Share |

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Yanukovych Loyalist Defends Law of Jungle

Reform #1: The Sun (law) revolves around the Earth (Yanukovych).

In 2008, the Constitutional Court ruled that coalitions can only be formed by parliamentary factions, not by party-shopping MPs. In 2010, Yanukovych ruled the opposite way around.

His henchmen amended rules of order in breach of the Constitution and his oath of office.

MP Serhiy Holovaty (PRU), a former justice minister, ranks among veteran party-shoppers and is currently serving his sixth parliamentary term.

Elected to his first term in March 1990, he left the CPSU and won his second term as an independent in March 1994. He then party-shopped his way from Vpered Ukrayina in 1998 to BYuT in 2002 to NUNS in 2006 to the Party of Regions in 2007.

Without further ado, let him explain the legal situation.

MP Serhiy Holovaty: When starting to research the subject of the rule of law, I posed this question: Could one presume that the Constitution, too, has to be subject to the principles of the rule of law? And having conducted this research based on...uh...sources from Western doctrines of law, based on sources from Western enforcement of law and judicial practice and the European Court, including the Human Rights one, I cert...came to the conclusion, and made a case in my study, that the Constitution itself is no apotheosis. [makes gestures] It is subject to the principle of the rule of law.

And the rule of law answers to the rule of the jungle, right?

Video uploaded from:
Original source:


elmer said...

Apotheosis (from Greek ἀποθεόων, apotheoun "to deify", in Latin deificatio, and later inItalian gióvino, "to be made divine"[1]), refers to the exaltation of a subject to divine level. The term has meanings in theology, where it refers to a belief, and in art, where it refers to a genre.

In theology the term apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual, group, or locale has been raised to godlike stature. In art the term refers to the treatment of any subject (a figure, motif, convention or melody) in a particularly grand or exalted manner.

What in the hell is this moron talking about?

There is no way that he studied "Western principles" or "Western case law" or anything else.

He's just lying.

National Constitutions are viewed in Western democracies as the supreme law of the land.

They are not subject to being changed on a whim, nor are they normally subject to being changed on a whim, or day to day, by legislation.

In Ukraine, Banditkovych and his Coalition of Cuchmists have passed a law - in order to change the Constitution.

One must actually amend the Constitution - that's what prevailing Western doctrine says.

And, when legislatures ignore even state constitutions, they are subject to being chided by a court. For example, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, a state court, recently told the Oklahoma legislature that it was sick and tired of the legislature ignoring the "one-subject" rule - that is, the constitutional requirement that each law must deal with only one subject:

4. Over the last two decades we have addressed the single subject rule at least seven times. Johnson v. Walters, 1991 OK 107, ¶22, 819 P.2d 694; Campbell v. White, 1993 OK 89, ¶20, 856 P.2d 255; Morgan v. Daxon, 2001 OK 104, ¶1, 49 P.3d 687; In re Initiative Petition No. 382, State Question No. 729, 2006 OK 45, ¶18, 142 P.3d 400; Weddington v. Henry, 2008 OK 102, ¶1, 202 P.3d 143; Fent v. State ex rel. Office of State Finance, 2008 OK 2, ¶30, 184 P.3d 467; and Fent v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Capital Improvement Authority, 2009 OK 15, ¶¶10-23, 214 P.3d 799.

5. We are growing weary of admonishing the Legislature for so flagrantly violating the terms of the Oklahoma Constitution. It is a waste of time for the Legislature and the Court, and a waste of the taxpayer's money. The Legislature ignored our earlier opinions, especially Campbell v. White, 1993 OK 89, ¶¶19-20, 856 P.2d 255, when it apparently consolidated five separate multi-subject bills into Senate Bill 1878 which facially, patently, and obviously contained multiple subjects.

Ropi said...

I would surely vote for him if the 1st law would be something like the universe rotates around Ukraine. :D

Taras said...


Your judicial system captivated me with every Hollywood movie scene I watched as a teenager. Once I learned enough English, I joined the America House Library in Kyiv and took the Abraham Lincoln approach to education.

No system is perfect. I know you have your hot-button issues: states v. Washington, legislatures v. courts, strict constructionism v. judicial activism and so on.

In Ukraine, the Constitution rhymes with prostitution in every sense of the word.


I’d rather send him to some remote corner of the universe to see how the law works there:)

elmer said...

Of course no system is perfect, Taras. Perfection is not the issue.

"If men were angels, there would be no need of government."

In Ukraine, sovok relics operate on their version of perfection, which is that all power resides in the government, those in power, a few people constituting the "political elite" including oligarchs and friends, rob and steal and use and abuse government to their heart's content and lie about it.

But the people have no rights, the government has canceled city elections, Tabachnyk is hell-bent on ruining Ukraine's educational system, and Ukraine continues to live in poverty - except for a few oligarchs.

And, as you said, the Constitution rhymes with prostitution.

The "political elite" have no shame, no morals, no sense of responsibility.

Other than to spout sovok relic propaganda "we will be "technical," we will work "effectively." For what?

To give away Ukraine's gas pipeline transit system to roosha, and a few Ukrainian oligarchs? There are plenty of other examples.

What the hell kind of governmental system is that?

Taras said...

They had another anti-Tabachnyk student rally in Lviv yesterday.