Mr € - Mr Budek does not even bite his tongue anymore. He's rather openly predicting the upcoming events...
NAnd the west didn't work. AfD grew into a second political force in Germany. In Italy, the right hand reached for government, in France Le Pen poses an expanding threat to liberal-left elites.
It is akin in another EU countries.
The right is increasingly assured in its quest to win the next election.
But the socialists have already proven erstwhile that they respect democracy as long as they are on their side. In 1917, after losing their elections, they simply ran off All-Russian Legislative Assembly.
I mean, what's the point of being specified a pussy, which might prove independent of The will of the people (read. Lenin and his hawks)??????
This appears to be a model for the current ‘elite’. And in this context, delight read the entry of Budka on the X portal.
Only to ban the political party, for example, by means of a resolution adopted by the Sejm simply cannot be done.
True, knowing Bodnar and another "laws" forming the facilities doctrinal specified an effort will not be surprising.
However, it seems that all Members would be against it.
Lthe PiS is to be calculated as follows:
1. presidential election 2025 wins Rafał Trzaskowski;
2. The Sejm shall adopt a peculiar act dissolving the Constitutional Court and shall set up a fresh ‘democratic’ composition;
3. The legislature applauds and president Trzaskowski signs.
The hypothetical bill shall enter into force on the date of publication.
And then it's uphill.
Pursuant to Article 13 of the Constitution:
The existence of political parties and another organizations referring in their programmes to totalitarian methods and practices of the operation of Nazism, Fascism and Communism, as well as those whose program or activity assumes or permits racial and national hatred, the usage of force in order to gain power or influence state policy, or provides for the secrecy of structures or membership
President of the Republic, Marshal of the Sejm, Marshal of the Senate, Prime Minister, group of 50 MPs or 30 Senators, First president of the ultimate Court, president of the ultimate Administrative Court, lawyer General, president of the ultimate Chamber of Control or Ombudsman of Application for the illegalisation of the PIS they go to the Constitutional Court.
The TK in the right lineup will consider the PiS as a organization allowing racial and national hatred to do so Nazi and, as they say, after all.
However, it is essential to have a ‘its’ president. Although...
Would only Trzaskowski warrant a "final solution to the issue of duckism"?
After all, the deficiency of the Law and Justice on the political phase of Poland will rapidly lead to the strengthening of the Confederacy and its highly probable triumph in the upcoming elections.
President Mentzen would not refuse to sign either.
Tusk's revenge for his humiliation would be satisfied.
A In addition, I have an irresistible impression that specified a solution in the event of success would be applied in another EU countries, where the right is beginning to be dangerous for the ruling clique (video: AfD in Germany or National Unity in France).
Everywhere after the experience of planet War II, a safety valve like Article 13 of our Constitution was introduced.
If specified action had actually taken place, most of us would have experienced twice the violation of the law by the left allegedly in defence of democracy. I remind you that on 13 December 1981 the liberal leftist Jaruzelski saved Poland from falling...
Now we're dealing with a democracy fighting. As it is known, the democratic state in the conflict to keep democracy is turning into a dictatorship... hard to separate from the creation it wants to save itself from. * Oh, my God *
As is emphasized in literature, in order to preserve the democratic system, the State must:
1) concentrate power in execution;
2. usage emergency competences and
3) enact restrictive lawFreedom of speech, Freedom of Assembly and Civil participation.
In front of us, this thought is being realized. All we have so far is maximizing the execution. The Constitution is so constructed that the most crucial emergency states from the point of view of the "democracy fighting" can only introduce the president at the request of the Council of Ministers (the state of war – Article 228 of the Constitution and the state of emergency – Article 229 of the Constitution). The Council of Ministers may only introduce a natural disaster in a circumstantial territory.
Nawrocks and Mentzens will not let Tusk to demolish opposition political parties and shut down independent media under an emergency.
Trzaskowski will surely not have specified resistance.
Considered pralevaka French Wolter thinker utilized to say:
- I'm sorry. I hatred your views, but I'll do anything, so he can preach them.
Today democracy by liberal left However, he prefers to rethink the red practice of the early French revolution – Saint Justa.
- I'm sorry. There is no freedom for the enemies of freedom!
Today, in the light version, the above words sound a bit milder.
- I'm sorry. You can have all the views you want. As long as they're consistent with ours.
And that would be as much as the unrepentant Prof. Jan Tadeusz Stanisławski said.
12.03 2025
__________________________________________
* Oh, my God * Dr. Jarosław Sułkowski (addict at the Faculty of Constitutional Law at the University of Lodz, an worker of the Office of the Constitutional Court) in: Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Tom I. Commentary on Articles 1-86 under ed. prof. dr hab. Marek Safjana and dr hab. Leszek Bosak (Beck 2016) wrote:
"1 Background. The problem of the illegalisation of political parties involves a concept a democracy fighting {C:$00FFFF} militant democracy, mute. Streitbare Demokratie), experience Fascism and Hitlerism and the presumption that the State is taking action to defend democratic order against all entities attempting to overthrow that order. Fighting democracy is simply a concept allowing the protection of the democratic strategy from individuals, groups, utmost movements (often anti-democratic) and from spreading ideas that endanger the appropriate functioning or existence of democracy.
2 Precursor militant democracy was K. Loewenstein, which in a series of articles published in the 1930s and 1940s called for steps against European fascism, informing that fundamentalists under cover of the protection of fundamental rights and the regulation of law could make anti-democratic machinery (K. Loewenstein, Militant Democracy, pp. 423–424). In his opinion, the only way in which democratic states could prevent fascist exploitation of democratic rights to overthrow the democratic strategy was to reject the outdated – according to this author – the notion of liberal democracy, in which all statements and views benefited from protection. K. Loewenstein saw fascism as an ideology capable of perfectly adapting to democracy, he felt that the state should take at least 3 strategies to combat Fascism:
1) concentrate power in execution;
2. usage emergency competences and
3) enact a law limiting freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and civic participation (G. Cappoccia, Militant Democracy, p. 208.
3 The problem of fascism was besides highlighted by Dutch theorist G. van den Bergh, claiming that a democratic state does not gotta and should not tolerate undemocratic parties. However, it was closer to the concept of self-regulatory democracy (self-correction), not a fighting democracy, which meant that if the organization uses democratic methods to introduce undemocratic changes, it should not be devolved (G. van den Bergh, De democracy Staat, cited for: P. Cliteur, B. Rijkema, The Foundations of Militant Democracy. p. 229 and n.).
4 thought a democracy fighting was first included in the constitutional postwar strategy Germany. It consists of individual constitutional provisions, i.e. the anticipation of illegalising associations (Article 9(2)), political parties (Article 21(2)) and the anticipation of limiting civilian rights (the post-war European state (Italy, Spain, Poland) and human rights organisations, which considered it essential to take preventive action and defend democratic systems against attacks and attacks from within, as they could origin the dismantling of democratic systems.
5 The prohibition provided for in Article 13 of the Polish Constitution is the "hardest" mechanics protection of democratic order."
So what got out of Tusk late last summertime has rather a rich theoretical and legal foundation.
