So I'm moving on to constitutional details, but there's not going to be a way to explain why writers won't introduce them. There will besides be an extra-legal or political comment. The reasons are:
With the triumph of president Nawrocki, the thought of a constitutional majority appeared, which would destruct the plunderer state or something (video Ziemkiewicz). We have a terrible PiS, a terrible Confederacy and an even scary Braun, bred by the totals. Tera Bosak says if you don't want Braun, support him. And they will. The reason for the present state of affairs is that the totals do not want to go along and seeing the increasing support of the pigs let them to do this and this. The full hanging of the EU doorknobs tries to keep their possession state before 2015, to which they do not have the strength and resources, hence the current circus and Ciamajdan The second thwarted by the Holovnia (pacz erstwhile note). Trump pressed Ursula and there is no EU support for this Ciamajdan no. 2. Tusk must, at Merz's command, let illegals into Poland, which weakens his position. We can besides include Zandberg in the possible constitutional majority.
And the presidential system
Proposal ed. The Earthkiewicz transition to the presidential strategy is worth deep consideration. The reason he committed is that there must be responsibility, and the president will be responsible, not like now where the Prime Minister drops on the coalitions, on the president, on that one, on that one. In addition, there will be a real tripartition of authorities. This divided will be later. Now I will add that the presidential French strategy is disastrous and is 1 of the sources (but serious) of the collapse of this country. It derives from royal traditions, from specified Louis XIV. The president is specified a king chosen for a fewer years, and the king is not responsible. And the president in France is not responsible, there is simply a Prime Minister who the president can cancel, etc. We have a circus there with the alleged co-habitation, which is the president from a different option than the Prime Minister. In the United States, however, the president heads the government and answers. In addition, there is simply a division into executive and legislative authority. The president is to execute and these congresses are to pass. This is 1 of the causes (but serious) of the success of the US. A subject to be developed.
II The Dark Constitution
Political comment: our pathologies are not our condition, they happen in a number of countries. These are frequently the last resort: they presume that, for example, the president will be theirs, and in the eventual need, he will go to the rudeness and, for example, he will not appoint a minister. There was a case in Italy. But if the president's not theirs and ours and he's going to the slob, he's a slob.
Legal comment: justice Zaradkiewicz quoted on the X-sa a fragment of the commentary to the Constitution under the editorial board of Prof. Leszek Garlicki (authorization of erstwhile justice TK Sokolewicz). It is unclear whether the president must appoint a minister at the Prime Minister's request. So the 1997 Constitution sucks and hopeless, and created by ignorant people, discredits the biases supporting it. I was against it. They have not been able to make this simple clear:
]]>https://x.com/Zradkiewicz_K/status/1948001961350983901]]>
]]>https://x.com/Zradkiewicz_K/status/1948003005535801743]]>
By the way, they are changing these comments sharply with a change in the political situation. However, they may not alter erstwhile editions retroactively. As in the USSR, they sent changes to the encyclopedia: you had to tape your passwords with fresh versions.
Solution:
Two categories of events request to be introduced: ceremonies and decisions. The ceremony has no effect on anything. For example, if we consider the appointment of a minister to be a ceremony, the President's refusal will not halt the nomination. For example, the candidate can slam 3 hoards and shout: “I am a young minister, I am not afraid of water, due to the fact that where water is I hyc, I am not afraid of anything and nothing.” If we consider the appointment of the minister to be the President's decision, then he may not appoint and will not be a candidate minister. There is, of course, a 3rd solution: if the president does not appoint a minister, he will overdo it, but the candidate does not become a minister. You can, on the another hand, drag the president before the state tribunal. Of course, in a fewer years, and if they collect the most appropriate. It is akin with the appointment of judges. It is akin with the convening of the National Assembly and the swearing-in of the President.
Whatever solution we take, let it be clear. Let it be known what anyone can and cannot do. Not that they compose in comments on the formation of constitutional practice. So if their president blocks the appointment of a writer, the practice will be that it can block. And if the writer's president blocks the totality, the practice is that you can't. They were changing their interpretations in textbooks against president Duda. By the way of pardon.
III 5 authorities and 3 divisions
We besides have a problem with 3 divisions of authorities: in order for there to be 3 divisions of authorities it must be 3 (in words: three) authorities after Primo. And they must be separated after secundo. Meanwhile, in the current constitution we have at least 5 authorities: legislative, executive, judicial, self-government and e.g. the National Broadcasting Council. The location of the National Judicial Board is besides unclear. I don't know. Let them do it. 3 isn't five. It is possible to divide into central and local authorities, each of which is divided into these 3 types: legislative, executive, judicial. So far the constitution is against math due to the fact that 3 isn't equal to 5.
IV Government
Prime Minister's powers: now it is said that the Prime Minister cannot formally order anything to the Minister. If he has something to do with the minister, he must first vote on a resolution by the council of ministers and then he can do something. The second unclear issue is the anticipation for the Prime Minister to issue orders to officials in ministries straight without ministers.
Political comment: if 1 organization (the alleged United Right, e.g.) rules, it does not matter, due to the fact that commands follow the organization line of submission. But already, for example, Tusk is mainly harassing its ministers from the Civic Coalition. The Koalicians are a small screwed. Revocation of specified a minister besides requires agreement. And imagine that we have a average political situation with a rotating center (the rotation center is what they can do with 1 but with the other. The FPD in Germany is an example). And then Tusk comes to the minister with his face and he says to him, "Listen Donald, I'm making a call to Duck and you have a vote of distrust and you're out next week."
I don't have a crystallized imagination that the option is better. Each circumstantial is better than the current unknown.
On the another hand, it is essential to deprive the alleged Undersecretaries of the position of Vice-Ministers and introduce average Deputy Ministers, 2 or three, or any in each ministry. Secretary of State needs to be introduced due to the fact that the Undersecretary is individual under the Secretary. And if there are no secretaries, there's no 1 to sit under and get frustrated by it.
V Courts
Political comment: The problem with judges is that they come from either Stalin himself or those who even knew Stalin. We have graduates of three-month referee courses, or guests who have come from the ZSRS or another like. They remained luminaries of judgmental thought, authorities, educators of subsequent generations. These next generations were coopted in a appropriate spirit. After 1989, they were not touched due to the fact that they were fuses, but as if the communists had been put on, the judges guaranteed that the hair from the communists' heads would not fall. fewer trials led to the death of old age peacefully.
Hence the gross degree of immunity which should be limited in accordance with European standards. It should be clearly stated that judicial authority is autonomous of another authorities. With respect to the another 2 authorities, 4. But it's not autonomous towards citizens. So judges should be elected either straight or by representatives. It cannot be that judges choose the KRS and the KRS chooses the judges. I propose that the College of Electors be elected by the municipal councils as the least politicized.
It besides needs to be determined whether the first president of the ultimate Court can be the sole President, or if it is the first president it must be the second President? There's nothing in the Constitution about any chambers, is there? Further, the provision of rulings based on constitutions, laws, etc. must be enforced.
VI European Union
In general, I propose that we stick to pro-EU propaganda before accession. At the time, they promised different scams, for example, in which matters the Union has nothing to say. And changing that requires a referendum again. There was no talk of green governance, imposing burdens on the owners of houses, interfering with the organization of courts, etc. I so propose specified provisions:
1. The Constitution is superior to the EU surface, any directives, etc. It must be written directly.
2. The judges are Polish judges. If any of us want to be EU, go to Brussels and let Ursula pay his salary. Before 2004, there was no mention of the EU of judges.
3. We have no lower legal culture than Western countries, on the contrary, we have a higher one. Therefore, if something is introduced in them, e.g. the choice of judges by politicians, it can be here too.
VII
I see a problem with the Talmudisation of the law. They will invent fresh rollers and we in consequence solutions that are meant to prevent these scams. And the law will grow and complicate. On the another hand, at present, various legal authorities have demeaned and compromised by telling androns about the suspension of the National Assembly, etc. We have 1 last bell to save. Realize that they do not consider what they think. If it were the president and the home of work and the prime minister and the 3 writing chambers, they'd be talking precisely like a reprisal. Similarly, for example Olgiard Rudak making various sea stories in the Lege Artis Times or Prof. Matczak.
We have concepts like the default constitutionality. They're not in the constitution. At the elections to the parliament we have the evidence that the ultimate Court states the validity of the elections to the Sejm and the Senate. There is, on the another hand, no equivalent of writing:
In the event of annulment of the election of the president of the Republic, fresh elections shall be held under the conditions provided for in Article 128(2) in the event of the election of the president of the Republic being emptied.
Hence the full conclusion that the ultimate Court does not gotta find the validity of parliamentary elections, To be honest, even if the ultimate Court finds this election null and void, nothing must happen. I don't know if you realize what I'm saying, but that's how it looks like the seym can sit on the table. There's no regulation that like the election doesn't substance you gotta repeat it. And what happens to the actions of specified a chosen chamber? If he chooses the Prime Minister, what? A subject to be developed.
The task by prof. Starowski, which is interesting:
]]>https://zpp.net.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Project-Constitution-Rzeczp...]]>
To be continued. I would add that for people who know Korwin's publicist the above comments are nothing new, he wrote specified things on the occasion of the 1997 Constitution. I would besides like to add that it is clear why writers are not curious in these issues.
