“Dismissal of Meta by the majority, a product of ignorance”, Hazizaj: The court walks on the constitutional tracks, not political interpretations

Hazizaj said that the majority aimed at intimidation through the political behavior of the president by introducing him to his constitutional behavior, as he wants the president to support him.

The constitutionalist emphasizes that the political behavior of the majority cannot be equated with constitutional ignorance.

Due to the legislative initiative, according to him, the behavior of the majority should be more constitutional than political.

“The court has started with the legal fact, on which the assembly or the majority wanted to intimidate through the political behavior of the president by introducing him to his constitutional behavior. He found that the president’s conduct in the election was political and not constitutional. This contradicted, did not prove the constitutional articles. The Constitutional Court has looked closely at the relationship between the constitutional fact of the president’s activity and political behavior. The majority aspires for a president who supports the majority. We have a big conflict with today’s majority and past majorities. Political behavior cannot be equated with constitutional ignorance. Even because of the legislative initiative, because of getting the citizen vote, the focus on the citizens, the formatting of the laws should be more constitutional than political. When it finds that the 2008 changes the majorities are conically summed up in just one figure and no power is shared. “The majority should not confuse the mission with the laws.”according to Hazizaj.

We recall that the Constitutional Court decided not to dismiss President Ilir Meta.

In its notification, the Constitutional Court explains that “after verifying the procedure followed by the Assembly for the establishment of the commission of inquiry, guaranteeing the right of the President to be heard and defended and taking into account the organizational independence of the Assembly, in the whole ascertained that there was no constitutional violation during this procedure ”.

During the process, the legal advisers of the Head of State relied in particular on their defense, precisely on the serious violations that, according to them, had been committed by the parliament from the moment of reviewing the request of the deputies that set the parliament in motion, until decision.

On the other hand, the violations alleged by the representatives of the socialist majority, for the Constitutional Court can not be considered as serious violations of the Constitution.

top channel