At the Seventh (Special) Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR Ninth Convocation on October 7, 1977, the third and last Soviet Constitution, also known as the "Brezhnev Constitution", was unanimously adopted. The official name of the Constitution was "Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" (Russian: Конститу́ция (Основно́й Зако́н) Сою́за Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик).
The preamble stated that "the aims of the dictatorship of the proletariat having been fulfilled, the Soviet state has become the state of the whole people." Compared with previous constitutions, theBrezhnev Constitution extended the bounds of constitutional regulation of society. The first chapter defined the leading role of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and established principles for the management of the state and the government. Article 1 defined the USSR as a socialist state, as did all previous constitutions:
- "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of the whole people, expressing the will and interests of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia, the working people of all the nations and nationalities of the country".
The difference is that, according to the new Constitution, the government no longer represented the workers and peasants alone. Later chapters established principles for economic management and cultural relations.
The 1977 Constitution was long and detailed. It included twenty-eight more articles than the 1936 Soviet Constitution. The Constitution explicitly defined the division of responsibilities between the central and republic governments. For example, the Constitution placed the regulation of boundaries and administrative divisions within the jurisdiction of the republics. However, provisions established the rules under which the republics could make such changes. Thus, the Constitution concentrated on the operation of the government system as a whole.
Just like all preceding versions of the Soviet Constitution, the 1977 Constitution preserved the right of constituent Soviet republics to secede from the Union; this provision would later play an important role in the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
__________________________________________________________________________________Full Document - http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1977toc.html
__________________________________________________________________________________
Dec 17 2009 - Glenn Beck Program on FN
__________________________________________________________________________________
Glenn Beck: Progressives Want to Bring Europe to AmericaDuring this health care reform debate, how many times have you heard that health care is a right? That’s been one of the main selling points — that we’re the greatest country in the world, and the only one where every citizen isn’t entitled to health care?
How can that be? Well, I’ll tell you how that can be: It’s simply because we are the greatest nation on Earth that we haven’t succumbed to socialized medicine.
Our Founders knew that the people would need health care; the need hasn’t changed over the years, only the quality of the care and they didn’t put it in the Constitution.
I’ll tell you something else, the progressives know it’s not constitutional. Here’s President Obama talking about the trouble with the Constitution:
(BEGIN 2001 AUDIO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA: Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
Yes, that’s the way the Founders designed it. This is an old progressive argument, but one that was first brought to the forefront when FDR campaigned for a Second Bill of Rights:
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT: We have accepted, so to speak, a Second Bill of Rights … the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industry … the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; the right of farmers to raise and sell their products at a return which will give them and their families a decent living; the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies … the right of every family to a decent home; the right to adequate medical care … the right to adequate protection from the economic fears … and finally, the right to a good education.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
Why would they need a Second Bill of Rights, if it was already included in our initial Bill of Rights? The right to a job, a certain pay, a home and yes, medical care.
If government provides everyone jobs, pay, a home and medical care, how would that work? Simple: communism. All the money goes to the government, who then redistributes it equally: equal pay, equal homes, equal medical care — equally bad. We saw how the system worked for the Soviet Union and China, that’s why the Second Bill of Rights ended up on the scrap heap of history.
Oh, but our neo-progressives have pulled it off that heap, dusted it off, shined it up and put a fresh coat of lipstick on that same, old, disgusting pig.
Cass Sunstein, Obama’s recently confirmed regulatory "czar," wrote an entire book about it called, "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever":
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASS SUNSTEIN, REGULATORY ‘CZAR’: Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights has turned out to be lost in the United States, but the Second Bill of Rights has turned out to be one of the best American exports. So in Europe, and even in Iraq now, the constitutional understandings often include a right to a decent chance at economic well being.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
It’s turned out to be one of the "best American exports"? How’s that export working out for Europe and Iraq? One of our best exports? That just shows you the sorry state of what we export in this country.
What is this fascination, this progressive love affair with socialist Europe? Europe is your standard of excellence? In France, they’re experienced a record economic downturn this year, which has led to strikes and riots. CMA DataVision gives Ireland a 24.6 percent chance of going bankrupt within five years. Greece was just downgraded to a triple-B credit rating — good luck with those interest rates now. And Iraq? Are you seriously going to try to hold up Iraq as a beacon of stability, who has created a lasting constitution?
In more than 200 years since ratification, we’ve had one Constitution and one government in the United States. France has had fifteen. Russia had six constitutions in the last 100 years. Spain, Great Britain, Poland, Italy — does anyone remember Yugoslavia? I think we all envy those accomplishments. Need we even mention, Germany?
All of Europe has undergone massive and repeated upheavals in their forms of government. Why do progressives so dearly covet the European example of chaos, tyranny and instability? America is the only nation on Earth with the kind of stability, longevity, prosperity and freedom we’ve enjoyed for over two centuries. And we’ve accomplished it all with just the original Bill of Rights in our original Constitution.
Michael Moore "discovered" FDR’s fireside chat on the second Bill of Rights in his anti-free market movie, "Capitalism" and acted as if he’d found the Holy Grail of Socialism. I expect that from him, from Hollywood. But I expect better, more logical thinking, with maybe a grasp of historical perspective from our elected officials. Well, at least I used to.
I mean, think about it: Guaranteed jobs and the right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing and recreation? What’s "adequate" food? Enough to keep me from starving to death or to help me get to 500 pounds? "Adequate" clothing: K-Mart or Armani? And adequate recreation? Is that a movie once a month or three yearly trips to socialist Europe? How would you determine that? Who decides? Obviously, government. Farmers have a right to produce and sell their products at a return that gives them and their families a "decent" living? Decent? Who decides? The government. Does the right of the farmer to set his decent living price conflict with my right to adequate food? The right to a decent home. How big? How decent? Does someone else get a better home than I do?
With all these guaranteed necessities, what happens to incentive? An all-powerful government would decide everything for us. By the way, if this sounds somewhat familiar, maybe you’ve read the old Soviet Constitution:
Article 40: Citizens of the USSR have the right to work (that is, to guaranteed employment and pay in accordance wit the quantity and quality of their work, and not below the state-established minimum), including the right to choose their trade or profession, type of job and work in accordance with their inclinations, abilities, training and education, with due account of the needs of society.
Article 41: Citizens of the USSR have the right to rest and leisure… the length of collective farmers’ working and leisure time is established by their collective farms.
Article 42: Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection
Remember the Soviet Union’s decent housing, decent jobs and who could forget the easy access to quality food?
But I’m only talking to you about the right of health care.
They haven’t yet passed the second Bill of Rights that FDR, Cass Sunstein, Michael Moore and others advocate, but they are desperate to lay the foundation and install the infrastructure. That’s why they’re willing to pass this health care bill at virtually any cost.
Public option a no-go? No problem, we’ll just do Medicare expansion? No? Drop that? Fine. Just pass it anyway or we’ll destroy you.
Why? Understand that if this passes it will be the first time in American history that you will be required to purchase something from a private company just to be a legal citizen. That does not work constitutionally.
Could the plan be to have this unconstitutional reform pass, then brought up in court and thrown out because it is unconstitutional? Then, with the health care framework already in place, there’d be nothing else to do — we’re already collecting taxes for health care and we can’t force anyone to purchase it. So we’ll just have to put in the public option now because it is constitutional to tax Americans and have the government provide health care.
So far though, that pesky Constitution doesn’t seem to be getting in the way of the politicians in Washington. This has been the typical response from health care reform supporters:
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CNSNEWS.COM REPORTER: Madame Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: Are you serious? Are you serious?
(END AUDIO CLIP)
Nah, don’t even worry about it, Nancy!
The White House is considering working out a deal in Copenhagen without involving Congress. But, as Newt Gingrich pointed out Wednesday, President Obama cannot bind the American people to job-killing international agreements on climate change without the advice and consent of the United States Senate. In fact, he’ll need two-thirds of the Senate. The EPA is taking matters into their own hands, circumventing Congress, by declaring your every exhale hazardous to the planet.
These leaders don’t care about the Constitution. And the few decent ones that do, don’t see Cass Sunstein licking his chops right now. They can’t think out of the box. You must think like a European socialist to understand. They want their socialist utopian society and the Constitution is nothing more than a speed bump to that end.
One way or another, through regulation, nudging, extortion or trickery, they will get it done. Because that’s the way Washington works now. I have never thought that way until recently. I’ve always wanted to believe the best about the motivations of our leaders. That’s why I was initially in favor of TARP. I thought — for about three days — they had good intentions. I now know better. You have to stop taking these people at face value and look at these things with a skeptical eye. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
I for one am sick and tired of American leaders trying to bring Europe to the United States. We left that continent for a reason. If they want Europe so badly, I say go. You have a right to move to move to Europe. There are hundreds of flights departing daily, bound for your European utopia.
But it is high time that this country charts a course back to the Republic called the United States of America.
— Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel
