At least some of you must have watched today's Weekly, where the problem I have already mentioned came to light. On what pretext, then, does the State repay a benefit that it gives as social support? What hurts the most is that people are simply not aware, perhaps willingly, perhaps because of the negligence of officials, but for the State to ask the socially impoverished to pay it back everything that it has given them does not meet ethical criteria, if they are legal ones, because Article 128 of the Inheritance Act was also struck down by the Constitutional Court, way back in 2000, and in its decision U-I 330/97- 28 of 30 November 2000, the Constitutional Court ruled that it is perfectly legitimate for the State to repay itself out of the deceased's estate.  People who come to the brink of survival should then first sell everything and really end up on the street, only then can the State talk about social assistance, whereas before it can only talk about social loan, because those who have received long-term social assistance must only pay it back to the State. This is an extremely lucrative legal scam that has an effect on the poorest class. The new law that I have already mentioned also reinforces this. I therefore propose to the Government that it should reform and amend the Social Benefits Act to state that potential recipients must be informed of what happens to them if they claim this support, if they are the owners of the property.  It is illogical for someone to receive social support despite owning some property, which is then confiscated by the state. I appeal above all to all those who honestly think that Article 2 of the Constitution is still valid, otherwise the government should abolish it immediately, because it simply is not. Where is the welfare state here if it demands back what it gives, and only from the poorest of the poor, and nothing from the rich, who have also become so illegally, and the processes drag on and on and on. We know who writes the laws and for whom, so I would make a serious proposal that Article 2 of the Constitution be removed and replaced with a new one that would read: 'The State of Slovenia is a legalistic state governed by the rule of law, that is all.