Putin to lead United Russia party

[Filuwaúrdjan]

President Vladimir Putin has accepted an offer to become chairman of the dominant United Russia party.

Mr Putin, who steps down as Kremlin leader next month, told nearly 600 party delegates on Tuesday "I accept the invitation of the party".

Mr Putin is due to hand over the presidency to his long-standing aide Dmitry Medvedev. Mr Putin confirmed that he would become prime minister.

Correspondents say the party job will give Mr Putin an additional power base.

United Russia controls two-thirds of the seats in parliament, and exerts great influence through its administrative and financial means. The party congress in Moscow was shown live on state-run television.

Mr Medvedev declined to join United Russia, saying such a move would be "premature". He is due to be sworn in as president on 7 May. He won the 2 March election by a landslide.

Referring to Mr Medvedev's decision, Mr Putin said "I do not believe it is sensible for a head of state, wherever his political affections are, to lead a party. Here I fully agree with Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7347124.stm

[Hash]

Oh what a huge surprise.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh what a huge surprise.

It's the total lack of imagination that gets me.

[Hash]

Oh what a huge surprise.

It's the total lack of imagination that gets me.

I suppose Putin tought Prime Minister wouldn't allow him enough control over Medvedev.

[Хahar 🤔]

How do you amend the Russian Constitution?

Not that it matters; the Yeltsin presidency was illegal after 1993.

[dead0man]

How do you amend the Russian Constitution?

In Russia, the constitution amend's you.

[GMantis]

The following joke is making the rounds in Russia:
Putin and Medvedev wake up in 2023 with a heavy hangover. Putin asks Medvedev: "Who was supposed to be President and who - Prime Minister today?"

[ag]

How do you amend the Russian Constitution?

Russian constitution (adopted in a nationwide referendum in 1993) has ammendment provisions somewhat similar to those of the U.S. constitution (a qualified majority in both houses of the Federal Assambley, followed by the ratification of a qualified majority of state legislatures is the standard provision for most ammendments ). In any case, these provisions have never been tested as the constitution hasn't been ammended (except for the article listing the states - a few states, mostly in Siberia, have been merged, and there is a special provision for ammending that particular article).

In any  case, I do not foresee any formal constitutional changes, since the Constitutional Court has shown itself to be willing to give approval to some extremely creative interpretations of the current text (for instance, the constitution states unambiguously that state governors are elected by the states themselves;  the Court has ruled, however, that a federal law, providing that candidates for a governor can only be nominated by the president of Russia and the electorate is to be restricted to members of state legislatures, which can be disolved in case they do not vote for the sole candidate proposed, is properly constitutional, as the president only "nominates", and does not "appoint" governors).

Of course, the pre-1993 constitition was quite a different matter. Originally approved (by a unanimous vote of the unbreakable bloc of Communists and non party members) in 1977 (as a constitution of a constituent part of USSR, not of an independent state), it could be ammended by a simple legislative vote and it had been ammended several hundred times in just the 1991-1993 period. The amusing result of this was, that pretty much anything that either the legislature, or the executive, or the judiciary could do was in direct contradiction w/ some part of the constitution. In other words, by mid 1993 every single activity of the Russian state was illegal according to its own constitution. This was true even of many activities directly prescribed by some other part of the constitution: in other words, whether any member of any brunch of government was doing anything or doing nothing, s/he was violating his/her sworn duty of abiding the constitution by his/her very existence.

[GMantis]

Russian constitution (adopted in a nationwide referendum in 1993) has ammendment provisions somewhat similar to those of the U.S. constitution (a qualified majority in both houses of the Federal Assambley, followed by the ratification of a qualified majority of state legislatures is the standard provision for most ammendments ). In any case, these provisions have never been tested as the constitution hasn't been ammended (except for the article listing the states - a few states, mostly in Siberia, have been merged, and there is a special provision for ammending that particular article).

In any  case, I do not foresee any formal constitutional changes, since the Constitutional Court has shown itself to be willing to give approval to some extremely creative interpretations of the current text (for instance, the constitution states unambiguously that state governors are elected by the states themselves;  the Court has ruled, however, that a federal law, providing that candidates for a governor can only be nominated by the president of Russia and the electorate is to be restricted to members of state legislatures, which can be disolved in case they do not vote for the sole candidate proposed, is properly constitutional, as the president only "nominates", and does not "appoint" governors).

Of course, the pre-1993 constitition was quite a different matter. Originally approved (by a unanimous vote of the unbreakable bloc of Communists and non party members) in 1977 (as a constitution of a constituent part of USSR, not of an independent state), it could be ammended by a simple legislative vote and it had been ammended several hundred times in just the 1991-1993 period. The amusing result of this was, that pretty much anything that either the legislature, or the executive, or the judiciary could do was in direct contradiction w/ some part of the constitution. In other words, by mid 1993 every single activity of the Russian state was illegal according to its own constitution. This was true even of many activities directly prescribed by some other part of the constitution: in other words, whether any member of any brunch of government was doing anything or doing nothing, s/he was violating his/her sworn duty of abiding the constitution by his/her very existence.

So it can't really be said who was in the right during the 1993 coup attempt?