…between the Soviet Establishment, and their spawn, the Democrat Party:
having a meaningless Constitution.
1. “The
Soviet constitution of 1936, Joseph Stalin’s constitution, explicitly
guaranteed freedom of speech to all citizens of the USSR — in Article 125, which also vouchsafed the closely related freedoms of the press, of assembly, of mass meetings, and of street demonstrations. When Moscow
revised the constitution in 1977, pains were again taken (in Article 50) to ensure — at least on paper — that “citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.”
2. Were they in a position to do so, the tens of millions of men, women, and children immiserated, imprisoned, enslaved, and killed by the same totalitarian communist regime would have begged to differ.
3. “Rights” are not
rights by virtue of being written down. They are not self-enforcing. Written “rights” are, instead, a reflection of what a body politic perceives to be fundamental. They are
not an assurance that this perception will be actualized. Whether freedom of speech truly exists is a
cultural question, not a legal one. It hinges on the society’s commitment to liberty as something that is lived, not merely spoken of.
4. To rely on the legal system to enforce a “right” that the culture, when it gets down to brass tacks, does not support, is to not have a vibrant guarantee.
It is to have a parchment promise that is effectively worthless.
Increasingly, the latter is the state of play in the United State…”
