Session Profile: Kalle Grünthal
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
2024-11-20
Political Position
The political position is strongly procedural and value-based, opposing any amendment to the constitution driven solely by the immediate political situation, while emphasizing the constitution's role in guaranteeing national-cultural and peaceful coexistence. The speaker is a staunch opponent of the bill under consideration, arguing that it fails to meet the standards of sound legislative practice and proper legal drafting technique. They stress the necessity of adhering to established principles and values during the process of constitutional creation.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates profound expertise in constitutional law, parliamentary procedure, and legislative processes. They employ specific terminology, such as *ultima ratio*, drafting intention (or 'intent to develop'), and concept, and reference concrete legal provisions (RKKS § 127, PS § 166). The speaker also cites the Chancellor of Justice's viewpoints regarding the stability of the constitution.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaker's style is confrontational, critical, and highly formal, centering on logical and legal arguments. They pose sharp, repetitive questions, accusing the opposing party (the committee chairman) of being ignorant of elementary constitutional matters. The tone is accusatory and demanding, particularly when criticizing procedural deficiencies.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
Data shows intense activity during one plenary session day (November 20, 2024), where the speaker repeatedly raised questions and points of order. He/She actively intervened in the discussion regarding both the substance of the bill and the voting procedures, emphasizing his/her views through several brief interventions.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The primary adversaries are the proponents of the draft legislation and the chairman of the Constitutional Committee. The criticism leveled is largely procedural (violations of sound legislative practice, undue haste) and intellectual, accusing the opposing party of incompetence and a lack of understanding of key legal principles (e.g., *ultima ratio*). There is no readiness for compromise, given the insistence on strict adherence to procedural rules.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Not enough data. In the statements in question, the speaker focuses on criticizing and challenging the opposing side, rather than seeking cooperation or compromises. There are no references to cooperation with colleagues or other factions.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Not enough data. The focus of the discussion is on the quality of the constitution and legislation at the national level. There is only one vague reference to the number of Russian inhabitants in some city, which suggests a possible demographic or regional background, but this is not the central topic.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data. The speeches focus on constitutional and legislative issues, while economic policy topics remain unaddressed.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The speaker emphasizes the role of the constitution as a national-cultural document and in establishing a fundamental framework that allows for peaceful coexistence. Specific social topics (e.g., education, immigration) are not addressed, with the exception of an indirect reference to the size of the Russian population.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The speaker is a strong opponent of the ongoing bill and the proposed constitutional amendment. His/Her priority is to ensure that the legislative process adheres to the rules of good law-making, requiring the existence of a preparatory drafting intention and a subsequent impact assessment. He/She actively intervenes in matters of parliamentary procedure, demanding a two-thirds majority vote when the motion for rejection is put to a vote.
8 Speeches Analyzed