In 1968, Pavel Litvinov and a few dozen others staged a protest in Moscow’s Red Square, claiming solidarity with the independence “Prague Spring” movement in Czechoslovakia that was being crushed by Soviet troops. They were, of course, promptly arrested. During his initial interrogation, Litvinov, whose father had been one of the drafters of the Soviet constitution of 1936, cited his constitutional rights to free speech and to demonstrate.[1] His KGB interrogator looked at him and said, “Pavel Mikhailovich, we are having a serious discussion here.”
Recently, Noor bin Laden (the freedom-supporting sister of her infamous late-brother) posted an article about somebody in Switzerland being fined $5,700 for a “hateful” tweet. Failure to pay the fine would lead to prison time. She noted that, while free speech is guaranteed in Article 16 of the Swiss constitution, Article 261bis of the Swiss Criminal Code contradicts this right to free speech. She goes on to highlight that if we don’t support such people, then none of us have rights or freedom.[2]
O’ silly one… we are having a serious discussion here.
While she makes good points overall, what she fails to note is that Switzerland, and virtually every nation in the world, has no such thing as “constitutional rights.” Such rights, if they do exist, should be based on the absolutes of language that must be interpreted strictly. Historically, this is what the “rule of law” meant.
However, in most nations constitutions and laws are interpreted loosely, solely for the benefit of those in power. Instead of protecting people from the power of the state, modern-day constitutions, and subsequent laws, have become a cudgel to beat the recalcitrant into line. And in modern nation states, people are promoted to positions of power, from lawmakers to judges, with the principal notion of keeping an elite in power. Yet, this is nothing new, as this has been the trendline for thousands of years.
I wrote a previous article about this very struggle regarding strict and loose constructionism when interpreting constitutional law.[3] If law does not restrain the powerful by being strictly interpreted, then the weak are at the mercy of the powerful to pillage, loot, rape and kill. The Apostle Paul tells us that the purpose of government is to restrain the wicked (Romans 13:1-7). But what happens if governments turn that principle on its head? What happens when lawmakers become lawbreakers?
The Psalmist lamented, “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” He then goes on say that “the Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates” (Psalm 11: 3, 5).
The sad reality of history, and our condition today, is that the world is largely “governed” by men and women who love violence, usually to pillage and loot but sometimes just for violence’s sake. They do not want to be checked, especially by such archaic notions as “laws” and “constitutions.” Typically, those with power will not govern themselves by the Ten Commandments so as to restrain themselves. Therefore, it is essential that we follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: “in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”
And to bind these people down, one must interpret constitutions and laws strictly.
Russ Rodgers has several books published on Amazon.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
[1] Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1936, Amended 1966, Article 125.
[2] https://noorbinladin.substack.com/p/switzerland-the-end-of-free-speech
[3] https://afnn.us/2024/04/10/alexander-hamilton-lied-perhaps/
During the Civil war, Lincoln effectively suspended the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. During WWI, Wilson compromise the 1st Amendment. His administration jailed several that spoke out against the war. We may have a Constitution, but Presidents have played fast and loose with it during wars…and potentially other times.