pes of legal responsibility. to the notion of positive responsibility, in the opinion of O.E. Kutafin, it should be necessary to refuse on it since its application causes that one and the same phenomena is named the duty, and responsibility, and makes unclear the meaning of responsibility as one of the efficient regulator of behaviour [17]. Another Russian lawyer I.A. Kravets, speaking about inefficiency of application of category positive and negative responsibility, considers that they should be changed by the more identical terminology, reflecting real process of realization of the constitutional norms and the corresponding standards of the world constitutional development [18]. fully agree with these statements. We consider that it is not responsibility that generates the fear, but ill-considered basis to responsibility, disproportion between the presented degree of freedom and result inadequate on strictness on sanctions. If to consider that a certain virtual positive responsibility can play the role of facilitator of the active behaviour of subjects of constitutionally legal relations, it means the presumption of conscious relations of each subject to the duty solely by virtue of one constitutional-legal status. Therefore, we agree with M.A. Krasnov, who considers that such position undermines the base of control of society over the state in general, justifies top-level displacement of officials on hardware cells raquo ;, promotes exactly irresponsibility of subjects, possessing imperious authorities [19]. is why, coming in need of conversion of the institute of constitutionally legal liability in strict legal institute, possessing procedural mechanism of realization, we should acknowledge universal, holistic notion of constitutionally legal liability, not divided into types raquo ;, aspects , but differentiated only in practical plan - on mechanisms of realization. consider that constitutionally legal liability is the category, which united fabrics is dangerous to destroy. No matter in what field of the law the responsibility is revealed (including the constitutional law), it always contains the base elements. The delimitation of positive and negative responsibility leads to withdrawal of one or several such elements. Hereunder institute of responsibility loses its potential and meaning as efficient regulator of the expected behaviour. our opinion, constitutionally legal liability should be understood as legal relations between two subjects of the constitutional law, under which one side is the offender. in consequence of the committed constitutional delict is obliged to sustain the measures of constitutional-legal responsibility, provided by the sanction of the violated norm, and suffer negative consequences, and the other side - the instance of constitutionally legal liability, has the right or is obliged to draw him to responsibility. understand in full the essence of constitutionally legal liability is possible through analysis of inherent features. Constitutionally legal liability can be understood on account of the system features, inherent to legal and social responsibility as a whole. Thus, A.A. Kondrashov, for example, relates to the number of essential features of the given type of responsibility: the state and the public reprobation as the threat of application or direct applications of enforcement measures (mainly organizing, less personal nature), consisting in deprivation of imperious authorities, loss of legal force of the act, dismissal of the state body or stay of its activity or termination of activity of the public association etc .; committed offense i.e. constitutional offense, with the most important conditions - objective illegality and blame; the special procedure of determination and allocation of responsibility of the body (bodies) authorized to it; the formed between the offender and the state legal relationship on the event of committing offense, characterizing the origin and special enforcement relations [20]. system analysis of constitutionally legal liability allows to select the following two groups of features s: 1) general features, characterizing constitutionally legal liability as social-political phenomenon, its place and importance in the society, correlation and interrelation with other types of responsibility ie the features, illustrating this phenomena without deep detailing; 2) more concrete features, pointing specific lines, inherent of constitutionally legal liability, define its essence and contents, by means of which it is possible to distinguish other types of legal responsibility. first group of features of constitutionally legal liability includes the following postulates:
constitutionally legal liability is the independent type of legal and public-legal responsibility and, at the same time, is the specific form of social responsibility;
constitu...
