14

Putin is shaking up the constitution and there were reports suggesting that the process, as well as the amendments themselves, are probably unlawful/illegal despite the Constitutional Court's ruling stating otherwise. Speaking strictly from a legal standpoint, what can be said on the issue?

  • 36
    If you do not accept the courts authority, what kind of answer would you expect? By ruling it constitutional, the highest authority has said it is legal, so I am not sure what you are looking for. – Polygnome Mar 24 at 8:03
  • 5
    @dan-klasson it would be illegal if the constitution does not provide for such a mechanism of amendment, or if it does provide for one but the referendum were not carried out in accordance with those provisions. – phoog Mar 24 at 15:55
  • 1
    Spare for the process itself, the only way an ammendment to the constitution can be unconstitutional is to make the constitution self-contradictory. The Constitution itself does not provide any limits on what kind of changes can be made, it only requires a certain process to be followed. The Constitution (at least, in Russia) is supperior to any other law and if some other law gets incompatible with the Constitution, it is the other law that loses power or needs to be changed, not the Constitution. The same holds if the Constitution is changed first and not the other law. – fraxinus Mar 24 at 15:57
  • 1
    @dan-klasson The devil is in the details. The constitution defines the term “referendum”, including a strict process that a referendum must follow. In particular, 50% of the population must participate for it to be valid. The 2020 constitution amendments never mention any referendum, just a “nationwide vote”. – Roman Odaisky Mar 24 at 17:55
  • 2
    @dan-klasson Law doesn’t work that way, exact terms matter. Federal Constitutional Law 5-FKZ defines what referendum is (using the term всенародное голосование) and how exactly it must be held. The new law 1-FKZ carefully avoids both aforementioned terms and uses a different process. The constitution is clear about changes to itself: either a law duly enacted or a referendum, nothing else. – Roman Odaisky Mar 24 at 21:09
37

Speaking strictly from a legal standpoint, what can be said on the issue?

Strictly speaking, the Constitutional Court is the top authority on the legality of anything. One can speculate as much as they want on whether the Court was biased, pre-determined, corrupt, defiant, flagrantly blatant or ridiculously unjust. These speculations would be pure politics. They do not change the fact that whatever the Court has decided is legal just by definition.

|improve this answer|||||
  • 17
    The court does not rule randomly, or is not supposed to do so. When declaring that a law is legal it will provide legal arguments based on the text of the Constitution. Such arguments, as well as the ones from opposing views, would provide an answer to OP. If I understand correctly OP is not asking who rules the constitutionality but what are the arguments to declare the changes legal or not, preferably with citations to the constitution parts which enable/disable such changes. – Anonymous Coward Mar 24 at 12:08
  • 2
    This is "strictly speaking" the correct answer. A constitution means what its interpreting judiciary says it means. However, the "pure politics" label doesn't make much sense here, because the process we are talking about is also pure politics. Those judges aren't picked by Jesus. – T.E.D. Mar 24 at 21:24
  • 4
    @T.E.D. The point is that there is Politics.SE. "Keep flies and cutlets separate" like Russians say. – Greendrake Mar 24 at 21:50
  • 1
    @Greendrake - That's a very good point. – T.E.D. Mar 24 at 22:19
  • 1
    @AnonymousCoward I don't agree. OP effectively is questioning who rules the constitutionality: "probably unlawful/illegal despite the Constitutional Court's ruling stating otherwise". The only way it could be illegal despite the court's ruling is if you dispute the jurisdiction of the court. – JBentley Mar 25 at 22:58
13

I don't know what reports are claiming it's "probably unlawful/illegal" and why when the Russian constitution states:

  1. The Constitutional Assembly shall either confirm the invariability of the Constitution of the Russian Federation or draft a new Constitution of the Russian Federation, which shall be adopted by the Constitutional Assembly by two thirds of the total number of its members or submitted to a referendum. In case of a referendum the Constitution of the Russian Federation shall be considered adopted, if over half of the voters who came to the polls supported it and under the condition that over half of the electorate participated in the referendum.

(emphasize mine)

|improve this answer|||||
  • 2
    It's probably worth emphasising the other part of the "or" clause - "adopted [..] by two thirds of the total number of its members" because this part (approved by 2/3 of the federation members) has already happened, validating the changes, and the referendum has not happened and is not necessary since the other half of the "or" is sufficient for the changes. – Peteris Mar 24 at 20:29
  • You quoted the wrong article by the way. Article 135 that you quoted deals with amendments to chapters 1, 2 and/or 9, which are not currently being amended. The relevant article is 136. – Roman Odaisky Mar 24 at 21:13
  • @RomanOdaisky No I didn't. Point 3 of article 135 does not mention anything about any chapters. It clearly states draft a new Constitution of the Russian Federation. That's not amending the constitution. That's drafting a completely new one. Hence why a 2/3 majority or referendum is required. – dan-klasson Mar 24 at 22:14
  • @Peteris I wasn't aware of that. If you have a source I'll gladly amend my answer. – dan-klasson Mar 24 at 22:25
  • @dan-klasson here are some sources (in Russian, though) regarding the voting in the parliaments of federation members during 12-13 March. bbc.com/russian/news-51868944 zona.media/number/2020/03/12/protiv . The country-wide voting that will be held is not technically a referendum according to 135.3 of constitution, it's essentially a consultative vote for PR reasons prescribed by the new legislation implementing these amedments. From constitutional perspective, the amendments now can come into force whenever Putin signs them, as all the approvals have already been done. – Peteris Mar 24 at 22:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.