Freedom or suspiciousness: how to protect liberal constitutionalism from its enemies

Medushevsky, Andrey

doi:10.21128/1812-7126-2018-3-124-135

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is due to the complicated procedure for changing Chapters 1, 2, and 9 of the Russian Federation's Constitution, to which the initiators of the constitutional amendments preferred not to resort [2]. The phenomenon of compulsory ideology is criticized in constitutional jurisprudence not so much because of the controversial nature of the ideological statements but because of their legally binding nature [3][4][5]. In ideological diversity and multiparty system conditions, the citizen decides which opinion should be supported [6][7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constitutional law restrictions on the activities of a deputy due to changes in the constitution of the Russian Federation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a result of constitutional amendments, several ideological provisions which are legally binding by constitutional requirements as a normative legal act of supreme legal force appeared in the Russian Constitution. It is necessary to determine the limits of freedom of parliamentary activity in the current conditions. The objective of the study. To analyze the deputy’s activity through the prism of constitutional amendments, in the correlation of the deputy’s activity as a free expression of his opinion and the established constitutional right restrictions. In this study, the formal-legal method was used to interpret the content of the constitutional amendments and the analysis method to identify the impact of the adopted amendments on the deputy activities. The analyzed constitutional provisions, having an “ideological” character, for the most part, cannot be qualified as a constitutional-legal norm. At best, it is a constitutional and legal principle, but most likely, it should be interpreted as a constitutional principle of a non-legal nature. However, at the same time, they are a legally binding rule of law. Concerning parliamentary activity, the “ideological” norms of the Russian Federation’s Constitution after its amendments from 2020 play a special role. Deputies are forced to take one political position in the presence of several alternatives, which are also devoid of signs of illegality and, therefore, are legitimate and permissible in a democratic society. Therefore, in relation to deputies’ activities, these amendments can be interpreted as a very significant deviation from the freedom of expression in a democratic society. These constitutional innovations significantly change some traditional ideas about the people’s representation, the role of deputies in society, their obligations, and constitutional legal restrictions on their activities.

show abstract