a random kc banner

/kc/ - Krautchan

Highest Serious Discussion Per Post on Endchan


New Thread
X
Max 20 files0 B total
[New Thread]

Page: Prev [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Next | Catalog | Banners | Logs


thumbnail of 2025-10-16-19-22-Syria.png
thumbnail of 2025-10-16-19-22-Syria.png
2025-10-16-19-22-Syria png
(604.73 KB, 1213x914)
thumbnail of 2025-10-16-19-22-Syria-news3.png
thumbnail of 2025-10-16-19-22-Syria-news3.png
2025-10-16... png
(386.24 KB, 381x1267)
thumbnail of al-Sharaa-and-Putin-20251015.mp4
thumbnail of al-Sharaa-and-Putin-20251015.mp4
al-Sharaa-and-Putin-2... mp4
(1.34 MB, 848x464 h264)
thumbnail of al-Sharaa-Trump-Macron-by-Clement-Molin.png
thumbnail of al-Sharaa-Trump-Macron-by-Clement-Molin.png
al-Sharaa-Trump-M... png
(526.73 KB, 715x829)
Previous:  >>/51681/

Around 2024 December 8 (I think the real date was the 7th) Assad was overthrown in Syria and left for Russia, went into exile with some of his family. Since then the Turkish backed and Turkish proxy Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) took over most of the country, led by Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa aka. Abu Mohammad al-Julani who risen through the ranks of al-Qaeda to found al-Nusra Front which he turned into the HTS, and now he is the President of Syria and changed his kaftan to a suit. And Syria turned from the enemy of the US into a client or a client of a client (Turkey's client).

Syria is weak and divided. Her leaders really has to bow to their masters, I don't think they like this, but they can't do anything else since Syria can't defend herself.
To the very north the other Turkish backed faction Syrian National Army (SNA) has a small enclave still I think. In the North East in the Kurdish populated areas the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) continue to rule, while Turkey has a buffer zone protruding into their territory. New formation emerged in the south where the Druze minority lives, I believe they are now essentially autonomous.
During the chaos of Assad's fall Israel invaded from the occupied Golan Heights and occupied more of Syria, calling it a security zone, similar to the Turkish one in the north.
I think the event that really showed Syria's vulnerability and that it is just a toy for all the stronger states around was the Israel-Iran war, when the IDF jets used Syrian airspace to refuel, blatantly disregarding any appearance of sovereignty.

But Syria left the isolation, the US stopped with the containment policy, sanctions were lifted. Now the leaders of Syria try to establish international relations. Just yesterday al-Sharaa met with Putin in Moscow. He also met Trump and Macron too not in Moscow - which our lad Clement Molin found distasteful, if the translation is correct. I also heard they established relations with India as well. So they are reaching out to everyone they can.
309 replies omitted. Click to expand viewer

There was an EU summit at the end of the week, Zelensky was there. Three points he presented:
- more patriots
- confiscate Russian frozen assets
- more money. Lots:
> the war will cost 155 billion euros ($174.5 billion) next year. And we need at least 70 billion euros ($78.8 billion) more from you
Not clear, on top of that 155 billion? So it's liek 225 now? That's a lot of golden toilet.
https://kyivindependent.com/zelenskys-ask-300-patriots-70-billion-euros-and-russian-assets/

One thing we have to note about the money issue.
The money largely don't go to Ukraine. They go into a fund. Then EU member states send equipment to Ukraine, and they are recompensated from this fund. This is how the EU helps out member states in this recession, economical decline, energy crisis. I assume they overcharge the fund without any hesitation too.
So Zelensky isn't requesting money, but they are used as a mouthpiece to justify the spending to these countries.

The EU accepted the 22nd "The Last Dagger Thrust Into the Bleeding Bear" sanction package against Russia.
https://eu-sanctions-compliance-helpdesk.europa.eu/eu-agrees-largest-ever-package-listings-targeting-almost-1600-individuals-and-entities_en
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-approves-biggest-russia-sanctions-package-since-invasion-began/





thumbnail of what-do-eu-right-win-parties-want-2019.jpg
thumbnail of what-do-eu-right-win-parties-want-2019.jpg
what-do-eu-right-w... jpg
(299.58 KB, 1200x1358)
thumbnail of UvdL.jpg
thumbnail of UvdL.jpg
UvdL jpg
(147.74 KB, 1167x777)
Previous thread:  >>/36217/

Found fun informational. It's dated, I think from 2019 but things seems to be the same. Not sure about that Paris Climate Agreement tho.

As in last post in prev thread stated today EU Parliament voted back Ursula von der Leyen as the president of the EU Commission (EU govt. basically).
719 deputy
707 votes
401 yes
284 no
15 abstained
7 invalid votes
She's so dumb, and the dumbest statements she makes. She's also a bit dated, she was first elected in 2019. But it shows how strong the leftlib is, they stay in power as expected, despite all the bleeting in the leftlib press about far-right danger.
315 replies omitted. Click to expand viewer
thumbnail of US-20261104-Midterm-results-.png
thumbnail of US-20261104-Midterm-results-.png
US-20261104-Midterm-r... png
(26.39 KB, 922x403)
Democrats won the US midterm elections, both the House of Reps and Senate are theirs.
Lots of implications but not sure what will happen.
I expect them to hamper the Trump admin, roll back whatever they did. Well at least to the amount they can cause harm for the Republicans. In other ways they'll go along with traditional US policies.

Hungarian circus.
The Tisza govt. is publishing the so called "agent files".
Background:
In the communism the internal political police was the "III/III Department" of the Ministry of Interior. Just to put it into perspective:
III/I intelligence
III/II counterintelligence
III/III internal counterintel
III/IV military counterintel
III/V operational tech (like forging papers and such)
The ThreePerThree run an extensive network of agents who were "employed" by various means, as a "human intelligence" tool to surveil other people, friends, family, coworkers, neighbours, groups, organizations, etc. and make reports about them. This "employment" could have been forced (it was often forced, either by violence or blackmail), sometimes payed (in favors, or for comfort, position, etc), sometimes it was done voluntarily.
There is a difference between the real staff of 3/3 who run the show, and the simple "agents" who were roped in, and oftentimes can be considered as victims themselves.
Many thousands were used in this way, and this is a sensitive point in Hungarian public life. Especially for those who run for public offices, for seats in the parliament. Being a communist agent isn't a flattering thing, in theory could break careers. I haven't seen such happening, but it's sure scandals can be made about them. For example Hungary's 5th Prime Minister (2002-2004), Medgyessy Péter was an officer in 3/3. He wasn't reporting he was the one who read the reports. This should have been very serious, but beyond minor discomfort the news caused little harm.
Other politicians came forward with their "agent past" themselves. For example Csurka István, a conservative journalist, later the founder of the right radical MIÉP was open about it. He was more of a victim, 3/3 operatives forced him to agree on working to them, by beating, torturing his father in the next room.

 >>/55663/
cont.

The "agent files" were partially public in some minor way, but largely blocked from searching, viewing. The Tisza govt. decided to allow access to thousands of files, but still not the complete archive. They say it is a longstanding debt of Hungarian politics.
Now the mood of political witchhunt in the air, I'm sure there will be some uncomfortable moment for some.
Fun thing. Hungary's 0th Prime Minister (interim in 1989), Németh Miklós, came forward and alleged that Orbán Viktor himself was an agent in 3/3. Orbán however couple of times already published the files about himself, which prove he was not. What will come out of this, I don't know.
I'm fairly sure many from the so called "regime change parties" can be implicated in cooperation with the communist Kádár-regime. By doing soemthing illegal (creating internal dissent by forming illegal underground civil organizations), they were blackmailable, and also good targets to keep an eye on the hidden internal opposition. And on each other.

From what I see, the whole thing is good for making noise. I highly doubt will be a real "facing our past" moment. But I welcome all effort that ends secrecy on communist documents.





thumbnail of the-wages-of-destruction-adam-tooze-9780713995664.jpg
thumbnail of the-wages-of-destruction-adam-tooze-9780713995664.jpg
the-wages-o... jpg
(80.78 KB, 581x878)
thumbnail of Tooze, Adam - The Wages of Destruction The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy.pdf
thumbnail of Tooze, Adam - The Wages of Destruction The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy.pdf
Tooze,... pdf
(7.68 MB, 0x0)
As I promised I'll write about this book.
It's quite lengthy but you'll reach the end if you read at your own pace. Most of the book isn't dense for me, an economic layman, with the exception of the parts about trade, which left me confused. I'll write what I manage to understand.
The author wrote it to argue in historiographical debates and make some points, but I read it just to add to my historical knowledge.

I'll write in sections, at most one a day so Bernd doesn't get overwhelmed, and will try to make the sections more thematic rather than just a sythesis of each chapter, as Hitler himself suggests in Mein Kampf for how one should mentally organize knowledge. I want to write about:

-Trade and controls of foreign currency and raw materials
-Budgets and revenue
-Agrarianism
-Businessmen and workers
-Consumer goods
-The fate of different industries
-Rearmament
-General progression from 1933 to 1939

If I give up on writing I hope at least to cover the prewar period. I also hope to write on:
-Armaments priorities until 1940
-Historiography of the battle of France
-Occupied economies and pre-1941 America
-Wartime budgets
-Food
-Foreign labor
-Leadup and economic reasoning for Barbarossa
-The Speer miracle
-General progression from 1939 to 1945

But first I must make some notes on the Weimar era.
403 replies omitted. Click to expand viewer
thumbnail of War and Economy in the Third Reich.pdf
thumbnail of War and Economy in the Third Reich.pdf
War and... pdf
(22.49 MB, 0x0)
Found a book very much related to this topic: War and Economy in the Third Reich by Richard Owery
In the preface he notes some caveats:
THE present work is the fruit of twenty years of research and writing on the German economy under Hitler. [...] The rest of the chapters reproduce journal articles. [...] Naturally enough over the course of twenty years I have changed my mind about a lot of things, and learned a great deal. I blush at the infelicities of expression and uncritical assumptions of the early pieces. I hope there remains sufficient consistency here to avoid the danger that the conclusions of one chapter cancel out the evidence supplied in another. I have tried in the Introduction to link the different pieces together, and to suggest ways in which the subject has developed during the time the essays were written.

I intend to read this. Not sure if I'll report anything from it here. The pace I'm writing this /kc/ blog these days is very slow. But maybe it worth doing so. However I should re-acquaint myself with Tooze's research.


 >>/55548/
Took a look at the "Guns or Butter?" chapter and it's a lot of the same impressions I got from Tooze: early war Germany didn't have a large untapped potential for military production and its leadership wasn't "soft" on the civilian standard of living.

 >>/55658/
Just finishing up the first chapter. My progress is quite slow (I read other stuff in parallel).
The Introduction is quite enlightening in some ways. He talks about the two ways that the Nazi economy is usually presented. And I'll present it to you in my own way.
All the researchers base all their assumptions that Nazi Germany is evil, and they feel compelled by this bias to give their narration. The first group writes that Germany was turbo-rearming to destroy and take over the world. The other group noticed that despite the bombings during WWII the real armament was done during this time and in the interwar period and the early WWII not so much. They explain this that the Nazis were incompetent, and only after Speer started to rationalize then they were able to produce.
So the two views are: aggressive brute vs incompetent brute. These are the classic way of writing about the economy of the Reich. This really mirrors how they write about Russia currently. Or rather writing about Russia gets the inspiration from the Nazi narrations.
Compared to this Owery takes a third road, which sounds more like the calculating brute. Basically in the first period the Nazis created the basis of the mass production of armaments by doing big projects to build the capacity to produce later (and the war came earlier than Nazis expected), and they finished up other armament projects. All this started before the Nazis got into power they were just smart enough to cement their power with the fruits.




thumbnail of google-datacenter-tech-21.jpg
thumbnail of google-datacenter-tech-21.jpg
google-datacenter-tec... jpg
(1.15 MB, 2000x1333)
thumbnail of bamboo_house.jpg
thumbnail of bamboo_house.jpg
bamboo_house jpg
(113.6 KB, 600x800)
Newest Edition, with less Ghork.


First thing first:
That dude of the Primitive Technology channel and all his copycats have a great advantage: access to unlimited supply of bamboo. Unlimited to their objectives. That stuff is great, tuff as shit, light as feather, can be used to many purpose with little modification and not too much work.

I also read most of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation#Responsibility_and_accountability
I think technology and it's use are running forward and lawmakers lag behind. Those who spent any time in the past two decades on the internet have a giant heap of data about them. I think Bernd posted a video about a security eggsbert, I think he works kind of a private investigator many time cooperating with officials and he said in that video anonymizing data worth nothing it can be de-anonymized with ease, and both companies and govt agencies do.
Now this law was passed at 2016. This year the EU countries have to start implementing it. Who knows how long it takes until it finishes. The whole stuff is kinda vague (it can be modified when necessary tho), and I don't know for example how the EU can force a foreign company to do whatever? There are sanctions but what jurisdiction the EU has over a US based firm for example Facebook and how the EU will force the sanctions onto for example said company?
410 replies omitted. Click to expand viewer
 >>/55585/
 >>/55585/
 >>/55561/
> Now there is a shitter project to replace it:

Actually Nitter is still online, except it's from other people hosting instances for it. Only a few of the main ones went down. If you search online for nitter instances, there should still be a lot of them running. 

We still got that site up fam


 >>/55593/
 >>/55596/
Luckily this still lists some working instances:
https://status.d420.de/

Also for me FF and derivatives don't load the nitter instances properly. Media breaks. Chromium derivatives (even Brave) do. I'm thinking they implement some security stuff differently. FF has a warning in the settings that some staff can break sites.

thumbnail of France-download-tax1.png
thumbnail of France-download-tax1.png
France-download-... png
(226.08 KB, 724x861)
thumbnail of France-download-tax2.png
thumbnail of France-download-tax2.png
France-download-tax2 png
(125.12 KB, 711x674)
thumbnail of France-download-tax3.png
thumbnail of France-download-tax3.png
France-download-... png
(174.04 KB, 709x865)
Chatcontrol, ID verification, and now download taxation...
French Socialist lawmakers want to introduce tax on "content providers", "data senders", "data generators" based on the traffic coming from their servers. €0.055 per 1 GB of data.
Amendement n°I-1358
https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/17/amendements/3210A/AN/1358

"This tax is based on a tax base that cannot be relocated: internet data transmitted to users. It is paid by data producers and collected by the State through measurements carried out by internet service providers. It draws on existing technologies and a methodology developed in collaboration with sector specialists. The majority of this tax would be paid by major international tech and digital companies, which account for a large proportion of the data transmitted to French households. At a rate of €0.055 per gigabyte, revenue of €10 billion is expected. This model does not pose any privacy concerns, as the data is never accessed (only the volume is assessed); it also has environmental benefits, as it will naturally encourage data senders to adopt the most advanced technologies for compressing and optimising the volume of data to be transmitted."

thumbnail of France-download-tax4.png
thumbnail of France-download-tax4.png
France-download-... png
(171.59 KB, 712x847)
thumbnail of France-download-tax5.png
thumbnail of France-download-tax5.png
France-download-t... png
(163 KB, 711x818)
thumbnail of France-download-tax7.png
thumbnail of France-download-tax7.png
France-download-tax7 png
(130.11 KB, 726x676)
Now people of the internet is questioning that the French legislation can be this dumb, but somehow the other crap went through.
Member when the Brits protested against that shit above and noone in the govt cared?

Why French lawmakers want their citizens to be barred from all the services on the internet? Or they want their own citizens to pay more for services? Or perhaps they want to kill non-profit organizations and projects (such as GNU+Linux and other Free/Libre and Open Source), because they won't be able to pay their nonsense tax?
They want to tax everyone who serves data to their users, which is everyone with a web service. How krautchan.org plans to pay this tax?
What if other countries adopt this genius idea?

Here are two links I found where people discussing this. Not easy to find such places by searching "france law tax download" and even by searching the number of the amendment.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/france-is-getting-download-tax-for-content-providers-%E2%82%AC0-055-gb-for-data-delivered-to-french-users.1675109/
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1xjomcq/french_politicians_vote_in_favour_of_0055gb_tax



thumbnail of Palácio.jpeg
thumbnail of Palácio.jpeg
Palácio jpeg
(1.74 MB, 1654x1102)
thumbnail of congress.JPG
thumbnail of congress.JPG
congress JPG
(351.17 KB, 1200x800)
thumbnail of la legge e uguale per tutti.jpg
thumbnail of la legge e uguale per tutti.jpg
la legge e uguale per... jpg
(2.08 MB, 1995x1673)
The past years of witnessing an... "active" Supreme Court have gotten me pondering a lot about constitutions, powers and interpretation.

First question is: can a constitutional court be wrong about the Constitution? Does it have an absolute final say on the meaning of its words?
The obvious common sense answers are no and yes. Only the court's opinion has authority. A layman's opinion is just his opinion, and even a learned scholar's opinion is just an opinion. Even the lowliest judge has more authority than the highest scholar, and the only limit on his interpretation is an overruling by a higher authority (an appelate court). The Supreme Court has no higher authority.
This is obviously necessary because laymen and especially civil servants need legal stability and predictability. There are thousands of civil servants and they must all apply the law equally. If each of them has his own take on what is legal and what is not, the State collapses into anarchy. Hence they must all follow a single entity's interpretation. And there's also a citizen's gneeral duty to obey authority and channel his disagreement into legal methods to question and overturn authority.

But what if the Court says something outrageous? What if it rules the Earth is flat according to the Constitution? What if it revises the law on impeachment of Supreme Court justices to make them harder to impeach? (This one actually happened.)
Cheapest answer is that they wouldn't do it because the text's inherent meaning constrains their rulings. But this is just a speedbump. Philosophers demonstrate there's no such thing as an "un-interpreted" meaning of a text. With enough sophistry, any text can be made to mean anything. And the legal profession selects for the most devious sophists.

One can reply that only a limited set of interpretations can be reasonable, interpretation is never completely free. This is true. But who gets to say what is and is not reasonable? Only the Court has authority. If everyone finds their rulings unreasonable, that's just everyone's opinion.
A practical answer is that the Legislative and Executive will use their legal methods to restrain, impeach or change the composition of the Court. All of this still presumes that their flat-eartherist interpretation of the Constitution is right until overturned; their authority is still sacred.
And if it is sacred, what are you supposed to do if all such reactive measures by Congress or the President are ruled unconstitucional? What if the President names a new justice and the sitting justices nullify the appointment because the Constitution says justices must be qualified and they find him unqualified? What if Congress impeaches a justice and the Court strikes down the impeachment because the Constitution dictates a neverending march to  utopia and Congress was merely disagreeing with the justice's utopian ideals?

Now those are silly made up examples, but if the Court's word is unquestionable, there's nothing you can do. The Constitution is whatever the Court says it is. And since everything from the tiniest private contract or local ordinance derives its legitimacy from the constitution, the Court has the unlimited power to bestow and withdraw legitimacy as it sees fit.
This is obviously false if you understand separation of powers and checks and balances. The courts ought to have their power checked by the Executive, Legislative and the original Constituent Power, which is above all three.
But what does it mean to check a power's decision? It is overriding it because it's illegal i.e. it is found to be incompatible when compared to the law. Those are two objects for comparison. The latter (the law) is not an independent standard but it is whatever the courts say it is. If the courts determine the two objects of comparison, they determine the result and there is no way to check them. What does it even mean to say the courts derive their power from the Constitution when they define what the Constitution is?
3 replies omitted. Click to expand viewer
All right one more.
> courts derive their power from the Constitution when they define what the Constitution is?
> they define what the Constitution is?
They do not.
That is all.

 >>/55640/
> I don't know which counties' proceedings you follow, but these examples shouldn't be part of the job of constitutional courts.
I'm thinking chiefly of our overpowered Supreme Court that is both a constitutional court and a court of last resort but on principle it holds true for continental European constitutional courts. But continentals have more of a culture of self-restraint and deference to Legislative choices.

> The constitution is created by the legislation
The constitution is created by the original Constituent power to put limits on what future Legislatives can do, even though said Legislatives are also derived Constituent powers. The courts enforce the limits by constitutional review. The point of the courts is to be an unelected, anti-majority power blocking the majority's attacks on minorities.
I don't really believe this but it's a dominant constitutional ideology in many states.

> The CC is not a legislative body, they don't have the authority to create laws or amend the constitution
They do have the authority to strike down an entire law or part of it, constitutional courts are called "negative legislators". But that's not my main point.
The authority to create or amend the law is the least interesting part of the rule-making process. Laws, on their own, are just texts. We can only extract rules out of them through interpretation - reading them in light of all other laws, the community's unwritten assumptions and the facts at hand. The rule isn't the law, it's the interpretation. There are as many rules derived from a law as there are interpretations. It is ultimately the courts that make the rules, not the legislators, though there is much controversy over this.
And the constitutional court has the ultimate power to say only one interpretation is valid for a law and all others are unconstitutional. Which is the same as making up the rule by striking down all other potentially valid rules.

Particularly creative and activist-minded courts come up with rules that no straightforward reading of the law would ever produce. Americans are infamous for this, e.g. due process in the US Constitution means Congress cannot outlaw abortion. 
But I can give you examples from an Americanized civil law system.

On 2019 Brazil's Supreme Court ruled that there should be a law criminalizing homophobia but Congress had neglected its duty to legislate it. The Court decided that the law on criminalizing racism would henceforth apply to homophobia, even though it makes no reference whatsoever to gays. The Court explicitly admitted it was the Legislative's duty to make up a law upon which there would be a rule, then made up the rule by themselves. A new rule was created without any legislative activity. This was not a ruling for any particular case but an abstract rule binding on everyone. From the perspective of someone getting prosecuted, is there any difference between what they did and Congress passing a law to criminalize homophobia?
The "law" as a system of rules is much broader than the "law" as a system of texts.

The procedure for impeaching a Supreme Court justice is defined in a 1950 law. Article 41 says any citizen can file a request of impeachment for the Senate to judge. For comparison, article 14 says any citizen can file a request to impeach the President. Last year, as there was much talk of impeaching justices, one of them struck down this article, claiming it exposes the Court to intimidation. And now that the article would no longer be in effect, he made up a new rule: only the Prosecutor General (appointed by the President) can file for the impeachment of a Supreme Court justice. This ruling not only struck down part of a law but made up a new rule to replace it.

 >>/55642/
All right, so essentially about Brazil. Was guessing maybe the US. And was writing from a Hungarian point of view.
US has legal precedent practice. So whatever a court decided on whatever level on one occasion that kinda binds further decisions. Continental Europe doesn't have this. It's stupid Anglo tradition. I dunno if Brazil has that. However on the Hungary next to laws we have so called "Commentaries" judges have to adhere when they do court ruling be it civil or criminal case.
> constituent power
That is the national assembly, which is a legislative body. Constitutions are made by legislation. Since constitutions are collection of fundamental laws. Created by lawmakers. Israel doesn't even have a constitution but has laws they consider fundamental.
CC isn't a lawmaker.
If they can think up rulings that can effect/regulate lawmaking that is lawmaking.
> authority to strike down an entire law or part of it
Yes, that's their job, to check the laws the legislation coming up with. Check the decrees governments issue, etc. And if it is unconstitutional then send it back for reconsideration. This is their only job.

Now in the US things are different from what I gather. For example Trump can issue executive orders and whatnot (decrees essentially). Then the govt/administration starts executing it. Then someone says: hold on, this is unconstitutional, and turns to the courts. Then each level makes a decision as all gets appealed by someone, then finally it ends up at the Supreme Court, which can decide what they were doing up until now was unconstitutional. And this stops the execution of the edicts. And this also creates a precedent.

 >>/55643/
> All right, so essentially about Brazil. Was guessing maybe the US. And was writing from a Hungarian point of view.
This also holds true in abstract for continental Europe, much of the ideology I'm describing was sourced from post-1945 Germany. The "genius" judge who revised the law on Supreme Court impeachments is a specialist in German constitutionalism.

> CC isn't a lawmaker.
> If they can think up rulings that can effect/regulate lawmaking that is lawmaking.
The point is that lawmaking (i.e. making up the texts we call laws) is not rulemaking, as I have shown. Here's another example, this time from Europe: Article 8 of the ECHR, which sets out a right to respect for family and private life, has been taken by the European Court of Human Rights to mean a duty of states to lower greenhouse gas emissions (the KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz case). If that sounds like a bit of stretch and if anti-carbon measures are themselves intrusive on private life, that's just a layman's opinion. They have authority, so now the right to privacy means the right to be fined for driving a diesel pickup.

> And if it is unconstitutional then send it back for reconsideration. This is their only job.
Sometimes the constitutional court will merely tell the Legislative to do a better job but not create a binding decisions. On systems with really weak constitutional review that might even be the only thing it can do.
But stronger courts rule out not just the text, but the interpretation and the rule that comes with it. Even stronger courts will make up entirely new rules.
The fundamental difference between continental and Anglo systems of constitutional review is not the court's de facto rulemaking power (power over interpretation is power over the rule), but, like you said, centralization vs. decentralization. (Brazil has a Frankenstein system where you can litigate constitutionality through either procedure).




thumbnail of magyarszentkorona.jpg
thumbnail of magyarszentkorona.jpg
magyarszentkorona jpg
(189.65 KB, 1142x856)
thumbnail of estates_of_Saint_Stephen.jpg
thumbnail of estates_of_Saint_Stephen.jpg
estates_of_Saint_Step... jpg
(976.44 KB, 2334x1682)
thumbnail of King_saint_stephen_signature.png
thumbnail of King_saint_stephen_signature.png
King_saint_stephen_si... png
(22.56 KB, 519x382)
thumbnail of szentjobb.jpg
thumbnail of szentjobb.jpg
szentjobb jpg
(185.4 KB, 1050x853)
A year passed and again this day commemorates the foundation of Hungary, this is 1018th birthday. We celebrate this national holiday with listening to politicians mixing irrelevant daily politics into historical events in the morning and watching fireworks in the evening. Budapesterners can witness the procession of state founder Saint Stephen's Holy Dexter. Also all the local communities have their own little celebrations.
This is the third time I make this thread, and I won't post much, maybe I'll post something about what happened today - if anything interesting - later.
400 replies omitted. Click to expand viewer
thumbnail of Nagy-Imre-rádió.jpg
thumbnail of Nagy-Imre-rádió.jpg
Nagy-Imre-rádió jpg
(492.67 KB, 1920x1371)
The New Course
This program addressed urgent problems that meant quite discomfort to the society as a whole.
They gave amnesty to political prisoners and abolished the Hungarian gulag, they stopped show trials, and largely halted the prosecution of those whom the Rákosi regime perceived as enemy. So basically everyone. They aimed to stop administrative abuse, the constant arrests, the listing of enemies. Nagy said they wanted to give greater role to the Parliament and the adherence to Constitutionalism.
But beyond the political measures that halted the terror and oppression they had to change the course of the mismanaged economy. As previously I stated (surely I did) in previous posts ITT, Hungary was largely a traditionally agricultural country where the agricultural based secondary industry could shine, but Rákosi govt. followed the Stalinist forced development of the heavy industry, they pursued The Country of Iron and Steel. So they stopped forcing heavy industry, cut military budget, and moved to producing consumer goods. With this they could lower prices and raise wages. They also stopped collectivization - which took private property, such as the land of the peasants they just got recently.

thumbnail of Hegedus-Andras.jpg
thumbnail of Hegedus-Andras.jpg
Hegedus-An... jpg
(11.66 KB, 279x424)
However this "thaw" was short lived. Khrushchev got into power and had to beat the Eastern Block into shape, they formed the Warsaw Pact in '55, which signaled a serious military opposition of the West. Not that Nagy's goverment headed there, but Moscow felt serious doubts towards them. One of the reason was that the Rákosi and Co - with their wounded ego - were whispering into their ears, trying to taint Nagy. And because they considered producing food as a dangerous imperialist deviation.
So in 1955 Nagy was called to Moscow and it was his turn to practice self-criticism. He refused. He tried to justify the New Course. He was 
replaced as PM by Hegedűs András, who was a faithful Rákosist, and previously directed the collectivization of the land and the misguided agriculture policy. His trustworthiness is demonstrated by the fact that he was called to Moscow as well, to promote him, and he was the PM who signed our accession into the Warsaw Pact. He remained the PM until the revolution removed him, and reinstated Nagy.

thumbnail of Nagy-ToC1.png
thumbnail of Nagy-ToC1.png
Nagy-ToC1 png
(224.33 KB, 703x699)
thumbnail of Nagy-ToC2.png
thumbnail of Nagy-ToC2.png
Nagy-ToC2 png
(184.55 KB, 706x592)
The dissertation of On Communism: In Defense of the New Course was written by Nagy originally in Hungarian in his forced "retirement" in 1955-56. He meant as a reply to public accusations, and explanation, justification of his New Course for fellow communists, his colleagues in the party and the bosses in the Kremlin to some extent too. This copy I found was published first in the UK in 1957, and this was printed in the US, but they state it was also distributed on the Hungary in Hungarian clandestinely.
I think I'll just present the table of contents here in picrels, to show the topics he wrote about. There are a couple that might worth a read, I'm specifically interested in the foreign relations, indebtedness to foreign countries, and the nationalism chapters. We'll see.


 >>/55648/
One characteristics of tyranny is arbitrariness. Rákosi and his inner clique did whatever they wanted, not bound by the Constitution the constitution surely didn't allow kidnapping and torturing people on a whim. When he talks about that it means actually adhering to fundamental laws. And greater role for the Parliament probably meant that using the lawmaker body to make laws.
The book "On Communism..." has a preface and intro and whatnot. Written by some Anglos. They say that Nagy wrote about Western Democratic practices while still presenting them as communist inventions, which shows his idealism.
> executive-centric constitution
I might return to this.
I wrote about the 1949 Hungarian (Stalinist) Constitution ITT, starting here  >>/39389/


I understand you are interested due to your current investigations you post about in the other thread.



thumbnail of gym apu.jpg
thumbnail of gym apu.jpg
gym apu jpg
(7.29 KB, 212x238)


Basho is going well for Onosato. He had 7-1 yesterday. He seems to be in better form, mainichi article stated he returned to full training after he recovered from injury. Hopefully he can keep up. He is young and potentially can reign long. I'm actually rooting for him to bag the yusho.
Aonishiki and Kirishima won't get closer to yokozuna promotion. But finally Kotozakura is doing good as an ozeki should.





thumbnail of ZZC 0296.jpg
thumbnail of ZZC 0296.jpg
ZZC 0296 jpg
(763.21 KB, 1000x1414)







thumbnail of bassist.jpg
thumbnail of bassist.jpg
bassist jpg
(1.87 MB, 2400x1350)
thumbnail of 12 - Woke Up This Morning (Sopranos theme).mp3
thumbnail of 12 - Woke Up This Morning (Sopranos theme).mp3
12 - Woke... mp3
(4.77 MB, 0x0)
Previous  >>/39873/ hit 500

I'm fairly sure I posted Alabama 3 (A3 in the US) before. But here you go, The Telly Show Theme Song of all time.

I watched/listened this video:
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=8EnkhQeTgiY
https://youtube.com/watch?v=8EnkhQeTgiY
Some grille listenes the full Reign in Blood album, for the first time, in one sitting.
Sometimes I watch music reaction videos. As always most are trash (not thrash like this one), couple of good ones, I really enjoyed this I have to say.
She really has an upbeat attitude as if she wasn't listening to songs about death, murder, suffering, and torture. And the music wouldn't be like a barrel half full of nails shaken by an epileptic mong. I like the album, it's a classic
She's right, one can hear the punk influence in it.
At 00:28:20:
> DO YOU WANNA DIE????
< No, I don't!
Cutest moment. This is the correct way of listening Slayer.
66 replies omitted. Click to expand viewer



 >>/55536/
More songs

MF Doom - Vomitspit but with GIFs used in the entire video
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zjM_7pjTsEQ

Radiohead - Ok Computer
https://youtube.com/watch?v=TneMW2fd0dc

Death Grips - Up My Sleeves
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2kDinXI0bxM

Death Grips - Billy Not Really
https://youtube.com/watch?v=QWR0-s30WsY

Death Grips - Exmilitary [Full Mixtape] 
https://youtube.com/watch?v=iPtPo8Sa3NE




thumbnail of spidr.png
thumbnail of spidr.png
spidr png
(227.54 KB, 1065x560)








Post(s) action:


Moderation Help
Scope:
Duration: Days

Ban Type:


0 replies | 0 file
Refresh
New Thread
Max 20 files0 B total