"The information you need today, for the principles you will defend tomorrow."

Ladies and Gentlemen, let me be direct and clear – This battle is over fundamental truths of human government.


Published Sept 30th, 2012    By Nikita Chirkov

The Russian Constitution is a unique document, and I love to reference its uniqueness in understanding modern political conflict in the United States. It has two sections and nine chapters: one section for the first nine chapters and the second section for the conclusion. Within the nine chapters, chapter two in particular is titled “The Rights and Liberties of Man and Citizen.” As you have probably guessed, it is one of the longest chapters in the Russian Constitution (64 articles) which grants its citizens a fantastic list of “rights” such as healthcare, social security, and other social programs too numerous and irrelevant to our discussion here. The point being is simple – in the end of this magnificent treatise of human rights, the Russian constitution concludes that the government may take away all but the most fundamental rights of this 64 article long monstrosity of a list for the purposes of preserving the “principles of the constitutional system, morality, health…” and “interests of other people, for ensuring the defense of the country and security of the State.” Brilliant. In other words if the government decides a limit of certain rights is essential due to a need in improvement of “morality” or “interests of others” (which are terms much too broad and weak to hold such a powerful jurisdiction) it may take those rights away.

This example, although happening in a much more distant world, describes the American course of political affairs as eloquently as anything else ever will, and yet again raises the most fundamental question the Framers of our Constitution answered long ago, that is, do human rights originate from nature, or do they originate from government? After all, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Therefore, an observation of this truth raises another key question – if the government is powerful enough to eliminate these programs, why are they considered “rights” in the first place?

The true battle in modern American politics takes that question as the base of the debate between the two opposing parties and thus subjects the nature of our Constitutional system (which functions through a principle of natural and not government given rights) under significant scrutiny.

The core of the “living and breathing” constitutional theory of interpretation lies in two major principles: 1) Question the “nature of powers” upon which our government has been founded; 2) Dismiss that foundation and replace it with a “more suitable form of governing for the modern society – after all the Constitution is living and breathing and is capable of expanding alongside with the expansion of civil society.” These are the two driving factors of “progress” that are pushing the nation into a constitutional abyss and societal failure. Sure, it must be noted that that is not what they intend to achieve as a final outcome of their philosophy, but it should not take an 18 year old international observer to point out voluminous examples in the history of man in which such an expansion of centralized power has resulted in massive failures of grandiose societies, and non to their overwhelming successes. The causes of action may be just and honorable - but the effects severely miscalculated and deadly. There is nothing in the volumes of human experience to suggest otherwise.

Thus, ladies and gentlemen, we come to a clear and concise core of the argument. It is not about poverty, taxes, healthcare, or weather or not Romney believes 47% of the population will vote for Obama “no matter what.” The core of the argument is the core of our system; the same system which proved to be a formula for our national success. Let us embrace this formula, this core and this foundation. Let us not reject what has brought America liberty, prosperity and union. In so many ways the damage done to our Constitution is severe and irreversible, but effort to stand up for the fundamental truths of human government has to be made. If not, then the battle will be lost, and we will forever so closely resemble all those masses that blindly marched and sang under the banner of a bright red flag in the name of which they were stripped clean of liberty, property, and life.