Waldemar Desk (educated engineer) He returned to his thought a decade ago. The recipe for at least controversial sentences is... Constitution.
POther:
The Constitution of the Republic of Poland is systematically and doctrinally ignored, ignored, disposed – broken by Polish judges! Let me stress: systemic and doctrinal!
The current constitution does not scope the court due to the fact that it is not treated as the applicable law! It's a law enforcement problem! This strategy is subject to the doctrine that strangles this system. He's besides choking the Constitution!
This is due to negligence after 1997 – the Constitution was then changed but the strategy was not changed.
A small further, Mr. Desk virtually takes delight in our basic law:
The Constitution is simply a paper in which freedoms and human rights are well written. This is the best part of government in the world! Its first 3 chapters are a kind of regulator of all another processes: legal, social, political ... And this regulator is – due to SDP* – unsuccessful! No wonder that so much evil and chaos have grown... and that this evil is systematically growing... the end cannot be seen.
PI guess I'm a small clogged. There is much to be said about the Constitution, but it will primarily be critical remarks.
Calling the 1997 Constitution the best legal act in the world, in terms of freedom and human rights, is alternatively proof that Mr.Deska only got acquainted with her... cover. ;)
Look at this.
Article 48 allegedly guarantees the right of parents to rise children.
1. Parents have the right to rise their children according to their own beliefs. This upbringing should take into account the maturity of the child, as well as the freedom of his conscience and religion and his beliefs.
What if parents and children have different beliefs?
The law guaranteed in the first conviction becomes illusory. In addition, you can enter the educational process at any stage.
2. The limitation or deprivation of parental rights may only take place in the cases laid down in the Act and only on the basis of a final judgement of the court.
This means that the text of Article 48 of the Constitution actually defines the laws. The constitutional evidence is only a loose declaration.
Another "law".
Article 49 is the alleged rule of freedom and protection of correspondence secrecy.
Freedom and protection of the secret of communication shall be ensured. Their limitation may happen only in the cases set out in the Act and in the manner specified therein.
Again, alternatively of the Constitution, we have a de facto mention to the bill or even a collection of them.
Article 50 to organ practice is simply mocking a citizen.
Apartment integrity shall be ensured. The search of the apartment, area or vehicle may only take place in the cases specified in the Act and as specified therein.
Article 51 is intended to defend our data. I would remind you that only GDPR is simply a breakthrough in this matter. Earlier, unfortunately, despite the expected constitutional protection, our data wandered the world. To this day, it is adequate to take a tiny debt and even pay in time for our data to wander in space...
1. No 1 can be subject to a law another than the law to disclose information concerning him or her.
2. Public authorities cannot obtain, collect and make available information on citizens another than essential in a democratic legal state.
3. Everyone has the right to access authoritative papers and data sets relating to him. Restriction of that right may be determined by law.
4. Everyone has the right to request rectification and the removal of false, incomplete or collected information in a manner contrary to the law.
5. The rules and procedures for collecting and making available information are laid down in the Act.
In Article 57, authors (including Ryszard Kalisz) of the alleged Kwasniewski Constitution did not even hide the mocking nature of this "freedom".
Everyone is given the freedom to organize and participate in peaceful gatherings. The regulation of this freedom may be governed by the law.
In accordance with Article 61 of the Constitution
A citizen has the right to get information on the activities of public authorities and those in public office. This right besides includes obtaining information on the activities of economical and professional self-government bodies, as well as another persons and organisational units in so far as they carry out public authority tasks and manage municipal property or assets of the Treasury.
But not exactly. According to u. 3 of this article, specified information may be refused if it could someway interfere with the laws' protection of the freedoms and rights of another persons and economical operators and the protection of public policy, safety or an crucial economical interest of the State.
An crucial interest is determined by the same authority to which we have requested information. ;)
Come on. possibly the most ridiculous of the long-standing practice of the courts of Art. 65 u. 1, called the sound of freedom to choose a profession.
Everyone shall be given the freedom to choose, prosecute and choose his or her job. Exceptions are laid down in the Act.
However, in the case law, including the SN (and this is the most perfect of the chambers according to the bodnarists, i.e. the Chamber of Labour and Social Insurance) it turned out that the choice could be accepted was decided by the amount of the Social safety Office's contribution! As it is besides small, the choice made is either apparent or aimed at circumventing the law, which in both cases results in the nullity of the contract concluded. tiny and medium-sized entrepreneurs know precisely what I am writing about.
Article 68 or the right to wellness protection.
1. Everyone has the right to wellness care.
2. To citizens, regardless of their material situation, public authorities supply equal access to public-funded healthcare services. The conditions and scope of the provision of benefits are laid down in the Act.
And the bill excludes any citizens who have no contributions presently paid. Let them go to the witch!
TThus, not only is there a mention to laws which in fact form simply outlined in the Constitution of Law, but by the accumulation of alleged non-acute concepts (e.g. in Article 64 "the essence of the property right") in fact gives area for different explanation ointments (we will legally say interpretations).
Meanwhile, Ima Desk claims that in the courts the Constitution is seldom or at all applied.
How is it expected to be erstwhile 80% of constitutional freedoms truly depend on laws? And according to the literal wording of our basic law!
W. A board full of delight over the current Constitution does not announcement its apparent anachronism. For a long time, the provision of Article 10 of that directive has been questionable.
1. The strategy of the Republic of Poland is based on the division and balance of legislative, executive and judicial powers.
2. The legislature is exercised by the Sejm and the Senate, the executive power of the president of the Republic of Poland and the Council of Ministers, and the judicial power of courts and tribunals.
Great, but how is it in practice to separate legislative power from executive power erstwhile the government creates the alleged constitutional majority and too ministers are MPs or even senators????
And all due to the fact that erstwhile Montescius came up with the thought of a tripartition of authorities, no 1 even dreamed of political parties.
So either we should have an extra-parliamentary government of unpartisan professionals, or we should quit the tripartition into dichotomic division.
Because what is conflicts with the literal wording of the Constitution.
Nor is it known what to do with Article 4. due to the fact that abruptly it turns out that, theoretically, we have 3 divisions of power, but over them is inactive the authority of the people.
According to U.2 of this Article:
The nation shall exercise authority by its representatives or directly.
The representatives are the president and Members and Senators.
Under Article 10, Members and senators who are legislative powers are on a par with the courts.
So does the president as an executive authority.
But as representatives of the Nation under Article 4, they are above the legislative, executive and judicial authority.
You mean the judges and... yourself.
Two in one, ladies and gentlemen. ;)
In the meantime, for Mr. Desk, a decade ago a presidential candidate, the Constitution is the most perfect in the world.
He's not, Mr. Waldemar.. possibly due to the fact that she was made on her knee by late hardened commies.
And most likely due to the fact that the area of law is so wide that only the fundamental law can include the most basic concepts.
Meanwhile, authors the acidic Constitution they reached for global acts (human rights), something they smuggled from the old... And most of all, they did their best to prevent an excessive emergence in the function of the President. That's how strong the memory of Wales was.
So we got what we got.
And since there is no indication that in the present Sejm there will be a majority able to change the Constitution (especially the direction of these changes) there is simply a chance that the Constitution of 1997 will come to another century. ;)
As the builders say – The longest is simply a makeshift.
Unfortunately, this besides applies to the most crucial pieces of legislation.
14.07 2025
cited for: ]]>http://pressmania.pl/time-end-ze-stalinian-doctrine-legal-sdp-w-...]]>
photo of pixabay
________________________________
* Oh, my God *According to Mr Waldemar, SDP is an abbreviator of Stalin's word Doctrine of Law.
