Constitutions can be changed (Alabama’s 6th constitution was amended 977 times before they made a 7th constitution last year, for example). Headline is definitely inflammatory, but just because you happen to be in the position of dictator doesn’t mean can’t work towards not being one.
So they amend their constitution. During a war. To force people into the streets to vote.
How does the government make sure the election is fair? Some people won’t be able to vote due to danger. Some will be attacked. Some areas are occupied, and the occupation lines may change during the election.
If they tried to run an election now, Russia would publish their own results showing that the occupied areas voted for Putin. Trying to run elections is hard enough in normal times, doing so with Russia literally holding a large swath of your country is impossible.
What exactly is the process for a complete replacement in the constitution in Ukraine? Is it something that can feasibly be accomplished during wartime?
So basically there is no way for Zelensky to change anything about the situation without just fraglantly breaking the law (or declaring an end to martial law during wartime, which would be beyond stupid). Pretty hard to argue he’s a “dictator” when literally all he’s doing is following the law that was out in place well before he was elected.
Now, if the war ends and he still refuses to hold a election, I’ll be right with you in calling for action, but I fail to see any fault with his current course on this specific issue
So, in your opinion - in order for Zelensky to not be a dictator, he has to break all the existing rules of law in order to completely replace the existing constitution? And he should be allowed to do this unilaterally? And this would make him not a dictator? He’s not a fucking monarch dude, he’s the elected head of state - he doesn’t have supreme authority to do whatever the fuck he feels like.
The foundation of democracy is the idea that our elected officials have to abide by the rules of law that are already in place, including (and especially) those laws that concern how other laws are made. Otherwise any elected official could just declare themselves the new supreme ruler and toss out every law that limits their power.
And that’s all putting aside the question of how you would even hold an election in war ravaged Ukraine right now, a significant portion of which is under hostile occupation lol
So, in your opinion - in order for Zelensky to not be a dictator, he has to break all the existing rules of law in order to completely replace the existing constitution?
Not unilaterally, no. The constitution establishes a dictatorship, therefore it would need to be replaced or amended to no longer have a dictator. Alternatively, they could rescind martial law, thereby ending suspension of elections and no longer be a dictatorship. And that would be required to allow them to amend the current constitution following its rules. Not saying any of those are good ideas. Just listing the options they have to not be a dictatorship (technically he could just step down as well, but that wouldn’t change their government structure; just change who the dictator is).
Not his fault he’s a dictator. But dictator literally refers to someone who rules in time of emergency. So by definition he’s a dictator. I don’t mean it as a personal insult of the person who happens to be in the position nor am I saying its outrageous for someone to keep such a position.
He’s not a fucking monarch dude, he’s the elected head of state - he doesn’t have supreme authority to do whatever the fuck he feels like.
Which is irrelevant to the question of whether he’s a dictator or not. Don’t forget that the first dictator most people probably think of was also an elected head of state. Obviously I’m not comparing the actions that the two did using that position. Simply being a dictator doesn’t say anything about whether their rule is justified or whether they’re committing atrocities. I do think leaving the loophole in the constitution is a liability, so it eventually should be changed. But its not exactly a high priority right now.
And that’s all putting aside the question of how you would even hold an election in war ravaged Ukraine right now, a significant portion of which is under hostile occupation lol
Irrelevant, since my critique actually has nothing to do with Ukraine, but about constitutions in general.
He doesn’t care if is posible or not, this people only want to make Zelenisky as a bad person. He isn’t perfect by any means but he is one of the ropes holding Ukraine right now, and for that the pro Russian want to bring down his image and by that make Ukraine weaker
The 14th amendment in the US and the 1864 election happened in war time.
Changes can be made during war time. An old constitution saying you can’t is irrelevant.
A new constitution that is identical to the old one except it takes away dictatorial powers from those passing the constitution wouldn’t be sketchy at all.
Why is it so important to you that they don’t follow their laws?
I don’t care if they don’t have an election right now. Its fine with me if they don’t. My complaint is using “the constitution says so” to justify things like dictatorships as if its a real argument rather than simply begging the question. I don’t even like when people use it as if it were an argument for things like being pro-freedom of speech. Its simply deflection.
The person I replied to cited a constitution. My reply is about constitutions. Anything after that is a discussion about constitution where people keep bringing up Ukraine for some reason.
As an Alabamian. We are NOT a role model to anyone for anything. If anything we are a cautionary tale of how not to do things. Like, your argument is deeply flawed the second you say “You could do what Alabama did”.
And I bet “Zelensky amends Ukraine’s constitution during wartime” would make similar headlines.
There’s fair criticism to be made of Zelensky, I’m sure. However, not holding an election during wartime, which is backed by the constitution and most Ukrainians, is not one of them.
They aren’t. But people treat them like they are. I do care about people using constitutions as if they were moral documents. I’d be just as annoyed if someone used a constitution to defend something like freedom of press or freedom of speech. I don’t care about what the particular issue is: its the citing constitutions like they prescribes perfect morals that I care about.
The Constitution of Ukraine (Ukrainian: Конституція України, romanized: Konstytutsiia Ukrainy) is the fundamental law of Ukraine. The constitution was adopted and ratified at the 5th session of the Verkhovna Rada, the parliament of Ukraine, on 28 June 1996.[1] The constitution was passed with 315 ayes out of 450 votes possible (300 ayes minimum).[1] All other laws and other normative legal acts of Ukraine must conform to the constitution. The right to amend the constitution through a special legislative procedure is vested exclusively in the parliament. The only body that may interpret the constitution and determine whether legislation conforms to it is the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
I’m still looking for the actual constitutional bit that says “no elections during war,” or whatever phraseology has been passed around - Edit: Found it. (Links to original legal texts in this article.)
These regularly scheduled elections were disrupted by the state of martial law declared in 2022, at the start of the full-scale Russian invasion. This can be expected from a country fighting for its very existence, where significant portions of its territory are occupied. Martial law is established as a concept in the Ukrainian Constitution and last updated by the national legislature in 2015, before Zelensky entered politics.
Article 83 of the Ukrainian Constitution states that if the term of the Verkhovna Rada expires under martial law, it shall automatically be extended until a new Rada is seated following the end of martial law. Article 19 of Ukraine’s martial law legislation specifically forbids conducting national elections. Thus, for Ukraine to conduct elections while under martial law would be a violation of legal norms that predate Zelensky and the full-scale Russian invasion.
but assuming that’s true, Zelenskyy has nothing to do with whether or not elections happen. Having elections would be in violation of the constitution. And Zelenskyy has nothing to do with amending the constitution, either; that’s for the legislature to do. Zelenskyy is following the law, as his office requires that he do.
Edit: I’m a bit wrong there. Article 93 reads:
The right of legislative initiative in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine belongs to the President of Ukraine, the People’s Deputies of Ukraine, and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
Draft laws defined by the President of Ukraine as not postponable, are considered out of turn by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
Which means that the President can put forward legislation for the parliament to vote on, even cutting to the front of the line. I bet this includes constitutional amendments.
But Article 19 Section 1 of the Ukrainian martial law legislation says no changes to the consitution and no national elections during martial law.
83-4 only refers to the parliament. 157-2 says exactly that.
Article 19 Section 1 of Ukraine’s Martial Law legislation reads (translated to English from Ukranian with Google translate):
In the conditions of martial law, the following are prohibited:
changing the Constitution of Ukraine ;
amendment of the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea ;
conducting elections of the President of Ukraine, as well as elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and local self-government bodies;
it’s not that he is refusing to hold elections. headline is, of course, misleading.
the country’s constitution literally prohibits elections during martial law, a state the country has been in since the day russia started the war.
The Ukrainian constitution prohibits parliament elections under martial law, but not presidential ones.
Obama’s Nazi coup started the war in 2014, remember?
Constitutions can be changed (Alabama’s 6th constitution was amended 977 times before they made a 7th constitution last year, for example). Headline is definitely inflammatory, but just because you happen to be in the position of dictator doesn’t mean can’t work towards not being one.
So they amend their constitution. During a war. To force people into the streets to vote.
How does the government make sure the election is fair? Some people won’t be able to vote due to danger. Some will be attacked. Some areas are occupied, and the occupation lines may change during the election.
If they tried to run an election now, Russia would publish their own results showing that the occupied areas voted for Putin. Trying to run elections is hard enough in normal times, doing so with Russia literally holding a large swath of your country is impossible.
Amending the constitution or holding national elections (among other things) are prohibited during martial law.
Pass a new constitution then. Could be identical minus those two things.
What exactly is the process for a complete replacement in the constitution in Ukraine? Is it something that can feasibly be accomplished during wartime?
Edit: apparently the process is “you can’t” https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/389-19#Text (Article 19 Section 1)
So basically there is no way for Zelensky to change anything about the situation without just fraglantly breaking the law (or declaring an end to martial law during wartime, which would be beyond stupid). Pretty hard to argue he’s a “dictator” when literally all he’s doing is following the law that was out in place well before he was elected.
Now, if the war ends and he still refuses to hold a election, I’ll be right with you in calling for action, but I fail to see any fault with his current course on this specific issue
An old constitution can’t control a new one. Its literally replacing the old one. Nothing it says is relevant.
So, in your opinion - in order for Zelensky to not be a dictator, he has to break all the existing rules of law in order to completely replace the existing constitution? And he should be allowed to do this unilaterally? And this would make him not a dictator? He’s not a fucking monarch dude, he’s the elected head of state - he doesn’t have supreme authority to do whatever the fuck he feels like.
The foundation of democracy is the idea that our elected officials have to abide by the rules of law that are already in place, including (and especially) those laws that concern how other laws are made. Otherwise any elected official could just declare themselves the new supreme ruler and toss out every law that limits their power.
And that’s all putting aside the question of how you would even hold an election in war ravaged Ukraine right now, a significant portion of which is under hostile occupation lol
Not unilaterally, no. The constitution establishes a dictatorship, therefore it would need to be replaced or amended to no longer have a dictator. Alternatively, they could rescind martial law, thereby ending suspension of elections and no longer be a dictatorship. And that would be required to allow them to amend the current constitution following its rules. Not saying any of those are good ideas. Just listing the options they have to not be a dictatorship (technically he could just step down as well, but that wouldn’t change their government structure; just change who the dictator is).
Not his fault he’s a dictator. But dictator literally refers to someone who rules in time of emergency. So by definition he’s a dictator. I don’t mean it as a personal insult of the person who happens to be in the position nor am I saying its outrageous for someone to keep such a position.
Which is irrelevant to the question of whether he’s a dictator or not. Don’t forget that the first dictator most people probably think of was also an elected head of state. Obviously I’m not comparing the actions that the two did using that position. Simply being a dictator doesn’t say anything about whether their rule is justified or whether they’re committing atrocities. I do think leaving the loophole in the constitution is a liability, so it eventually should be changed. But its not exactly a high priority right now.
Irrelevant, since my critique actually has nothing to do with Ukraine, but about constitutions in general.
Removed by mod
He doesn’t care if is posible or not, this people only want to make Zelenisky as a bad person. He isn’t perfect by any means but he is one of the ropes holding Ukraine right now, and for that the pro Russian want to bring down his image and by that make Ukraine weaker
The 14th amendment in the US and the 1864 election happened in war time.
Changes can be made during war time. An old constitution saying you can’t is irrelevant.
A new constitution that is identical to the old one except it takes away dictatorial powers from those passing the constitution wouldn’t be sketchy at all.
Removed by mod
I don’t care if they don’t have an election right now. Its fine with me if they don’t. My complaint is using “the constitution says so” to justify things like dictatorships as if its a real argument rather than simply begging the question. I don’t even like when people use it as if it were an argument for things like being pro-freedom of speech. Its simply deflection.
On a scale of 0 to 10, how likely were civilian areas to be hit by artillery shells and rockets during the civil war?
Hint: the maximum range of a cannon at that time was barely a mile.
Twelve states were occupied by the confederacy and simply excluded from the US elections and the amendment process.
Again, what good would this do if you are in a war torn country that cannot secure its elections?
Pretty sure these people aren’t arguing in good faith
I don’t really care. Irrelevant to my point, which has nothing to do with Zelensky or Ukraine.
Correct, and the discussion is about Zelenskyy and Ukraine.
The person I replied to cited a constitution. My reply is about constitutions. Anything after that is a discussion about constitution where people keep bringing up Ukraine for some reason.
deleted by creator
As an Alabamian. We are NOT a role model to anyone for anything. If anything we are a cautionary tale of how not to do things. Like, your argument is deeply flawed the second you say “You could do what Alabama did”.
A broken clock is still right twice a day.
deleted by creator
Broken? The family’s closer than ever!
Not when it’s smashed to pieces, scattered all over a landfill
I’m pretty sure he’s been doing everything he possibly can do to get out of this state of martial law, so I suppose that’ll be satisfying for you?
And I bet “Zelensky amends Ukraine’s constitution during wartime” would make similar headlines.
There’s fair criticism to be made of Zelensky, I’m sure. However, not holding an election during wartime, which is backed by the constitution and most Ukrainians, is not one of them.
Not really criticizing him. My criticism is the weird constitution worship used as non-argument that simply begs the question.
Removed by mod
The people are the foundation of a country. Religious documents are just excuses.
Removed by mod
They aren’t. But people treat them like they are. I do care about people using constitutions as if they were moral documents. I’d be just as annoyed if someone used a constitution to defend something like freedom of press or freedom of speech. I don’t care about what the particular issue is: its the citing constitutions like they prescribes perfect morals that I care about.
Removed by mod
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine
I’m still looking for the actual constitutional bit that says “no elections during war,” or whatever phraseology has been passed around - Edit: Found it. (Links to original legal texts in this article.)
but assuming that’s true,Zelenskyy has nothing to do with whether or not elections happen. Having elections would be in violation of the constitution.And Zelenskyy has nothing to do with amending the constitution, either; that’s for the legislature to do.Zelenskyy is following the law, as his office requires that he do.Edit: I’m a bit wrong there. Article 93 reads:
Which means that the President can put forward legislation for the parliament to vote on, even cutting to the front of the line. I bet this includes constitutional amendments.
But Article 19 Section 1 of the Ukrainian martial law legislation says no changes to the consitution and no national elections during martial law.
Article 83 paragraph 4
And article 157 paragraph 2 forbids amending the constitution during martial law or emergency.
83-4 only refers to the parliament. 157-2 says exactly that.
Article 19 Section 1 of Ukraine’s Martial Law legislation reads (translated to English from Ukranian with Google translate):
Sounds like a democracy we should continue supporting right??
Yes
Removed by mod