United Macedonia Diaspora - Page 173

Vangelovski · 01-23-2010, 07:04 AM

Charlatan,

Have you taken your idiotic theories to a law professor or political philosopher yet?

Prolet · 01-23-2010, 07:29 AM

Boge, Poleka ne se nerviraj tolku, oti si tolku nervozen?

Buktop · 01-23-2010, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

Charlatan,

Have you taken your idiotic theories to a law professor or political philosopher yet?

Article 8 exists, Rogi has taken the privilege of asking the law professors, political philosopher's and actual lawyers, but you ignored this when he so graciously posted the relevant articles of the constitution because you were too busy speaking of theories and philosophy, you forgot about actual practice and reality.

Would you like me to refer you to the relevant quotes?

Dzog · 01-23-2010, 08:16 AM

Your name is not confidential when it is written in your profile and available to the public.

I'm not going to answer any of you in substance as I have discredited myself enough on this thread in an attempt to make a point which I'm sure none of you got. I'll avoid making personal commentary in the future.

Vangelovski · 01-23-2010, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buktop

Article 8 exists, Rogi has taken the privilege of asking the law professors, political philosopher's and actual lawyers, but you ignored this when he so graciously posted the relevant articles of the constitution because you were too busy speaking of theories and philosophy, you forgot about actual practice and reality.

Would you like me to refer you to the relevant quotes?

Please Charlatan, tell us again who Rogi asked. You seem to know more about what Rogi did than Rogi himself.

Have you taken YOUR idiotic theories to a law professor or political philosopher yet?

If you can't remember what YOUR idiotic theory was, go back and read the thread.

Once we've established that first point, then we can continue the discussion.

Buktop · 01-23-2010, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

Please Charlatan, tell us again who Rogi asked. You seem to know more about what Rogi did than Rogi himself.

Have you taken YOUR idiotic theories to a law professor or political philosopher yet?

If you can't remember what YOUR idiotic theory was, go back and read the thread.

Once we've established that first point, then we can continue the discussion.

My idiotic theory was that anything not prohibited by the constitution or law is legal

Article 8 of the constitution, anything not prohibited by the constitution or law of Macedonia is legal

Rogi asked lawyers, they agreed.

You are a farse Vangelovski, your only purpose here is to repeat Charlatan as many times as you can before you become irrelevant.

Dzog · 01-23-2010, 08:49 AM

I had a read of that particular thread and there was some interesting discussion, with good points from both sides.

Vangelovski's assertations cannot be denied as ideals for a good Constitution, but I think we need to appreciate the uniqueness (including strengths and flaws) of each Constitution and realise that Macedonia's is not a "good" Constitution.

I will post what I discussed with Vangelovski through PM to add further insight into this issue:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles 88-97 of the Macedonian Constitution vest very broad executive powers in the Government, with the only limiting factors being "the Constitution and the law". Keep in mind also that the Macedonian Constitution can technically be changed without the consent of the people (see Articles 129-131) - a major divergence from the "Western constitutional tradition". So, I do not agree that the Macedonian Government has not been given the power to negotiate the name changes. From my point of view, broad executive powers have been given to the Government without a genuine check, thus negating the need for express authorities in the Constitution itself or from the people. This points to the weakness of the Macedonian Constitution (something which I also have spoken about previously).

Given the above, the Government can be seen to have practically unlimited power - which is why I think the negotiations have not been aptly challenged in the Constitutional Court (a body which has problems, obviously stemming from the shoddy Macedonian Constitution). This is why I am referring to the absence of something that limits or "forbids" the negotiations. Having said that, there is some hope if you look at the early parts of the Constitution with regards to the rights of the citizens and attempt to characterise the negotiations as some infringement of human rights and, therefore, a breach of the Constitution.

On a related note, looking at the Australian Constitution (a relatively strong and well drafted constitution), you can also see that the powers afforded to the Government are very broad - the only difference is that they are listed more "specifically" (i.e. s51). Even then, the powers are broad. For example, hypothetically, if Australia was negotiating a name change with New Zealand over a diplomatic matter, you could attempt to characterise it as an exercise of an External Affairs power under s51 (xxix) (a long shot, I know, however, this power has historically been used quite liberally), but the strength of s128, the rest of the Constitution and Australia's administrative law institutions (not to mention the Australian people) would not allow it. So, to offer a different view, I'd say the Western tradition (using only Australia's experience as the source) is pretty much the same in giving extremely broad powers to the Government but the key differences with Macedonia being that these powers are better defined and the limits on the power are unambiguous with the institutions (and people) that keep the Government in check much more stable and stronger.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An interesting case that depicts the broad interpretation of Constitutional powers in Australia that you guys may want to look at is Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/32.html). In brief, it was a case about the constitutionality of the War Crimes Act (used to indict individuals for war crimes during WWII). The Commonwealth attempted to characterise this as an exercise of their external affairs power - which was affirmed by a 6:1 majority in the High Court.

Soldier of Macedon · 01-23-2010, 08:20 PM

Sho te bodi bre tebe Boge?

Vangelovski · 01-23-2010, 08:31 PM

Dzog,

So long as Macedonia claims to be a democratic republic, I will have to assert that the Government can only exercise the powers it has been specifically provided with under the constitution - i.e., a limited government.

Regardless of how broad its powers may seem under articles 88-97, how can a republican government be so presumptiuous as to believe it has the authority to negotiate the constitution (its governing document) with a foreign government?

If sovereignty belongs to the people (as even the Macedonian constitution recognises - article 2), how can the employee of the sovereign negotiate with a 'non-party' the terms of its 'employment contract'??

Nevertheless, there is nothing in articles 88-97 that could even remotely be interpreted as the people providing the government with the authority to negotiate changes to the constitution with a foreign government. This also goes for Australia's 'external affairs' power. By its very nature, a foreign actor has absolutely no say over the contents of a domestic constitution. It would be akin to you negotiating with your neighbour, the rules of your own household, rather than speaking to your wife.

We need to establish first, whether Macedonia is indeed a democratic republic (as it claims to be) and then look at specific articles in that context. If Macedonia is not a democratic republic, then we really need to be debating something else and not the constitution.

Phoenix · 01-23-2010, 08:55 PM

I don't pretend to be a Constitutional Law expert in the mould of a Buktop for example, I'm very far from that. Being completely ignorant of the polemic nature of this subject, as I'm sure many others are in the wider Macedonian community its all the more important that the organizations that represent our diaspora communities make every effort to ensure that we're not sold down the river.

I'm disgusted that UMD apologists like Buktop and others who wear this ill-fitting suit have attempted to divert the debate from the obvious failings and flaws of these organizations to wiping their hands clean of the responsibility to keep check on a Macedonian government that seems to have the 'power' to do whatever it likes without the carefully worded confines found in other (Western) constitutions.

I'm appalled that Buktop will spend weeks here drawing attention to the articles within the constitution that empower our leaders to do what they please when a more productive use of that time could be spent in making sure that our diaspora organizations are representing the views and interests of the Macedonian people and are acting as a final check and balance in the system.

Thanks Vangelovski and Dzog in sharing your PM with us on this matter.

View Poll Results: Do you consider the UMD as your representative for the Macedonian Diaspora?
Yes	2	4.35%
No	44	95.65%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

01-23-2010, 07:04 AM	#1721
Vangelovski Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 8,520	Charlatan, Have you taken your idiotic theories to a law professor or political philosopher yet? __________________ If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14 The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

01-23-2010, 08:16 AM	#1724
Dzog Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 37	Your name is not confidential when it is written in your profile and available to the public. I'm not going to answer any of you in substance as I have discredited myself enough on this thread in an attempt to make a point which I'm sure none of you got. I'll avoid making personal commentary in the future. __________________ Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

01-23-2010, 08:49 AM	#1727
Dzog Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 37	I had a read of that particular thread and there was some interesting discussion, with good points from both sides. Vangelovski's assertations cannot be denied as ideals for a good Constitution, but I think we need to appreciate the uniqueness (including strengths and flaws) of each Constitution and realise that Macedonia's is not a "good" Constitution. I will post what I discussed with Vangelovski through PM to add further insight into this issue: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Articles 88-97 of the Macedonian Constitution vest very broad executive powers in the Government, with the only limiting factors being "the Constitution and the law". Keep in mind also that the Macedonian Constitution can technically be changed without the consent of the people (see Articles 129-131) - a major divergence from the "Western constitutional tradition". So, I do not agree that the Macedonian Government has not been given the power to negotiate the name changes. From my point of view, broad executive powers have been given to the Government without a genuine check, thus negating the need for express authorities in the Constitution itself or from the people. This points to the weakness of the Macedonian Constitution (something which I also have spoken about previously). Given the above, the Government can be seen to have practically unlimited power - which is why I think the negotiations have not been aptly challenged in the Constitutional Court (a body which has problems, obviously stemming from the shoddy Macedonian Constitution). This is why I am referring to the absence of something that limits or "forbids" the negotiations. Having said that, there is some hope if you look at the early parts of the Constitution with regards to the rights of the citizens and attempt to characterise the negotiations as some infringement of human rights and, therefore, a breach of the Constitution. On a related note, looking at the Australian Constitution (a relatively strong and well drafted constitution), you can also see that the powers afforded to the Government are very broad - the only difference is that they are listed more "specifically" (i.e. s51). Even then, the powers are broad. For example, hypothetically, if Australia was negotiating a name change with New Zealand over a diplomatic matter, you could attempt to characterise it as an exercise of an External Affairs power under s51 (xxix) (a long shot, I know, however, this power has historically been used quite liberally), but the strength of s128, the rest of the Constitution and Australia's administrative law institutions (not to mention the Australian people) would not allow it. So, to offer a different view, I'd say the Western tradition (using only Australia's experience as the source) is pretty much the same in giving extremely broad powers to the Government but the key differences with Macedonia being that these powers are better defined and the limits on the power are unambiguous with the institutions (and people) that keep the Government in check much more stable and stronger. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An interesting case that depicts the broad interpretation of Constitutional powers in Australia that you guys may want to look at is Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/32.html). In brief, it was a case about the constitutionality of the War Crimes Act (used to indict individuals for war crimes during WWII). The Commonwealth attempted to characterise this as an exercise of their external affairs power - which was affirmed by a 6:1 majority in the High Court. __________________ Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

01-23-2010, 08:20 PM	#1728
Soldier of Macedon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Macedonian Outpost Posts: 13,660	Sho te bodi bre tebe Boge? __________________ In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

01-23-2010, 07:29 AM	#1722
Prolet Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,241	Boge, Poleka ne se nerviraj tolku, oti si tolku nervozen?

01-23-2010, 08:31 PM	#1729
Vangelovski Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 8,520	Dzog, So long as Macedonia claims to be a democratic republic, I will have to assert that the Government can only exercise the powers it has been specifically provided with under the constitution - i.e., a limited government. Regardless of how broad its powers may seem under articles 88-97, how can a republican government be so presumptiuous as to believe it has the authority to negotiate the constitution (its governing document) with a foreign government? If sovereignty belongs to the people (as even the Macedonian constitution recognises - article 2), how can the employee of the sovereign negotiate with a 'non-party' the terms of its 'employment contract'?? Nevertheless, there is nothing in articles 88-97 that could even remotely be interpreted as the people providing the government with the authority to negotiate changes to the constitution with a foreign government. This also goes for Australia's 'external affairs' power. By its very nature, a foreign actor has absolutely no say over the contents of a domestic constitution. It would be akin to you negotiating with your neighbour, the rules of your own household, rather than speaking to your wife. We need to establish first, whether Macedonia is indeed a democratic republic (as it claims to be) and then look at specific articles in that context. If Macedonia is not a democratic republic, then we really need to be debating something else and not the constitution. __________________ If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14 The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

01-23-2010, 08:55 PM	#1730
Phoenix Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,668	I don't pretend to be a Constitutional Law expert in the mould of a Buktop for example, I'm very far from that. Being completely ignorant of the polemic nature of this subject, as I'm sure many others are in the wider Macedonian community its all the more important that the organizations that represent our diaspora communities make every effort to ensure that we're not sold down the river. I'm disgusted that UMD apologists like Buktop and others who wear this ill-fitting suit have attempted to divert the debate from the obvious failings and flaws of these organizations to wiping their hands clean of the responsibility to keep check on a Macedonian government that seems to have the 'power' to do whatever it likes without the carefully worded confines found in other (Western) constitutions. I'm appalled that Buktop will spend weeks here drawing attention to the articles within the constitution that empower our leaders to do what they please when a more productive use of that time could be spent in making sure that our diaspora organizations are representing the views and interests of the Macedonian people and are acting as a final check and balance in the system. Thanks Vangelovski and Dzog in sharing your PM with us on this matter. Last edited by Phoenix; 01-23-2010 at 09:10 PM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)