the acts adopted on these issues are officially referred to as K.z.
K.z. characterize: the need for a larger number of votes cast when they are adopted by parliament or its chambers (qualified majority);
the specifics of entry into force (for example, the impossibility of a presidential veto on such laws): greater legal force compared to other laws, and even more so other regulatory legal acts (see Federal constitutional laws).
Avakyan S.A.
Law Encyclopedia. 2005 .
See what the "CONSTITUTIONAL LAW" is in other dictionaries:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, the source of constitutional law (see LAW (system of norms)). In most countries, a constitutional law is a law that amends the constitution. Their procedure is the same as the procedure for amending the constitution. In the Russian ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary
Law Dictionary
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Legal Encyclopedia
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- (federal constitutional law) one of the types of normative legal acts of the Russian Federation, provided for by the Constitution of the Russian Federation. K. z. one of the most controversial concepts of constitutional law, causing various interpretations. On the subject of regulation, you can ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Constitutional Law
constitutional law- this is a law that, in a number of states, amends or supplements the constitution, or a law, the adoption of which is expressly provided for by the Basic Law. In Russia, it is called a federal constitutional law and is adopted by a qualified ... ... Big Law Dictionary
In a number of states, one of the main sources of constitutional law. In some states (countries of the French language, Romania, etc.) K.z. this is a law that amends the constitution, in others (RF, Kazakhstan, etc.) K.z. accepted for questions... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Economics and Law
The law in a broad sense is considered as a synonym for law, or rather legislation. Laws are all normative legal acts (their totality), emanating from the state in the face of all its rule-making bodies. Under the name of the law ... ... Wikipedia
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- in foreign constitutional practice, a law that makes changes and additions to the current constitution of the country. In the Russian Federation, these are federal laws, the adoption of which is directly provided for by the current Constitution of the Russian Federation. The unambiguous concept of K.z. in… … Encyclopedic Dictionary "Constitutional Law of Russia"
constitutional law- in a number of countries one of the main sources of constitutional law. In some (countries of the French language, as well as Romania, etc.) this is a law amending the constitution, in others (RF, Kazakhstan) K.z. are published on issues stipulated by ... ... Big Law Dictionary
Main article: Legislation of the Russian Federation The Federal Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation is a type of federal legislative acts adopted in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation on issues ... ... Wikipedia
Books
- Federal Constitutional Law "On Courts of General Jurisdiction in the Russian Federation", Federal Law "On Justices of the Peace in the Russian Federation", . Federal constitutional law "On courts of general jurisdiction in the Russian Federation" . Federal Law "On Justices of the Peace in the Russian Federation"…
- Federal constitutional law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" No. 1-FKZ,. The text of the Law was prepared using the professional legal system 171; Code 187;, verified with an official source. Changes: Federal Law No. 5-FKZ of 08.06.2015;…
Anticipating the text of the article, I want to warn the dear reader that its main volume was written in 2005 and slightly supplemented shortly before it was posted on KONT. However, due to the recent events, it not only has not lost its relevance, but, it seems to me, has acquired even greater significance. The very comparison of the State Duma with a "mad printer" speaks volumes.
What has been happening in Russia since the entry into force of the current Constitution cannot be described otherwise than as a creeping constitutional coup, carried out through the consistent adoption of unconstitutional laws and other legal acts. The last point in this process was the adoption of amendments to the laws "On the Election of Deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation" and "On the Election of Heads of the Executive Power of the Regions", which, even in the previous edition, not only in particular, but also fundamentally contradicted the Constitution. The current Constitution does not allow the formation of bodies of legislative (representative) power according to a proportional system, i.e. according to the lists of political parties and associations.
Why did such a situation arise in which it became possible not only to adopt, but also to apply unconstitutional laws? In order to understand this, let's make an excursion into our recent past. Let's start with the entry into force of the current Constitution.
In order not to be unfounded and not to become like our "legalists", arguing my statements, I will refer to the provisions of the Constitution in their organic interconnection, as required by the principles of interpretation of this legal act.
So, the Constitution came into force. According to paragraphs 2, 5 of the final and transitional provisions of the Constitution, articles 10, 11, 93, 100, 104, 118, 120, 123, 125 of the Constitution, the judges of the Constitutional Court are obliged to begin to fulfill their constitutional duties on the basis of the law on the Constitutional Court of the RSFSR in, parts that do not contradict the current Constitution (part 2 of the final and transitional provisions of the Constitution).
According to Part 5 of Article 125 of the Constitution, - "The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, at the request of the President of the Russian Federation, the Federation Council, the State Duma, the Government of the Russian Federation, the legislative authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, interprets the Constitution of the Russian Federation."
It follows from this provision of the Constitution that the Constitutional Court is obliged to give the most complete, abstract interpretation of all provisions of the Constitution in the form of a separate legal act. I want to note that the Constitution is the only legal act for which the procedure for interpreting its provisions is established and which determines the state authority that is entrusted with the duty to give this interpretation.
The obligation of the subjects of appeal, listed in Part 5 of Article 125 of the Constitution, is not conditioned by anything, in contrast to the content of the norms of the current law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" concerning the interpretation of the Constitution. According to Article 36 of the said Law, "The basis for the consideration of the case is the revealed uncertainty ... in understanding the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, ..".
According to Article 74 of the same law, "The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopts decisions and gives opinions only on the subject specified in the appeal, and only in relation to that part of the act or the competence of the body, the constitutionality of which is called into question in the appeal." In addition, according to the judges of the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court only checks existing laws and other legal acts, despite the fact that this is not at all obvious, even based on the meaning of the norms of the Law itself.
Following the logic of the developer of this Law (and they were, among other things, the judges of the Constitutional Court), the legislative (rule-making) body is given the right to interpret the Constitution, since the Constitutional Court, in the opinion of the judges of the Constitutional Court, interprets the Constitution only if the subject of the appeal has a misunderstanding of the meaning of a specific provision of the Constitution, which contradicts the provisions of part 4 of article 3, part 5 of article 125 of the Constitution. Taking into account the mentality of officials of public authorities, the level of their legal awareness and other factors, a situation may arise in which these persons will not have any doubts about understanding the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution. This assumption is confirmed by the fact that for the entire period of the Constitution's validity, the Constitutional Court received requests related to the "misunderstanding" of those of its provisions that fix the powers of state authorities and the principles of their differentiation. That is, state authorities and their officials are concerned only with how to divide the "portfolios" and how to fill them?
I want to draw the attention of the dear reader to the fact that in Part 5 of Article 125 of the Constitution, only those subjects of circulation are listed that, under the Constitution, are empowered to adopt laws and other legal acts. And this is no coincidence, since it is for the legislative (rule-making) body that an official interpretation of the Constitution is necessary, which can only be given by the Constitutional Court. It is on the basis of the official interpretation of the Constitution that the legislative (rule-making) body has the right to develop laws and other legal acts. Otherwise, a legal conflict arises, since the legislative (rule-making) body, in the absence of an official interpretation of the Constitution, actually assigns the powers of the Constitutional Court to interpret the Constitution, and according to part 4 of Article 3 of the Constitution, "No one can appropriate power in the Russian Federation. Seizure power or the misappropriation of power is punishable under federal law." Remarkably, the two most socially dangerous types of crimes, directly indicated in the chapter that establishes the foundations of the constitutional order of the Russian Federation, were not reflected in the Criminal Code. And this is no coincidence, officials of public authorities, primarily senior officials, do not want to be held accountable for their malfeasance. With the palisade of the norms of the current legislation, they protected themselves not only from the possibility of criminal punishment, but also from the possibility of criminal prosecution, which contradicts the provisions of part 4 of article 3, article 19, articles 52, 53, 122 of the Constitution.
The legal conflict, in terms of the interpretation of the Constitution, is inherent in the law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation". In the absence of an official interpretation of the Constitution, when developing this or that norm of a law, legal act, the legislative (rule-making) body interprets the provisions of the Constitution based on its own, personal understanding of its provisions, often distorting its meaning, not only because it is illiterate in the legal sense, but often, proceeding from other motives, including mercenary ones.
It must be understood that Part 5 of Article 125 of the Constitution does not talk about the interpretation of its individual provisions in relation to a specific case, but about a full, comprehensive, abstract interpretation of the Constitution, which is mandatory, both for the subjects of appeal listed in Part 5 of Article 125 of the Constitution, and for the judges of the Constitutional Court themselves. Otherwise, a situation arises that is described by the words of the proverb "the law - that the drawbar ...". And it is this principle that is laid down, both in the current law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", and in all legislation, and the same principle is professed by officials of state authorities of all its branches, manipulating the minds of people, distorting the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution.
It must also be realized that the Constitutional Court is not a court in the usual sense of the word, the principles of legal proceedings in most of its powers are not applicable to it. The Constitutional Court is a kind of Chamber of Weights and Measures, but only in the field of law. The Constitutional Court, exercising its powers, acts in three guises, depending on the issue it resolves:
firstly, as the highest legislative body of state power in terms of the interpretation of the Constitution, including in connection with the introduction of amendments to the Constitution. And it should be accepted not in the process of judicial proceedings, but in the procedures for the adoption of a legal act of the appropriate level, given that the "Interpretation of the Constitution", as a legal act, in its legal force is higher than the level of federal constitutional law, but lower than the level of the Constitution;
secondly, as a body of constitutional control in terms of:
Checks prepared for the adoption of laws and other legal acts, including international treaties, for compliance with the Constitution, including in connection with the introduction of amendments and additions to existing laws and other legal acts, since, part 1, article 15 of the Constitution, the adoption of legal acts that contradict the Constitution is prohibited;
Checks of laws and other legal acts for compliance with the Constitution on complaints from citizens and other persons who believe that their rights and freedoms may be violated or are violated by a law or other legal act, as well as by banning the court, in the case when the court comes to the conclusion that the law or other legal act to be applied or applied in a particular case is contrary to the Constitution;
Checks of laws and other legal acts, including international treaties, adopted before the entry into force of the current Constitution and passed a preliminary check in the order of abstract normative control in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation;
Checks of unconstitutional laws and other legal acts adopted after the entry into force of the current Constitution, but for some reason "leaked" into law enforcement practice through the "sieve" of procedures to give these laws legal force.
Decisions of the Constitutional Court in this part of the powers should be drawn up in the form of resolutions recognizing (or not recognizing) laws and other legal acts or their individual provisions as constitutional (or unconstitutional) and containing direct indications that the subjects of appeals listed in part 2 of Article 125 of the Constitution must be executed , as well as proposals (using the right of legislative initiative) concerning the substantive part of laws and other legal acts. The adoption of decisions of the Constitutional Court in this part of the powers is carried out in the procedures for the adoption of amendments to draft laws, and not in the procedures for judicial proceedings;
Also conclusions on compliance with the procedure for bringing charges against the President;
thirdly, as a judicial body in terms of the powers established by part 3 of article 125 of the Constitution.
According to the provisions of the Constitution and the law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" itself, federal constitutional laws and federal laws acquire legal force subject to the following procedures:
1) verification of laws in the Constitutional Court in full before their adoption (approval) by the State Duma and the Federation Council (Articles 2, 15, 17, 18, 16, 125 of the Constitution);
2) adoption (approval) of laws by the State Duma (Articles 105, 108 of the Constitution);
3) approval of laws by the Federation Council (articles 105, 106, 108 of the Constitution);
4) signing of laws by the President (articles 84, 107, 108 of the Constitution);
Failure to comply with at least one of the listed procedures means that the federal constitutional law or federal law does not have legal force. Laws and other legal acts that do not have legal force are not subject to enactment, application and execution.
From the foregoing, four important conclusions follow regarding the interpretation of the Constitution:
1. Subjects of appeals listed in paragraph 5 of Article 125 of the Constitution, regardless of whether they correctly or incorrectly understand the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution, are obliged to apply to the Constitutional Court with a request for interpretation of the Constitution.
2. Subjects of appeals listed in part 5 of article 125 of the Constitution are prohibited from developing laws and other legal acts in the absence of an interpretation of the Constitution.
3. Regardless of whether or not a request for interpretation of the Constitution has been received, the Constitutional Court is obliged to give the most complete, comprehensive, abstract interpretation of the Constitution.
4. The official "Interpretation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation" should be the first legal act adopted by the Constitutional Court after the entry into force of the current Constitution, since its absence hinders further law-making (rule-making) activities.
The judges of the Constitutional Court were obliged to take care of the creation of the "Interpretation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation" as a legal act from the moment the text of the Constitution was submitted for public discussion, taking into account the fact that many judges of the Constitutional Court were directly involved in the development of the draft Constitution, and in connection with this could not but foresee the sequence established by the Constitution of the adoption of legal acts.
However, in violation of the provisions of paragraphs 2, 5 of the final and transitional provisions of the Constitution, articles 10, 11, 93, 100, 104, 118, 120, 123, 125 of the Constitution, in violation of the oath, the judges of the Constitutional Court began to fulfill their constitutional duties after one and a half years from the date of entry into force of the current Constitution. During this time, the State Duma and the Federation Council, in violation of the Constitution, adopted a number of fundamental laws that contradict the Constitution not only in particular, but also in their essence. In particular, the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" was adopted, which, in violation of the provisions of Article 2, Article 15, Article 16, Article 18, Article 125 of the Constitution, allows not only the adoption, but also the application of an unconstitutional law or other legal act , gives the right to both the legislator and the law enforcer to interpret the Constitution at their own discretion. And if we take into account that many judges of the Constitutional Court took part in the development of this law, then we can judge the level of legal awareness of these people.
In this regard, I would like to quote from publications and interviews of the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Mr. V.D. Zorkin.
In the journal "Journal of Russian Law", No. 6 of June 1, 2004, the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Mr. V.D. Zorkin writes, - "I want to note that I am not a conservative opponent of any changes. Life goes on, reality changes. The Constitution is not a" sacred cow ".
I would like to remind Mr. V.D. Zorkin and other judges of the Constitutional Court, that until the Constitution is amended, for you, gentlemen I do not respect, the Constitution is sacred, since the Constitution itself entrusts the Constitutional Court with the duty to protect it. And the Constitution is not a cow, as you deigned to put it, Mr. Zorkin, but the fundamental law of the Country.
It is no coincidence that the current laws are so depressing in their content and so contradictory to the Constitution that the representatives of the authorities, called upon to protect the Constitution, put it below the representative of the fauna, even if it is sacred.
And then, from this statement it follows that a bunch of crooks can, through the interpretation of the Constitution, change, in fact, the Constitution itself, despite the fact that even under the Law, the interpretation of the provision of the Constitution given by the Constitutional Court is binding on everyone, including judges of the Constitutional Court.
In an interview, Mr. V.D. Zorkin also makes other judgments, for example:
"The Constitutional Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, of course, interprets the spirit of the Constitution in relation to time. This allows it to change its legal positions, but there are certain restrictions. The Constitutional Court cannot be guided by the pure letter of the Constitution and must find its spirit" (October 22, 2004, INTERFAX ).
It is difficult to imagine a person with a more perverted sense of justice. I hope that the reader understands the extent of the danger posed to society by people with such a sense of justice, given that the Constitutional Court actually determines what the current legislation will be like.
"The main task of the Constitutional Court is not to prepare amendments to the Constitution, but to preserve the current Constitution, its spirit and letter" (February 11, 2005, INTERFAX).
Mr. V.D. Zorkin, however, like the rest of the judges of the Constitutional Court, should have decided - the Constitutional Court is the guardian of the Constitution, its spirit and letter, or interprets it depending on market conditions, since it is not a "sacred cow". And then, Mr. Zorkin, does the Constitutional Court have the task of preparing amendments to the Constitution, and if so, then I would like to know who assigned it?
"Our task - the judges of the Constitutional Court - is to ensure strict observance of the fundamental law, the correctness and clarity of its interpretation" (February 10, 2005, INTERFAX). This is something one cannot but agree with. Only the question arises, where is this very interpretation of the Constitution, besides - correct and clear? And, is it not the current composition of the Constitutional Court that is going to accept it?
And here is the "legal position" of the Constitutional Court, which was reflected in the ruling in a particular case:
DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION No. 21-O
on the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of citizens Alyosha Andrey Mikhailovich and Alesh Elena Mikhailovna on violation of their constitutional rights by the provisions of Articles 3, 43, 96 and 97 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”
“The norms of Articles 3, 96 and 97 of the said Law contested by the applicants, in essence, reproduce and specify the constitutionally established authority of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to protect the rights of citizens, and, therefore, resolving the issue raised by the applicant would actually mean an assessment of Article 125 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation defining the powers of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is not entitled to do."
As for the reproduction and specification of the provisions of part 4 of article 125 of the Constitution by the norms of articles 3, 96 and 97 of the law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", this statement is a blatant lie. Firstly, because the enumerated articles of the Law perverted the provisions of the Constitution, and secondly, the very provision of Part 4 of Article 125 of the Constitution specifies the duty of the Constitutional Court, on the basis of complaints from citizens and requests from the courts, to check for compliance with the Constitution, and to be more precise, for compliance The interpretation of the Constitution, laws and other legal acts adopted before the entry into force of the current Constitution (the current Constitution does not allow the adoption of laws and other legal acts that contradict it) and is of a private nature. In the general case, in accordance with Article 2, Article 15 (Parts 1, 2, 4), Article 16, Article 17 (Part 1), Article 18, Article 45 (Part 1), Article 46 (Part 1), Article 47 (part 1), article 55, article 56 (part 3), article 118 (part 2) of the Constitution, articles 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the right of citizens to judicial protection and to apply to court, including and constitutional, cannot be limited by anything even in a state of emergency.
The conclusion that the Constitutional Court is not entitled to evaluate Article 125 of the Constitution (as well as any other provision of the Constitution) cannot be called anything other than Jesuitical, since the interpretation of the Constitution is the legal assessment of its provisions. And the Constitutional Court is not only not entitled to assess its provisions, but is obliged - by virtue of the same Constitution. The powers of the Constitutional Court to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens consist in preventing the adoption, and even more so the application of a law or other legal act that contradicts the Constitution (Interpretation of the Constitution), since it is at the legislative level that the rights and freedoms of citizens, mechanisms for their implementation and protection are fixed .
An attentive reader has noticed that in the above paragraph of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court, as well as in the whole reasoning part of the Ruling, Article 43 of the Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" is not mentioned. And this is no coincidence. Article 43 of the Law lists the grounds for refusing to accept an appeal for consideration. One of the grounds is the inconsistency of the appeal with the admissibility criteria, in this case, enshrined in Article 97 of the Law.
The Constitutional Court was not entitled to refuse to accept this application, since the provision of paragraph 2 of Article 43 of the Law, among others, is disputed by the applicants.
The Constitutional Court was not entitled to refuse to accept the application on the basis of paragraph 3 of Article 43 of the Law, since neither the contested norms of the Law, nor the Law itself were the subject of consideration in the Constitutional Court, and the Constitutional Court did not take a decision in the form of a decision on the compliance or non-compliance of the Law "On Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" of the Constitution. In fact, the Constitutional Court in its decisions refers to an unconstitutional Law, a Law that has no legal force, since it did not pass the test for compliance with the Constitution (Interpretation of the Constitution) in the Constitutional Court, and therefore could not be adopted and published.
But that's not all, the Constitutional Court violates the norms of the Law itself. In particular, the norms of Article 74 of the law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", resolving the case not within the framework of the stated requirements, but to the extent determined by the Constitutional Court itself, unlawfully narrowing the range of the stated requirements.
The Constitutional Court violates the norms of Article 3 of the Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", since it is based on the materials of the case considered by the court of general jurisdiction, when resolving the issue of the scope of the claims to be considered, stated in the appeal.
The Constitutional Court violates the provisions of part 4 of article 3, article 118 of the Constitution, article 3 of the law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", going far beyond the limits of its decision-making powers.
As an example, I will cite the operative part of the Resolution of the Constitutional Court in the case on the verification of the constitutionality of the provision of paragraph 11 of Article 51 of the Federal Law of June 24, 1999 “On the Election of Deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”
"Based on the foregoing and guided by the first and second parts of Article 71, Articles 72, 75, 79 and 87 of the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation
p o s t a n o v i l:
1. Recognize that it does not comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, its articles 3 (part 3), 19 (parts 1 and 2), 30 (parts 1 and 2), 32 (parts 1 and 2) and 55 (part 3), the provision of paragraph 11 article 51 of the Federal Law “On Elections of Deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”, according to which, in the event of the withdrawal of one or more candidates who occupied the first three places in the federal part of the certified federal list of candidates (except for cases of withdrawal due to compelling circumstances specified in paragraph 16 of this article), the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation shall refuse to register the federal list of candidates or cancel it.
Recognition of the said provision of Clause 11 of Article 51 of the Federal Law “On Elections of Deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation” as inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation does not affect the results of the elections to the State Duma held on December 19, 1999, and cannot serve as a basis for revising their results.
In this case, regarding the recognition or non-recognition of the results of the elections to the State Duma, the Constitutional Court resolved the issue within the jurisdiction of the court of general jurisdiction and, having assigned powers, prejudged the decision of this court.
The violations of the provisions of the Constitution and the law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” listed above were committed by the Constitutional Court when adopting the vast majority of rulings and resolutions. In order to be convinced of this, I suggest that readers visit the website of the Constitutional Court, posted on the Internet, and familiarize themselves with its definitions and decisions.
The Constitutional Court deliberately violates not only the Constitution, but also the Law, since the current composition of the Constitutional Court sees its main task not to protect the Constitution, violated rights and freedoms of citizens, but to protect the corporate and other interests of government officials, including their personal ones.
Over the past years, citizens have repeatedly sent complaints to the Constitutional Court in order to verify both individual provisions of the law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” and the Law as a whole. However, in violation of the Constitution and the Law, the Constitutional Court refused to accept such complaints, knowing full well that, by virtue of the current legislation, the law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” will never be the subject of consideration in the Constitutional Court, since it cannot be applied or subject to application in a particular case before a court of general jurisdiction. This Law will not be the subject of consideration and at the request of the state authorities listed as subjects of appeal in parts 2 and 4 of Article 125 of the Constitution, since for them, bringing this Law into line with the Constitution is dangerous and fraught with consequences up to criminal prosecution.
The criminal nature of the actions and inaction, first of all, of the judges of the Constitutional Court has led to the fact that at present there are no legitimate bodies of state power and local self-government in Russia, since they are formed on the basis of laws that have no legal force. Laws do not have legal force insofar as none of them passed the test for compliance with the Constitution (Interpretation of the Constitution) in the Constitutional Court and were adopted by illegitimate state authorities. Moreover, the criminal nature of the activities of judges of the Constitutional Court, legislative, executive, judicial bodies of state power was assumed at the stage of drafting the law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”. It is impossible to explain the flagrant inconsistency of this Law with the Constitution by the legal ignorance of the judges of the Constitutional Court, given the fact that the judges of the Constitutional Court were directly involved in the development of the draft law, and naturally, due to their education and qualifications, could not but see this inconsistency and inconsistency of the norms of the Constitutional Court itself. Law.
The criminal nature of the activities of the judges of the Constitutional Court is not limited to the above facts. Regular meetings of judges of the Constitutional Court with V.V. Putin are criminal in nature, since they occur not only in violation of the Constitution, but also the current legislation, given the fact that the President of the Russian Federation, according to the Constitution, is a permanent subject of appeal to the Constitutional Court. Officials of a public authority, who are charged with the obligation to be independent of anyone (Articles 10, 11, 120 of the Constitution, Article 29 of the law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”), make direct contacts with the highest official of the executive branch of state power .
The judges of the Constitutional Court know that the current Constitution establishes both the procedure and forms of interaction between officials of state authorities of its various branches, and no one is allowed to violate this order. According to Article 29 of the law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”, “Judges of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation make decisions under conditions that exclude outside influence on their freedom of expression. They are not entitled to request or receive instructions from anyone on issues accepted for preliminary study or considered by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation". At the same time, the actions of V.V. Putin testify to pressure on the judges of the Constitutional Court, which is a violation of both the Constitution and the Law. According to Article 29 of the law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", - "Any interference in the activities of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is not allowed and entails the responsibility provided for by law."
The very fact of summoning the judges of the Constitutional Court (and not only the constitutional one) to the "carpet" was the basis for the dismissal of President V.V. Putin from office and bringing him to criminal responsibility. Judges of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Arbitration Court take such "invitations" as an honor shown to them, and at the same time they rant about the lack of independence of judges, pretending that they do not understand the origins of this phenomenon.
The feeling of independence is a state of the human spirit. A person with a slave psychology cannot be independent, even if he is given independence. The most disgusting phenomenon in public life is a slave, endowed with power. He is obsequious and servile to superiors, equal to himself - rude, becomes a tyrant with subordinates. The only means that can reason with such a person is batogi. Speaking of batogs, I mean severe penalties provided by law for failure to perform or improper performance of duties assigned to an official of a state authority, whose actions or inaction led to a violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens, to undermine the foundations of the constitutional order. Let me remind the gentlemen in power that authority is not a right, authority is a duty. Did, by adopting the Constitution, the citizens of Russia endowed the deputies with the right to adopt unconstitutional laws, or gave the President the right to violate the Constitution, or was the court allowed to make illegal decisions and issue unjust sentences? No sir, We didn't give you rights, We gave you powers! Read, gentlemen, officials, the provision of the first part of Article 3 of the Constitution, it is written there who is the bearer of the right! However, do not confuse your civil rights with the powers you have under the Constitution or the law. The right implies freedom of choice, while the powers do not have such a criterion.
Official meetings of the highest representatives of the judicial and executive authorities are in the nature of collusion. How else can one explain that after such meetings, presidential initiatives appear in the form of amendments to the laws "On the Election of Deputies of the State Duma" and "On the Election of Heads of Executive Power of the Regions", which are adopted with a bang by the State Duma and the Federation Council? Or court decisions are made that do not fit into the legal framework and norms of laws.
Is it not for this kind of loyalty and "impartiality" that President V.V. At the All-Russian Congress of Judges, Putin promised representatives of the judiciary to raise their salaries three times, and is this not evidence of bribing judges by the executive branch? Which of the judges, after this, will come up with the idea of "biting" the hand of the giver?
The same can be said about the meetings of V.V. Putin and senior officials of the State Duma and the Federation Council, after which the legislator passes anti-constitutional laws. It got to the point that officials of the Presidential Administration summon deputies of the State Duma and give them instructions on how and in what form to adopt this or that law.
President Putin, at one time, with the help of the "pocket" Federal Assembly and the Constitutional Court, formed the vertical of power, pursuing the goal of creating a unitary state and establishing the omnipotence of the nomenklatura party. Our officials are haunted by the dubious glory of the CPSU - "leading and directing." It is no coincidence that, at the suggestion of the Kremlin, the United Russia party and the Liberal Democratic Party are promoting the idea of establishing in Russia a Chinese model of political leadership of the country, but in fact a return to the period of omnipotence of the top of the CPSU. Isn't it clear that lies, hypocrisy, moral and intellectual degradation of uncontrolled power led, in due time, to the economic and spiritual decline of Soviet society and the collapse of the Soviet Union? How many times do we need to step on the same "rake" to understand this?
I would like to remind the representatives of parties and social movements that the predominance of representatives of one party or another, one or another social movement in power structures does not give them the right to establish their ideology at the legislative level and solve their narrow party tasks. The current Constitution does not allow for the establishment, at the legislative level, of any exceptions, preferences or privileges for parties and social movements. The current Constitution does not allow the formation of legislative (representative) bodies of power according to the proportional system (according to party lists). The only right of parties and social movements, in the sphere of formation of public authorities, is the nomination of their candidates for certain public posts. And precisely because our "chosen ones", with the complicity of the Constitutional Court, violated the fundamental principles of the formation of state authorities, all the negative phenomena that struck our society became possible. Power, formed on the principle of you to me - I to you, generates its own kind at all levels. It decomposes itself and corrupts society. It creates a regime of arbitrariness and lawlessness in the country. It is not under the control of society and stands guard over its interests, adopting appropriate laws, ignoring the Constitution.
The principles for the formation of legislative (representative) bodies of state power and the appointment of heads of regions, established by the current legislation, clearly show their viciousness and inconsistency with the Constitution.
The norms of the law "On Elections of Deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation" contradict the provisions of Part 2 of Article 96, Part 1 of Article 97, Article 2, Part 3 of Article 3, Parts 2 and 4 of Article 13, Article 18, Article 19, Part 2 of Article 30, Part 2 of article 32, parts 2 and 3 of article 55 of the Constitution. In addition, the principle of the formation of legislative (representative) bodies of state power according to a proportional system contradicts the provision of Article 1 of the law "On the Election of Deputies of the State Duma", according to which, the election of deputies is carried out on the basis of "universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot". ".
Legislative (representative) authorities and heads of regions become beyond the control of society not only formally, but also in fact. A deputy "elected" under a proportional system, in principle, cannot express the interests of the people, since he is not elected by them, but, in fact, is appointed by the party elite. And, established by the Regulations of the State Duma, the principle of consolidated voting is a vivid proof of this.
Over the years that have passed since the adoption of the current Constitution, many deputies and other representatives of the authorities have repeatedly stated that the laws are what the Constitution is, saying at the same time - "what they wanted, they got." Perhaps it will be a revelation for many if I say that the laws are such because you, gentlemen, deputies, adopted them in violation of the Constitution and laid down unconstitutional norms in them, and the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with it.
When adopting the current Constitution, the citizens of Russia proceeded from the fact that, regardless of party affiliation, representatives of this or that party, this or that social movement, independent deputies will implement the ideology and those principles that are enshrined in the Constitution. And no narrow party guidelines, other considerations can be higher than this ideology and these principles. And if someone thinks otherwise, then he is deeply mistaken in this.
I did not accidentally highlight the word ideology in the text. In the last two or three years, calls to change the Constitution of the Russian Federation have become more frequent on the Internet, associated with criticism of its provisions enshrined in part 4 of Article 15 and Article 13. The first provision establishes the priority of international law over national law, the second establishes a ban on state, or obligatory ideology . These legal conflicts are resolved within the framework of the Interpretation of the Constitution and the review of laws and international treaties for compliance with the Constitution. They arose precisely because the judges of the Constitutional Court did not and do not fulfill their constitutional duties. And now, in the absence of a legal framework that has legal force, they are trying to protect the interests of the Russian Federation in confrontation with the ECtHR and other judicial bodies, appropriating powers that they are not endowed with.
I would especially like to draw the attention of respected readers to the provision of Article 13 of the Constitution. It is difficult to come up with a more ridiculous provision, given the fact that the state ideology originates in the Constitution of the country and is enshrined in its laws. There is no state without ideology! Those who introduced this provision into the Constitution are notorious scoundrels. This provision is purely declarative, and under no circumstances can be fulfilled, since, I repeat, the state ideology is implemented through its legislation. And knowing this, the scoundrels have been introducing a bourgeois, liberal ideology in Russia for a quarter of a century, contrary to the socially oriented, socialist in spirit ideology enshrined in the Constitution.
One could continue to give examples of crimes committed and committed by the current government, but I will not do this for two reasons:
firstly, because many have long understood the criminal nature of the activities of the current government and its goals;
secondly, for those who have not yet figured out the essence of what is happening, I think I have given enough facts and evidence.
And finally, as a result of criminal activity and inaction of the authorities in the country, a situation has developed in which:
There are no laws that have legal force;
There are no legitimate bodies of state power, state bodies, local self-government bodies;
There are no legitimate officials of public authorities, state bodies, local governments.
Power in the country has been usurped by the nomenklatura, which is, in fact, organized crime groups.
The country lives outside the legal field! Lives by concept! According to the concepts of the criminal world!
Kudashov Alexander
Distribution of the article is welcome.
this is a law that in a number of states amends or supplements the constitution, or a law, the adoption of which is expressly provided for by the Basic Law. In Russia, it is called a federal constitutional law and is adopted by a qualified majority of votes of both houses of parliament on issues expressly provided for by the Constitution of the Russian Federation (for example, the Federal Constitutional Law "On a referendum in the Russian Federation").
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (federal constitutional law)
one of the types of normative legal acts of the Russian Federation, provided for by the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
K. z. - one of the most controversial concepts of constitutional law, causing various interpretations.
On the subject of regulation, the following practical and scientific approaches can be identified: K. z. consider one or more acts that together form (officially or in fact) the constitution of the state. For example, the Constitution of Austria is officially called the Federal Constitutional Law. Or, for example, with the transformation in 1961 of the Tuva Autonomous Region into the Tuva Autonomous Republic as part of the RSFSR, the Supreme Council of the TASSR adopted 4 laws on issues of its social structure and state organization. At that time, the imminent adoption of the new Constitution of the USSR, respectively, of the RSFSR was assumed (in fact, everything dragged on until 1977), therefore, it was considered inappropriate to adopt the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic before their appearance. These acts together fulfilled the role of the Constitution of the ASSR (and made up for its absence). They were not called Constitutional Laws, although they carried out their purpose; A constitutional law is a law that regulates certain social relations instead of the chapter of the constitution that is canceled with its adoption or in addition to the constitution. Such a K. z. acts together with the constitution, becomes part of it. For example, until 1968 Czechoslovakia was a unitary state. In 1968, it was transformed into a federal state, the Constitutional Law on the Czechoslovak Federation was adopted, replacing the corresponding part of the Constitution of this country. Naturally, this act became an integral part of the Constitution of Czechoslovakia; K. z. in the practice of some countries and according to the position of individual scientists, laws on amendments and additions to the constitution are considered; according to a number of authors, among K. z. or acts having the character of constitutional laws, one should also include declarations on the adoption of a constitution, on the proclamation of a constitution, on the adoption and declaration of a constitution, laws on the procedure for enacting a constitution; Constitutional laws, from the point of view of some scholars, are all those laws, the adoption of which is either directly provided for or follows from the constitution; K. z. - these are laws on a fairly specific range of issues indicated in the constitution, and the acts adopted on these issues are officially referred to as constitutional laws. The criterion for highlighting this group of issues in the constitution is their importance, and the name of the acts on these issues attaches particular importance to the relevant social relations and is aimed at increasing their stability.
On legal grounds K. z. characterize: the need for a larger number of votes cast when they are adopted by parliament or its chambers (qualified majority); the specifics of entry into force (for example, the impossibility of a presidential veto on such laws); higher legal force in comparison with other laws, and even more so with other normative legal acts - all of them must comply not only with the constitution, but also with the Code of Law.
In the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws (FKZ) are laws on a certain range of issues named in the Constitution of the Russian Federation (on the subject, this is the last of the groups of constitutional laws named above). The FKZ is adopted by a qualified majority of votes of the chambers of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, has a higher legal force in comparison with ordinary federal laws, and even more so with other legal acts. For the adoption of the FKZ, the approval of at least 3/4 of the votes of the total number of members of the Federation Council and at least 2/3 of the votes of the total number of deputies of the State Duma is required. The adopted FKZ is subject to signing within 14 days by the President of the Russian Federation and promulgation (in contrast to simple federal laws, the right of the President's veto is not provided). According to part 3 of Art. 76 of the Constitution, federal laws of the Russian Federation cannot contradict the FKZ.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation does not give grounds to put the FKZ on the same level as the Constitution itself, and even more so to consider them part of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. According to Part 1 of Art. 15, laws and other legal acts adopted in the Russian Federation must not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation. This provision also applies to the FCA. (For more details on the range of issues of the FKZ, see: Federal Constitutional Law.) (S. A.)
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
