Originally posted by Vangelovski
View Post
That question not only raises legalistic arguments that are probably not appropriate for a forum of this nature, but others can use it to detract attention from more fundamental issues.
Perhaps a more appropriate question would be:
Does the Macedonian Government have a moral right or political authority to negotiate away the Macedonian people's sovereignty and entitlement to enjoy universally codified human rights with foreign governments? Even if the Constitution gives it that opportunity from the perspective of formal domestic law, does that amount to a moral right or legitimate political authority?
The legitimacy of the law ultimately depends on the degree to which its subjects accept it as legitimate (for now, I'll stay away from arguments about conflicts between domestic law and the International Bill of Rights), which often depends on whether it is applied justly and for its intended purpose.
The assumed fact that there is no effective legal restriction against the Parliament performing a certain act does not necessarily mean that the act itself is morally or politically just or legitimate.
Theoretically, the Constitution allows the Macedonian Parliament to change the constitution to vest all legislative, executive and judicial power in a fascist dictator or foreign imperial force. Does that mean that if it chose to do so we should be debating whether the new regime is legitimate or inevitable? Or should we only be debating the means by which we should resist and overthrow it?
Comment