[Editor's Note: This is the snd part in a 2-part article that orginally appeared in the May 3, 1996 issue of The Cobb Chronicle (now defunct) and is reprinted here with permission of the author. The column is reprinted in its entirety with the exception of a reference to 9/11. Note that the Political Vine, by printing this article, does not necessarily agree with its content.]


This column continues the exploration of influences on Supreme Court rulings that was discussed in the previous issue of the Political Vine. The focus of that column was the possible influence of the former Soviet Union’s constitution upon the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In case the reader missed that column, Article 52 of the former Soviet Constitution is once again quoted:

(1) "Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
(2) "In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.”

The only reference in the U.S. Constitution to religion is found in the First Amendment. Let me now provide an exact quote of the First Amendment because it is very clear to me that a great many citizens of the United States, attorneys, and judges are unfamiliar with this amendment. Article I states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.”

Again the U.S. Constitution makes no reference to the separation of Church and state, nor is the separation of school and church mentioned. The former Soviet constitution, however, is very clear on both these points.

The responsibility of the Supreme Court is to rule on the law as it is written, not to interpret the law based upon their personal beliefs and prejudices. When personal interpretation occurs, it is the responsibility of Congress and the people to demand removal of the justices who abuse their position through the intentional distortion of the Constitution or because of clear incompetence.

If we, the people, are not adamant in this address, then we should be prepared to expect that any government organization with out due restraint will exceed the boundaries of defined authority. If any Supreme Court justice can choose to ignore words that provide the foundation of our country, then what is the basis of law and by what and who’s standards do we govern ourselves? What then is our common bond as a nation. Do we then wink at the words in our Constitution, and say that they mean entirely something else that is expedient to a political purpose?

There are more lessons that we can learn in the Soviet Constitution. For example: The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the constitution provides for the right of privacy. The right of privacy under the Supreme Court is the sole basis for unrestricted abortion, and is the basis for Roe v. Wade. Judge Bork has stated on many occasions that the U.S. Constitution has no reference to the right of privacy. He is correct. However, under Soviet Constitution the right of privacy is guaranteed under “Article 56 (Privacy):

"The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law.”

Now how did the U.S. Supreme Court determine that privacy was covered in our constitution when the words appear only in the Soviet Constitution?

Other Soviet constitional articles:

Article 50 (Expression):

1) "In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strength and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations."

(2) "Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public meetings buildings, streets, and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organizations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.”

Many of us have wondered how the Supreme Court managed to interpret freedom of speech to include freedom of expression such as obscene gestures, flag burning, (These actions were constitutionally legal under the Soviet system, but of course any Soviet citizen who expressed that right was immediately punished.) and so on as set forth in the phrase “broad dissemination of information” and “street processions and demonstrations.”

Article 57 (Legal Remedies):

(1) "Respect for the individual and protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens are the duty of all state bodies, public organizations and officials."

(2) "Citizens of the USSR have the right to protection by the courts against encroachments on their honor and reputation, life and health, and personal freedom and property.”

Interesting that the Soviets included property protection in their constitution, but again ignored their own law.

Article 58 (Complaint):

(1) "Citizens of the USSR have the right to lodge a complaint against the actions of officials, state bodies, and public bodies...”

(2) "Actions by officials that contravene the law or exceed their powers, and infringe on the right s of citizens, may be appealed against in a court in the manner prescribed by law.”

(3) "Citizens of the USSR have the right to compensation for damage resulting from unlawful actions by state organizations and public organizations, or by officials in the performance of their duties.”

When we read these Soviet articles, we can understand the meaning ourselves. The point here is that we also know that article 52 was enforced, but articles 50, 56, 57, and 58 were not enforced or were interpreted by the Soviet judicial system to have other meanings. These articles were winked at by their lawyers and judges. The government officials and bureaucrats concocted on the fly the laws they wanted to enforce , but they were always standing behind the Soviet constitution as having given them the legitimacy for their authority. We must ask ourselves if this is also happening within our country.

Before we can fix a problem, we first must become aware there is a problem. The media does not provide the facts so we can evaluate these issues ourselves. Now we know some of what U.S. Supreme Court members have known for years about the Soviet constitution. We must ask if the Soviet constitution has influenced the Supreme Court’s interpretation of our constitution. We can’t know the level of this influence, but we do know the courts rulings and effects on our society. How do we evaluate these questions? How can we have a serious meaningful debate on these questionable issues? What is the proper forum for discussion?

We as a people have grown complacent. We think that America as we know it will always be here for us without our having to be involved. We think that America as we know it will always be here for us without our having to be involved. We think America is on automatic pilot. I want to assure everyone that America is not on automatic pilot than were the hijacked planes of 9/11. The direction of this great and wonderful country of ours is determined by those at the controls. If we are content to be passengers, then we can sip our drinks in the contort of our seats, wait for the pilot to tell us about the bumpy weather, and be terribly surprised when we arrive at an unexpected destination. We, the citizens, must actively chart our course, as did our founders some 200 plus years ago. We must be informed, so we can ask the hard questions, and determine truthful answers.

PV Note: For an opposing view on the Right to Privacy or the Separation of church and state, click these links.