Abstract:  
This article is dedicated to the questions of content and volume of the terms used in Constitution of the Russian Federation. The author examines the constitutional norms, which apply the terms identical or conformable to the common for other branches of law. In particular, attention is given to provisions of the Constitution pertaining to limitation of electoral rights of the individuals “who are kept in places of imprisonment under a court sentence” (Chapter 3, Article 32 of the Constitution); norms that define the grounds for impeaching the President of the Russian Federation due to the “charges of high treason or of another grave crime” (Chapter 1, Article 93 of the Constitution); as well as the term “international agreements of the Russian Federation) as a determinative circle of acts that from the perspective of stipulation of rules have priority over the laws (Chapter 4, Article 15 of the Constitution). Based on the conducted research, a conclusion about the lack of grounds for comprehending exceptionally within the logics of the blanker norms of constitutional provisions, conformable to the sectoral legal regulation from the standpoint of applied terminology. The author also believes that the dynamics of constitutional provisions cannot be identified with the possibility of their actual reconsideration as a result of the transformation of meaning of the particular terms at the scale of existing legislation. Due to this fact, in each similar case, the necessary for determining the concrete content of the constitutional provision consists in revealing the autonomous and “blanket” elements of the constitutional notions.
 

Abstract: The article is dedicated to the aspects of constitutional entrenchment of the duties of individuals as an important element of the constitutional status of a personality and a citizen in the post-Soviet states. The article studies the aspects of legal entrenchment of such duties in the structure of constitutions, the catalogue of duties is being analyzed together with constitutional approaches to the determination of the circle of their subjects. The article reveals and considers the widely spread duties of individuals in terms of constitutional entrenchment of the duties of individuals, as well as rarer duties, typical for a limited range of constitutions. Attention is paid to general legal duty related to compliance to the constitution and laws; duties not to breach (respect) rights and freedoms of other personalities; duties aimed at consolidation (by the state) of resources (as related to payment of taxes and fees, other mandatory payments, protection of the home country and military duty); duties aimed at protection of the public interest (environmental protection, protection of historical and cultural heritage, obtainment of education, inadmissibility of the use of rights and freedoms contradicting public interests protected by the law; respect to national traditions, respect towards the state symbols, dedication to the Motherland); social duties (duties of parents and duties of children); duties of owners. The article considers the specific features of actual constitutional duties, their similarities and differences. Based on the analysis conducted, the author concludes about the presence of common approaches of the constitutional lawmakers to the entrenchment of constitutional duties of individuals. However, the respective entrenchment (regulation) is not identical both from the point of view of its contents and scope. Such differences provide for a significant potential of their implementation within the frames of actual legal relations with the participation of the individual and the citizen.

Abstract:  
This article is dedicated to the questions of content and volume of the terms used in Constitution of the Russian Federation. The author examines the constitutional norms, which apply the terms identical or conformable to the common for other branches of law. In particular, attention is given to provisions of the Constitution pertaining to limitation of electoral rights of the individuals “who are kept in places of imprisonment under a court sentence” (Chapter 3, Article 32 of the Constitution); norms that define the grounds for impeaching the President of the Russian Federation due to the “charges of high treason or of another grave crime” (Chapter 1, Article 93 of the Constitution); as well as the term “international agreements of the Russian Federation) as a determinative circle of acts that from the perspective of stipulation of rules have priority over the laws (Chapter 4, Article 15 of the Constitution). Based on the conducted research, a conclusion about the lack of grounds for comprehending exceptionally within the logics of the blanker norms of constitutional provisions, conformable to the sectoral legal regulation from the standpoint of applied terminology. The author also believes that the dynamics of constitutional provisions cannot be identified with the possibility of their actual reconsideration as a result of the transformation of meaning of the particular terms at the scale of existing legislation. Due to this fact, in each similar case, the necessary for determining the concrete content of the constitutional provision consists in revealing the autonomous and “blanket” elements of the constitutional notions.
 

Abstract: This article analyzes the positions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation regarding the official promulgation of the normative legal acts. Particular attention is given to the review of the resulting from the Basic Law constitutional responsibility on the official promulgation of laws. Leaning on the analysis of theoretical material, legislation, and judicial practice, the author examines the notion of law as determinative of the object of such responsibility, subjects of its realization, content, and mechanisms of ensuring the aforementioned responsibility. Special attention is given to the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the question at hand, including the criteria for acknowledging the law promulgated, character of presidential power regarding the enactment and publication. The author comes to a conclusion that the constitutional responsibility on the official promulgation, which manifests as an important aspect within the system of constitutional structure, is realized by means of accomplishing a number of the formal and substantial criteria, rather than reduced only to publishing the law in the established official source. Such responsibility has a certain potential in development of the legal regulation from the perspective of the mechanisms of its realization. At the same time, in formation of such mechanisms must be considered their impact upon the correlation between various subjects of public authority, including in logic of separation of powers.

Abstract: This article is dedicated to the aspects of legal status of people as subject of public authority in logic of the Russian Constitution. The author examines the questions of structure of such status, possibilities and grounds for limitations (boundaries) in realization of authority directly by people, including in the context of referendum, determination of personal composition of the government authority agencies, and correlation of various forms of direct democracy. The article analyzes the constitutional positions, practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation pertaining to the boundaries of realization of authority by people. Attention is turned to the corresponding norms of the constitutions of foreign states. The author comes to a conclusion that the efficient realization of the constitutionally specified goals of public authority that requires a careful adjustment of its mechanism does not exclude certain level of self-restraint of people in realization of authority in one or another form (including directly). At the same time, for the conclusion on presence of corresponding limitations, it is necessary to establish concrete constitutional legal bases. In worst case scenario, the constitutional organizational principle of the Russian State – status of people as the sole source of authority – is practically refuted.

Abstract: This article is dedicated to the aspects of legal status of people as subject of public authority in logic of the Russian Constitution. The author examines the questions of structure of such status, possibilities and grounds for limitations (boundaries) in realization of authority directly by people, including in the context of referendum, determination of personal composition of the government authority agencies, and correlation of various forms of direct democracy. The article analyzes the constitutional positions, practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation pertaining to the boundaries of realization of authority by people. Attention is turned to the corresponding norms of the constitutions of foreign states. The author comes to a conclusion that the efficient realization of the constitutionally specified goals of public authority that requires a careful adjustment of its mechanism does not exclude certain level of self-restraint of people in realization of authority in one or another form (including directly). At the same time, for the conclusion on presence of corresponding limitations, it is necessary to establish concrete constitutional legal bases. In worst case scenario, the constitutional organizational principle of the Russian State – status of people as the sole source of authority – is practically refuted.