Constidtutional considerations

On Tuesday The Warsaw Voice published this:

Government and Opposition Parties Argue Over Constitution Changes, January 19, 2010
Poland's leading party PO refuses to consider constitution changes suggested by the main opposition party PiS, which includes strengthening the position of the President, the daily Rzeczpospolita writes.

PiS proposal is being criticized by PO as "a return to a state system where the constitution confirms the centralized and ideological character of the state with the President in the role of the First Secretary", PO parliamentary club spokesperson Andrzej Halicki said.
PiS in turn blames PO for lack of constructive collaboration for the common good and failure to present own project.

Well as if in answer to the lack of a PO proposal, on the following day The Warsaw Voice published this:

Polish PM Proposes Weakening of Presidential Veto, January 20, 2010PM Donald Tusk proposes dampening of presidential veto, according to theses send by the PM's chancellery to the parliamentary Speaker, the daily Dziennik Gazeta Prawna writes.

Tusk wants the presidential veto to be rejected with an absolute majority and not with three-fifth majority, as it is the case at present.
The PM also wants to make an unambiguous provision that it is the PM who is responsible for foreign policy.

Personally I would go with a simple majority rather than an absolute, as the difference between 3/5 (60%) and absolute (51%) is hardly worth the trouble of changing. An absolute majority takes in to account all parliamentarians; even those not present. Whereas the simple just takes into account the ones who can be bothered to turn up and vote (var more sensible).

These two articles illustrate well the chasm that exists between the two sides. They have fundamentally opposing views, which does not bode well for cooperation.

I am of course in favour of the PO option. Being British I am not used to a division of powers between a PM and President. In theory the Queen can veto (refuse to enact) any law in the UK. She can also simply sack the PM and rule directly. For that matter she could install her butler as PM. Luckily she doesn't do any of these things and we seem to get along quite happily. The last occasion she used such powers was appointment of Harold Wilson as Prime Minister in February 1974; following political chaos. The last monarch to veto legislation was Queen Anne, who withheld assent from the Scottish Militia Bill 1708.

Therefore, please could the President simply open Supermarkets and Hospitals, Present hours and medals and have dinner with distinguished visitors?

Guns, Guns, Guns

If you ever have that double-take moment when you stop and check whether you truly saw/understood something correctly; then this will undoubtedly be reminiscent of such an occasion. I logged on to BBC News today and read a headline entitled 'US pastor tells flock to bring handguns to church'. Ok, I thought, this looks like some kind of amnesty/social reach-out thing. I was a little bemused to read the title 'US pastor opens church to guns'. The pastor was not trying to combat street crime, but defending the rights of people to carry guns. He fears, along with some of his flock, that the Obama administration will clamp-down on gun laws and the pastor is trying to advertise the fact that not all gun owners are homicidal maniacs and that as Mr Pagano told the congregation, "... there are legal, civil, intelligent and law-abiding citizens who also own guns,"

Being an ex-soldier and having spend half my life playing with guns, I appreciate the old adage (/NRA slogan) that 'it's not guns that kill people; it's people' but I also think Eddie Izzard was right when he commented
” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that…”

I truly don't understand the US's fascination with guns in the modern 21st century world. I appreciate that back in the wild-west , having a gun was a real important issue. However, those days are long gone. The pastor claimed "If it were not for a deep-seated belief in the right to bear arms, this country would not be here today," errr how excatly???
Gun ownership was important in the revolutionary period, as it allowed for the raising of a well trained militia, however at this time the whole world was packing. The US was not anything special.

Also many Americans promote bearing weapons as their constitutional right. Granted the 2nd Amendment does claim that : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. However, the same is true of the UK: That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; Granted, the English law was a bit selective in terms of the religious credentials of those it granted the right to bear arms to. However, while the US law grants the people the right, the English law granted subjects said right. The term the people can of course be understood in two ways: 1) all individuals within a society or 2) the free members of the society as a whole. Given the reference to organised militias, it can be postulated that the meaning was in fact the later. Further to this, the punctuation suggests that the two are in fact connected as they are not separated by and but rather a comma. The English law, on the other hand, uses subject which does not have such a duality. It can only be understood in the individual sense. There is also no conditionality to the law such as in the US version (ok maybe the bit about protestants). Yet, modern Britons do not go around quoting 17th century laws. When the Hungerford or Dumblane massacres happened; gun control was tightened and the people rested peacefully in the knowledge that maniacs could not use the constitution to justify homicidal tenancies. Alas the same can not be said of the USA, where umpteen massacres have resulted in very little legislative action.

If anyone can give an answer to the quandary, then I'd be delighted to here it.


English 1689 Bill of Rights
(Incorporated in to and part of current UK law)

Equivalent to US 1st Amendment:
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

Equivalent to US 2nd Amendment:
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Source: http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm accessed 28/6/09

Constitutional Crisis?

I have been very lazy in my upkeep of this blog. Sorry!!! I looked at the date of my last entry and was shocked to see that it was November 08. A lot has undoubtedly happened since then and i am not going to even try and fill you in on the details. Surfice to say that spring is on its way and my mind is awakening from its slumber.

Politically speaking, Poland has had an interesting couple of weeks. The most notable thing being the squable over the Nato summit between the Prime Minister and President. The President apparently ignored the PM's official advice on Poland's stance in relation to the appointment of a new Secretary General for Nato. The ins and out are perhaps not important. More that the most recent episode is just another in a long line of debacles that the two are having. The main problem lies in the over lap of juristiction that the Polish constitution allows for. Strictly speaking the President has tyhe right to initiate and nogotiate foriegn policy. However, any sensible person could see that this must be done in close conjunction with domestic policy as the two are inseperable. The fact that the PM and President can;t work together is perhaps more indicative of them rather than the consitutution. However, that said the constitution allows for this situation to happen and so perhaps does need to be changed.

In my mind, i would serverly curtail the powers and responsibilities of the President as to have two oppposing heads of the country is just asking for trouble. I understand that the constitution was written in such a way as to create a system of checks and balances, however the PM is unswerable to Parliment, whereas at present the President is not answerable to anyone.

A Cristian Europe versus An Open Europe

President Kaczynski - Christianity is the EU foundation

Poland's President Lech Kaczynski, in an article for the tabloid 'Fakt' that: 'The Union cannot build its future with no reference to the centuries old history of Europe and European roots. This is why it is so difficult for us to accept opposition to a reference to Christian values in the preamble to the future Constitutional Treaty.'

The Berlin Declaration is to be signed in the capital city of Germany, as part of events marking the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome and the birth of the EU.

The declaration is to play a key role in drafting the preamble to the bloc's new Constitutional Treaty.

President Kaczynski said that the Union must continue to expand.

"For Poland it is obvious that the European Union, if it wants to retain its dynamics and to count on a global scale – it must be an open union".

On behalf of the bloc's 27 member states, the Berlin Declaration will be signed tomorrow by the German Chancellor, the European Parliament and the European Commission leaders.

Poland's foreign minister Anna Fotyga is on leave and will not take part in the ceremony.

Above taken from www.poland.pl

Are the two points raised by the President of Poland not a little conflicting? If we make Cristianity a fundamental part of the Constitution, then to which countries are we supposed to expand. Is it a good message to send to Turkey, Bosnia and Albania, that yes you can come in, but please remember that we are Christian and we were here first!

Religion, is and has always been a private matter. Jesus himself made this crystal clear when remarking that what is ceasar, render unto ceasar and what is God's render under God.

This mix of politics and religion is the most frightening aspect of the current PiS government in Poland.