Is the Nation Still the Sovereign of the State? (2)

“Article 2 of the Lithuanian Constitution states: “The State of Lithuania is created by the Nation. Sovereignty belongs to the Nation.” “No way – it belongs to the Constitutional Court!” – the constitutional clergy respond to this. It seems that this caste of sovereigns also includes judges who have completed their term, their mistresses, and political supporters.

 

Unfortunately, that is where the list ends. The Nation is forbidden to express its will when it contradicts the ideological positions of the collective oppressors and the interpretations of the Constitution based on them. The Seimas and the Central Election Commission have the right to decide whether to allow the Nation to speak on one issue or another, and the formulation of the question is approved by the Constitutional Court. So, can it be said that the Nation is still the sovereign of this state?

 

The Žalimas of all Žalimas – Dainius Žalimas – claims that the Nation itself has limited its rights by authorizing the Constitutional Court to decide what is legal in Lithuania and what is not. Let's see what the Constitution itself says about this. Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution authorize the Constitutional Court to verify whether laws adopted are consistent with the Constitution, and other legal acts – with the Constitution and laws. There is no hint of the Constitutional Court's right or, even more so, the monopoly right to interpret the Constitution itself. This court assumed this right itself.

 

Today, the Constitutional Court's invention that a family can be based on emotional relationships, and not only on marriage between a man and a woman and/or kinship ties, is treated as a principle of the Constitution, which is contradicted by the referendum proposed by a group of Seimas members for a clearer definition of family. Although the fact that marriage, family, fatherhood, motherhood and childhood are mentioned in the same 38th article of the Constitution shows the connection between these concepts, it is necessary to clarify this in order to avoid the aforementioned interpretations of the Constitutional Court.

 

It is precisely this will of the Nation that is sought to be prohibited. There are three problems here. First, if the sovereign of the state is the Nation, it is above the Constitution and much above the Constitutional Court. It has the right to amend the Constitution. According to the proportions provided for therein, the Nation can establish a monarchy, change the territorial structure and even incorporate Lithuania into another state. Of course, the task of politicians is to convince the Nation that the sovereignty of the state and the democratic system are values, but the final word, according to the Constitution, belongs only to the Nation itself.

 

However, the statement that the amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional sounds absurd. The Constitution does not establish the Nation, but the Nation creates, changes, supplements, amends or refines the Constitution. It should be emphasized that a more precise definition of the family is proposed not to be placed in some law that could conflict with the Constitution and where the Constitutional Court could at least theoretically have a say, but in the Constitution itself. This is exclusively the prerogative of the Nation.

 

Secondly, the already mentioned problem is that the Constitutional Court and its veterans identify their ideological provisions and the interpretations of the Constitution based on them with the Constitution itself. When something is not in the text of the Constitution, the doctrine of the Constitution and the spirit of the Constitution are invented. Indeed, the concept of “spirit” is mentioned in the Constitution, but only when talking about the spirit, culture and religion of the Nation, and not about interpretations of the Constitution, and the concept of “doctrine” is not there at all. Thank God and the creators of the Constitution.

 

State doctrine is a feature of anti-democratic regimes. In a democratic state, there may be doctrines of individual politicians, parties, public groups, religious communities, and cultural movements. But a state doctrine that rises above ideological and ideological diversity is nothing more than tyranny.

 

The third problem is that the Constitutional Court has illegally usurped the exclusive powers of the Nation. Both Articles 2 and 3 have been violated, which state without reservation: “No one may restrict or limit the sovereignty of the Nation or appropriate the sovereign powers belonging to the entire Nation.” And the powers of the Constitutional Court specified in Articles 102 and 105 have been substantially exceeded, and this is dissonant with the entire context of the Constitution.

 

When did this happen? It probably began with the “Paxogeite”. For the correct tactical goal – to remove a politically vulnerable person from the position of head of state – a disastrous step was taken at the strategic level, when the Seimas elected by the Nation actually legitimized the usurpation of the highest and unchallenged power by the Constitutional Court. Since then, even the Seimas itself has been a mere decoration, because any of its initiatives can be blocked by the Constitutional Court.

 

According to the classical liberal scheme of separation of powers, the duty of the courts is to execute laws, not to create them. Article 4 of the Constitution states: “The Nation exercises the supreme sovereign power directly or through its democratically elected representatives.” No other methods are provided for. Judges are not elected representatives. Therefore, today’s attempts to legitimize same-sex partnerships through the courts are also unconstitutional.

 

The greatest, although not the most dangerous, absurdity is that the Constitutional Court and its veterans explain the doctrine of the Constitution to the still living creators of the Constitution. The creators say: “We were talking about A”, and the judges retort: ​​“No, you meant B”. If anyone can create something similar to a constitutional doctrine, it is only the Nation, directly or through elected representatives. And it can change it at any time.

 

Even the European Union is not competent to override the will of the Nation. Although the Nation, in Article 69 of the Constitution, allowed the Seimas to adopt constitutional laws and the corresponding law on the supremacy of European Union law was adopted, the Nation can revoke it at any time. Moreover, when Lithuania joined the European Union, it was still far from the current legal regulation. The Nation, if it so wished, could adopt the legal regulations that emerged afterwards with the right to revoke them, and until then these regulations are lower than the will of the Nation.

 

Today, instead of a constitutional state, we have a judicial one, with a distorted principle of separation of powers and the usurped will of the Nation. Representative democracy without direct democracy is simply an elected dictatorship. This seems to be understood by voters of all parliamentary parties: the majority of voters of each of these parties voted for the Family Referendum. Some – because of conservatism, others – because of democracy, and still others – because of both. Therefore, all parliamentary parties are obliged to support the Nation’s right to declare its sovereign will. And not only on this sensitive issue.

 

There is no reason to fear that the Family Referendum will limit someone’s rights to call what they want a family. After all, even today there is no prohibition on calling even a cat a family member. On the contrary, the legal norm being pushed through the courts does not mean freedom, but coercion. Coercion for the majority of society to recognize as family what is not family to them. And in the future – coercion for children who have no place to grow up in such “families.” Who will defend their rights?

 

Whatever the general decision of the Nation in this referendum, it is obvious that the entire system needs to be corrected, as Professors Vytautas Radžvilas and Alvydas Jokubaitis aptly see. The nation is not just an electorate that regularly elects dictators for itself. The nation is constitutionally the sovereign of the state. It is necessary to consolidate this in practice. A family referendum is an excellent first step for this. It is time to reclaim the state.”