0
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 0001
0 points (NaN% liked)
0 readers
0 users here now
founded a long while ago
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.
So you're advocating for him to break the constitution he was elected to uphold, to hold an election that would have to be incomplete and unfair - all so that you, a person who isn't even a Ukrainian can feel better about the situation? Despite the fact that there's no call for this from the actual Ukranian public?
That's certainly an opinion to have lol
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.
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.
LMAO Well that's one way to re-write history.
Sounds like an election during war time is a pretty fucking bad idea.
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.
Some reason, like the main reason this thread existing being an article on Ukraine.