The author accused Marcin Przydacz of inconsistency in his statements about who decided on Donald Tusk's assumption of the office of Prime Minister. He wrote that after Mateusz Morawiecki's government failed to secure a vote of confidence, the Sejm elected Tusk in a constitutional parliamentary procedure, and Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz and Szymon Hołownia had no power to transfer to him. The author stated that by Przydacz's logic, one could argue that Hołownia also decided on the assumption of office by Karol Nawrocki because he convened the National Assembly and enabled the swearing-in. However, he pointed out that in Nawrocki's case, he saw a constitutional problem related to the validity of the elections, the handling of protests, the determination of the validity of the election, and the swearing-in despite objections. He assessed that Hołownia's decision had constitutional significance in this matter. The author also rejected the accusation that Kosiniak-Kamysz prioritized party interests over state interests, claiming that Przydacz equated the interests of the state with preventing Tusk from coming to power. #Polityka #Konstytucja #Debata (translated)
