Internal Problems of Ukraine: What is The Most Important, Who is to Blame and What to Do

PART ІІ

You can find the first part of the article HERE.

Emphasis on "official ascertainment" emphasizes that in a legal state, not only the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, courts and other authorities have the right to interpret legal acts and draw conclusions - whether they correspond to the principles of the legal state or not, to comply with their prescriptions or not - those in power (who, in addition to having the right, are also obliged to do so), but also all citizens. This is one of the most important differences between a legal state and a totalitarian state, in which there could be no question of citizens ignoring the acts of authorities due to their illegality.

The right of citizens to interpret valid legislation and to choose whether or not to follow its prescriptions is established, in particular, by part one of Article 19 and part one of Article 60 of the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine.

The duty of authorities and their officials to act only on the basis, within the limits of authority and in the manner provided for by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, is directly provided for in part two of Article 6 and part two of Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine of 1996.

At the same time, the above-mentioned constitutional norms directly correspond with the imperative provisions of Article 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine of 1996, according to which laws and other acts are adopted on the basis of the Constitution of Ukraine and must comply with it, including the principles of the rule of law established by the Constitution of Ukraine.

In the early 1990s, when the above-mentioned high legal principles and norms of the rule of law were not yet so reliably established, the norm of Part 2 of Article 22 of the Law "On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine" dated 03.06.1992, like the entire law in general, compensated for the imperfection of constitutional regulation, and directed authorities to the inadmissibility of issuing illegal acts and their application.

From a legal point of view, the norm of Part 2 of Article 22 of the Law "On CCU" dated 03.06.1992 was a radical legal revolution, which was supposed to put an end to the "legal" arbitrariness of the "elite" and the authorities created by it.

If the "elite" were guided by this rule in law-making and law-enforcement practice, it would be the "crossing of the Rubicon" - the irreversible transition of Ukraine from the repressive administrative-command system of totalitarianism to the rule of law.

But it was not destined. Very quickly destructive anti-people forces took over among the "Ukrainian political elite", as a result of which the reforms became just a demagogic cover for its real plans and actions - usurpation of power, robbery of the people and the collapse of Ukrainian statehood.

"We publish one thing - we do something completely different" - this is the unchanging credo of the "elite" deceit from then until today.

Therefore, from the moment the first law of Ukraine "On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine" came into effect, the "elite" tightly blocked the action of the legal norm of part 2 of Article 22 of this law and the action of this law as a whole - as well as the constitutional control activity of the first Constitutional Court of Ukraine since independence in general.

RETURN ATTENTION:

THE NORM OF PART 2 OF ARTICLE 22 OF THE FIRST LAW OF UKRAINE ON CCU, WHICH CORRESPONDED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE RULE OF LAW, WAS VALID, BUT WAS NOT ACTIVE.

THE VERY FIRST LAW ON CCU, WHICH CORRESPONDED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE RULE OF LAW, WAS VALID FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS, BUT WAS NOT ACTIVE.

Also, the norm of Article 170 of the Constitution of Ukraine in force at that time (as amended on 17.09.1991), which imperatively established that the Constitution has the highest legal force, that laws and all other acts of the authorities must comply with it, was absolutely inactive.

The above examples perfectly illustrate the fundamental difference between the concepts of «valid act" and «active act". And also how the "Ukrainian elite" knows how to create arbitrariness under the cover of "legal" and "democratic" demagoguery.

The First Constitutional Court of Ukraine (July 1992 - October 1996) never started exercising constitutional jurisdiction due to the critical danger of the above-mentioned legal acts and norms that corresponded to the principles of the rule of law (in particular, the legal norm of part 2 of Article 22 of the first law on the CCU) for criminal plans of «elite".

If the norm of Part 2 of Article 22 of the valid Law on the CCU of 03.06.1992 had been active - the "elite" would not have been able to usurp power and rob the people, there would have been no oligarchy, no total corruption, no collapse of Ukrainian statehood, Ukraine would have become a strong legal state with wealthy population.

Instead, from the very beginning of independence, the "elite" launched the publication and application of many thousands of known unconstitutional ones, such as do not correspond to the principles of the rule of law (but meet the interests of the "elite") known illegal, anti-people and state-destructive laws and other acts, which under the coercion of the «elite» were unlawfully considered valid and active.

In full accordance with the "principle of the supremacy of the acts of the authorities", this principle of the supremacy of the dictatorship of the "elite" of the totalitarian state, the "Ukrainian elite" through administrative mechanisms forced citizens and other subjects of legal relations to obey this "legal" arbitrariness.

Therefore, the Ukrainian "political elite" not only dragged the "principle of the supremacy of the act of the authority" from the totalitarian past into the legal system of Ukraine - it also "improved" it for the worse, turning it into the "principle of the supremacy of the illegal act of the authority."

1997-2024: "LEGALIZATION" OF ARBITRARINESS

On June 28, 1996, the new Constitution of Ukraine was adopted, which, subject to the resuscitation of the principles of the rule of law, should be active in the first edition. It established the principles of the rule of law at such a high legal level that even leading legal states do not have.

This fact shows that, as of 1996, the "elite" had not yet completely usurped power, that it still had to orient itself to the expectations of the Ukrainian people and the democratic world.

At the same time, which vividly illustrates the cynicism and meanness of the top of the "elite", already at the stage of preparation of the 1996 draft Constitution, the neutralization of the principles of the rule of law was being prepared - as well as the commission of other particularly serious crimes against Ukraine. Simultaneously with the progressive legal norms and principles, "time bombs" were placed in the text of the then new Constitution of Ukraine.

The "elite" paralyzed the principles of the rule of law with a series of planned actions.

The first action: the aforementioned "Trojan horse" - the term "validity" of the legal act - was introduced into the 1996 Constitution, including part two of Article 152 of the Constitution.

The second and third actions: on October 16, 1996, a new law of Ukraine "On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine" was adopted, at the same time the "elite" got rid of the first law of Ukraine "On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine" along with its provision of part 2 of Article 22.

In the new law "On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine" there was no longer the norm of part 2 of Article 22 of the first law on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine regarding the nullity of illegal acts from the moment of their entry into force, which was crucial for the rule of law, because of which the first Constitutional Court did not work - it was grossly unlawfully thrown out of the legislation as a killer for the criminal interests of the "elite".

Instead, the new law on the CCU prescribed the "antipode norm": that the acts recognized by the CCU as unconstitutional lose their validity from the day of the decision of the CSU - that is, diametrically opposite to what was determined by part 2 of Article 22 of the first law on the CCU.

The fourth action: a "pocket" Constitutional Court of Ukraine was needed to provide "elite" with the necessary official interpretation of specially vaguely written constitutional provisions. In order for the new CCU to be guaranteed to be "pocketable", a system of selection and appointment of judges controlled by the "elite" was created, and salaries and other benefits were determined for them (at the expense of the people, of course), which no one anywhere in the world could have dreamed of...

The new CCU was created in October 1996, and in May 1997 it began exercising constitutional jurisdiction. The era of blocking the work of the first Constitutional Court of Ukraine ended, the "elite" began the era of using the new Constitutional Court in their own criminal interests.

On 24.12.1997, in the motivational part of the decision No. 8, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine gave a deeply illegal, but exclusively such as is necessary for the "elite" to legalize the "Doctrine of Arbitrariness", interpretation of the legal norm of part two of Article 152 of the Constitution of Ukraine:

«Part two of Article 152 of the Constitution of Ukraine enshrines the principle according to which laws, other legal acts or their separate provisions, which are recognized as unconstitutional, lose their validity from the day the Constitutional Court of Ukraine adopts a decision on their unconstitutionality. According to this principle, laws and other legal acts have legal force until they are recognized as unconstitutional by a separate decision of the constitutional control body."

To be continued...