Comments by "RM Domainer" (@rmdomainer9042) on "Ukraine and Russia are still far from real negotiations" video.

"SMO" "denazification" these are just buzzwords. They mean nothing. " the constitution doesn't in any way allow the presidential term to be extended, martial law or not" in lieu of an election, the president stays. Basic stuff.
2
@Princip666 Basic stuff also says that martial law rules out an election. At the end of the day, their Rada knows more about what aligns with their constitution than you ( a known bot) does, basic stuff.
2
@Princip666 Good. So then you have your task set out for you. Name the constitutional court ruling (reference number please) that supports your statement that Zelensky is currently illegitimate. You just ruined your own argument, and it is priceless 🤣
2
The Russian economy can not survive an endless war. Modern people do not actually want to regress into North Korea.
1
Why would Russia need to be kicked out when they are a one-man-show, that is just one geriatric's death away from civil war? They stay, sanctions stay, their actual economy and development is in hiatus. That is acceptable. Let us see if some opportunistic oligarchs will step up to the plate.
1
 @Princip666 You sound confused. That was 100% on topic.
1
 @Princip666 The RADA knows their own constitution you do not. Your point is as moot as you.
1
@Princip666 Nice strawman. Nobody said they had jurisdiction in judicial matters. Fact of the matter is, it is their country, their law, and they interpret it better than you, a known troll. Cottoning on yet?
1
@Princip666 Indeed you did, genius, it is the thread we are talking in so it has been read. Iin lieu of a ruling from the constitutional court, the rule is legitimate. I remind you "only the constitutional court has the authority to interpret the constitution" and you by extension do not. Your statement about it being unconstitutional is therefore null and void. Cottoned on yet?
1
@Princip666 " I have no idea what's that supposed to mean" What do you have a problem with, the word "lieu" or the 'legality principle'? You've never set foot in a court of law, have you? "Zelensky never asked the court to legitimize" Do you have a problem with the separation of powers? Phew, the Dunning Kruger is strong in you. Were you born this century?
1
@Princip666 "how can president legally extend his own term without the approval of the constitutional court" There is no word salad here. Just a person that does not understand the legality principle, nor the word lieu. The burden of proof is on you. You need to produce a statement from a non-vatnik legal scholar (since you are not one) which part of the constitution has been broken. Meanwhile, this is the law we are dealing with: Article 83 of the Constitution stipulates that during martial law, elections can be suspended. The president is chosen through election.
1
@Princip666 Yes, you do, since the martial status of the country is without question. Holding an election now is actually what would be unconstituional. I am sorry this is confusing to you. Thank you for sinking your own argument. You walked right into that one.
1
@Princip666 "In the event that the term of authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine expires while martial law or a state of emergency is in effect, its authority is extended until the day of the first meeting of the first session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine , elected after the cancellation of martial law or of the state of emergency." "In the event of the pre-term termination of authority of the President of Ukraine in accordance with Articles 108, 109, 110 and 111 of this Constitution, the execution of duties of the President of Ukraine, for the period pending the elections and the assumption of office of the new President of Ukraine, is vested in the Prime Minister of Ukraine. The Prime Minister " Since Verkhovna Rada's authority has been extended due to martial law, they have by memorandum decided not to hold a new presidential election, leaving the president at his post at the behest of the Rada.
1
@Princip666 It sounds like you are interpreting the constitution again. As you previously said "only constitutional court can decide what aligns with constitution and what doesn't" Apart from being a showcase of your slav grammar, that also constitutes your ongoing self-ownage.
1
@Princip666 I actually read it before, mup-pet. " without the constitutional court ruling." is the keyword, Mr Dunning Kruger. Nor is it unconstitutional without their ruling to that effect. And you are still self-disqualified. Let me remind you, as you previously said in your slavsheit syntax "only constitutional court can decide what aligns with constitution and what doesn't" Where is the ruling either way? Confirmed for not having been in a court of law, nor having read a legal tract ever before.
1
@Princip666 "without the constitutional court ruling. " That is not how they see it, since there is no ruling regarding the unconstitutionality of it. Let me remind you: "only constitutional court can decide what aligns with constitution and what doesn't", abysmal syntax aside, you have still sunk your case
1