Libmonster ID: U.S.-1896

The ideological and political crisis of American bourgeois statehood has raised the question of the real viability and effectiveness of the US Constitution as its cornerstone. The intentions of the "founding fathers" of the United States and the content of the decisions of the Supreme Court have become the subject of widespread public debate.

Marxists believe that in order to fully and correctly assess the constitutional phraseology and State practice of capitalist countries, it is necessary to study specifically their legal and political activities. The decisive role is played by the class struggle, the positions they have won, and the political and State-legal institutions created in this struggle. It is no accident that V. I. Lenin noted: "The essence of the constitution is that the basic laws of the state in general and the laws concerning the right to vote in representative institutions, their competence, etc., express the actual correlation of forces in the class struggle." 1 At the same time, the analysis of the constitution helps to better understand the vicissitudes of the class struggle in the bourgeois state.

By expressing the will of the ruling class in the form of the supreme law of the country, the Constitution establishes its dictatorship and, consequently, has a class character. Most bourgeois scholars, as a rule, do not recognize the class character of the constitution. Speaking, for example, about the US Constitution, they often use the characteristic given to it by W. Gladstone: "The most democratic creation ever created by the mind and will of man"2 . However, from the very beginning of its existence, the US Constitution was also criticized. Contemporaries of the War of Independence, eighteenth-century politicians P. Henry and R. Lee described it as a" counter-revolutionary document "that violated the freedom and equality proclaimed in the" Declaration of Independence " of 1776. In 1854, the prominent American abolitionist W. Garrison declared that the U.S. Constitution is "a contract with death, ""an agreement with hell," and "the source of all other evil deeds." 3
The controversy that arose in the United States about this issue at the beginning of the XIX century reflected the clash between the liberal and conservative factions of the American bourgeoisie. The camp of bourgeois historians has split, and critical and apologetic trends have developed in the assessment of the constitution. The first of them, related to the ideas of the anti-federalists, including-

1 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 17, p. 345.

2 Cit. по: "The President and the Constitution". Ed. by G. Nikolaieff. N. Y. 1974, p. 216; "Quotations from Chairman Sam". Ed. by H. Altman. N. Y. 1973, pp. 45 - 46.

3 T. Dye, H. Zeigler. The Irony of Democracy. Belmont. 1975, p. 61; Ph. Paludan. A Covenant with Death. Urbana. 1975, p. 3.

page 80

It was later developed in the works of historians of the "economic" direction, first of all in the well - known "Economic Interpretation of the US Constitution" by Charles Byrd, 5 and in recent decades in the works of the "new left" school 6 and supporters of the theory of "pluralist elites" - T. A. Kropotkin. Dai, G. Ziegler 7 and others. Although apologies for the constitution have never been alien to liberal historians, they have been presented in the most concentrated form in the writings of conservatives, from the federalist Chief Justice of the United States, J. Marshall, 8 to modern neoconservatives like R. Brown .9 Marxist historians G. Apteker, W. Foster, G. Morais, and D. Hardy approach the assessment of the US Constitution as a code of bourgeois democracy from fundamentally different class positions .10
What was and still is the US Constitution? The answer to this question must be sought at the origins of the formation of the United States, when the colonies that won independence laid the foundations of the future state system. A convention met in Philadelphia from May 25 to September 17, 1787, to review the "Articles of Confederation" that had essentially served as the constitution of the 13 newly independent colonies since 1781. The Convention was to formalize the state machine of the Union of states as a political organization of the exploiting classes, regulate the financial, tax and customs systems, and most importantly, eliminate the political fragmentation of the country and create a strong state power capable of curbing the masses of the people. The uprising led by D. Shays (1786) proved to be a terrible warning for the ruling circles. Among the specific historical reasons for the adoption of the new constitution was the inability of the highest authority in the Confederation of 13 independent States-the Continental Congress - to collect taxes according to the "Articles of Confederation" and regulate interstate and foreign trade. The issue of unsecured paper money by the United States, the threat to creditors from debtors, the need to join forces to expel the British from the northwest of the country, the expansion against the Indians in the West, and the protection of American industry from importing cheap European goods played a role.

The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was not an expression of the will of the masses. Delegates were appointed by the legislatures of the states, whose elections were held on the basis of a high property qualification: it fluctuated-depending on the state-in the range from 200 to 250 pounds. st. or from 250 to 300 acres of land. As a result, only the propertied classes were represented at the convention. Moreover, out of 73 delegates,

4 M. Weems. The Life of G. Washington. Philadelphia. 1800; M. Warren. History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution. Vols. 1 - 3. Boston, 1805; J.Burk. History of Virginia. Vols. 1 - 3. Petersburg. 1804 - 1805.

5 Ch. Beard. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. N. Y. 1913.

6 . St. Lynd. Capitalism. Democracy and the United States Constitution: the Case of New York. "Science and Society", 1963, Vol. XXVIII, N 1; ejusd. Class Conflict, Slavery and the United States Constitution. Indianopolis. 1967.

7 T. Dye, H. Zeigler. Op. cit.

8 J. Marshall. Life of Washington. Vols. 1 - 5. Philadelphia. 1804 - 1807.

9 R. Brown. Charles Beard and the Constitution. A Critical Analysis of "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution". Princeton. 1956.

10 J. Hardy. The First American Revolution. N. Y. 1937; H. Morais. The Struggle for American Freedom. N. Y. 1944; H. Aptheker. The American Revolution. N. Y. 1960; ejusd. Early Years of the Republic. N.Y. 1976. W. Foster. Essay on the Political History of America, Moscow, 1952; see for more details: N. N. Bolkhovitinov. Some problems of historiography of the American Revolution. "New and recent History", 1973, N 6; P. B. Umansky. Problems of the first American Revolution. "The main problems of US history in American historiography (From the colonial period to the Civil War of 1861-1865)", Moscow, 1971; "The War for Independence and the formation of the United States", Moscow, 1976, pp. 475-493.

page 81

sent by the legislative assemblies of 12 states (Rhode Island refused to send a delegation), only 55 came to the convention and presented mandates. These 55 individuals could well be considered the core of the economic elite of the former colonies: at least 40 were holders of government securities, 14 were land speculators, 15 were slave planters, 24 were usurers and bankers, and 11 were merchants and industrialists .11 Among the delegates to the convention were, for example, R. Morris, the largest businessman and industrialist at that time, J. Washington, the owner of a large estate on the Potomac River, many thousands of acres of land in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and the Northwest Territories, co-owner of the Potomac Company, the James River Company, Bank of Columbia, Bank of Alexandria, and the holder of a large number of United States bonds and securities. Large landowners and businessmen were much more interested in finance than in "democracy."

The "Founding Fathers" had considerable experience in government activities. In fact, they also represented the political elite of the states: 8 delegates signed the "Declaration of Independence", 11 served as officers in the Washington Army, 42 delegates were previously members of the Continental Congress, including N. Gorham and T. Mifflin-its chairmen, B. Franklin, W. Livingston and E. Randolph were governors states. There were no blacks, Indians, women, or representatives of the working classes among the delegates. It is not by chance that T. Jefferson, who was Ambassador to Paris in 1787, saw the list of 55 "founding fathers" - delegates to the Constitutional Convention, in a letter to J. P. Morgan. I wrote to Adams in London that "this is an assembly of demigods"12 . For the socio-political and ideological characteristics of the Constitutional Convention, it is also very important that the most radical figures of the American Revolution, such as T. Payne, S. Adams, P. Henry, were not delegates to this, as P. Henry called it, "assembly of aristocrats."

The procedure by which the "noblest democracy in the world" was created was by no means democratic. Troops guarded the doors of the meeting hall. Delegates were required to swear an oath of strict secrecy. Correspondents were not allowed to visit the delegates. It should be added that for 60 years after the convention, the official minutes of its meetings were closed to the public. They were extremely formalized, reduced to a list of proposals, amendments and procedural announcements. Much more valuable as a historical document are the fragmentary notes of J. R. R. Tolkien. Madison, published 50 years later. The undemocratic nature of the constitution-making process is also evident in the following facts: meetings were rarely attended by more than 30 delegates; most of the work was done by a 12-person committee headed by the delegate from Virginia and the true "father of the constitution" Madison. An excellent illustration of the fact that the convention was dominated by only a few people is the comparison of the number of speeches made by delegates. So, only four people performed a total of 640 times: G. Morris-173, J. Wilson-168, J. Madison-161, R. Sherman-138. Washington spoke only once 13 .

On May 29, E. Randolph, on behalf of Virginia, submitted 15 resolutions to the Convention. They, in particular, provided for the division of power into legislative, executive and judicial, the establishment of a bicameral congress, formed on the basis of proportional representation (depending on the wealth or size of the white population).-

11 Ch. Beard. Op. nit., pp. 73 - 151.

12 T. Dуe, H. Zeigler. Op. cit., pp. 31 - 41.

13 J. Keenan. The Constitution of the United States. Homewood. 1975, p. 10.

page 82

14. The delegations of sparsely populated states, fearing that representation in Congress in proportion to the population of each state would lead to the imposition of the will of the larger states on the small states, did not approve this project. Therefore, on June 15, W. Paterson (New Jersey) introduced an alternative draft, which was based on an improved version of the Articles of Confederation .15 After a heated debate on June 19, the "New Jersey plan" was rejected, and the convention returned to discussing the Virginia project. However, on July 2, the convention reached an impasse in voting on the issue of equal representation of each state in the upper house of Congress: five states voted " for "and five - "against", while the votes of the Georgia delegates were also divided (the New Hampshire delegation did not arrive at the convention until July 23, 1787). The Convention, on the proposal of the Connecticut delegate, appointed a committee to work out a compromise solution. The compromise called "the great" was finally reached, because all the delegates agreed on the need to create a strong state power capable of effectively protecting the economic and political interests of the bourgeoisie and planters. On July 5, the committee proposed that the upper house of the Legislative Assembly (the Senate)should all states sent two deputies, elected by the state legislatures, and each senator received the right to vote independently. In the House of Representatives, seats were to be allocated according to the size of the population. On July 16, this formula received the final approval of Convention No. 16 .

Madison believed that the" main conflict of interest "in North America at that time was not the discrepancy between the interests of the" populous and sparsely populated " states, but the conflict between the northern and southern states that was already emerging at that time .17 Although Southerners were mostly in favor of a strong central government, they strongly advocated restricting its right to pursue "discrimination policies" against such "special interests" of the South as slavery, agricultural exports, and the spread of slavery along with expansion to the West. This position of the Southerners entailed a number of additional compromises. In particular, by agreeing to the demand of the northern states for the introduction of protectionist tariffs, the South achieved the right to freely import slaves into the United States until 1808. Congress was allowed to pass laws prohibiting slavery no earlier than 20 years after the constitution was ratified. The organization and regulation of congressional elections was left to the discretion of the states, so that when calculating the population, determining the number of deputies elected to Congress and determining the amount of direct taxes, 3 /5 Negro slaves in each state were taken into account .18
Based on the experience of the division of power between central and local authorities in the British Empire before 1763, supported by the ideas of Locke and Montesquieu, the "founding fathers" developed a constitution according to which all three types of power (legislative, executive and judicial) were independent and at the same time interconnected, and each of them was limited to the other two.

14 См. "Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the Congress of the United States" (далее - "Congressional Quarterly's Guide..."). Washington. 1971, p. 16; A. McLaughlin. The Confederation and the Constitution. 1783 - 1789. N. Y. 1971, pp. 134 - 135.

15 Cm. "The War of Independence and the Formation of the United States," p. 479, etc.

By 16 votes of five states to four, while the votes of the Massachusetts delegates were divided, and the New York delegation did not participate in the vote due to the fact that two of the three delegates of that state left the convention (A. McLaughlin. Op. cit. pp. 159-161).

17 "Congressional Quarterly's Guide...", p. 17.

18 T. Dye, H. Zeigler. Op. cit., p. 47

page 83

The greatest contribution to the creation of a new system of state government was made by J. R. R. Tolkien. Madison. It was he who developed a series of proposals for the future constitution, led the main group of delegates from the state of Virginia, and helped develop the "great compromise". In addition, Madison had the idea of "checks and balances", which became the basic starting principle of American statehood. "It is necessary to create aspirations so that they counteract other aspirations" - this phrase of Madison from the 51st issue of the Federalist is still considered the alpha and omega for politicians and political scientists in the United States. According to Madison, the aspirations of presidents, legislators, and judges collide, as each of them is responsible to different categories of voters. At the same time, it is assumed that each official has certain constitutional weapons (for example, the president - the veto, senators - the right to ratify treaties, etc.), which can be used against other officials or the interests they represent. Madison believed that the main purpose of the constitution was "to prevent the people from easily receiving aid from the government." 20 In other words, Madison saw the system of "checks and balances" as a mechanism to prevent the exploiting minority from using the state machine, or any part of it, for their own purposes by the "majority"-that is, the masses of the people. The bourgeois-class background of such a mechanism is beyond doubt.

The "founding Fathers" feared genuine democracy and sought to prevent its "excesses"by all means. Of the four main institutions (the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court) responsible for State decision - making, only one - the House of Representatives-was directly elected, but only for a two-year term. But senators, whose term of office was six years, were elected by state legislatures until 1913. Although the Constitution states that the President must be elected by the "people" for a four-year term, elections are not held directly, but through an electoral college, which is elected or appointed at the discretion of the state legislatures. Voters can't influence the appointment of judges at all. The duration of the powers of officials - from two years to life-as well as the categories of their voters, is so different that a radical change in the personnel of the state apparatus cannot be made quickly.

If we look back at the specific historical situation of the constitution's creation, we can understand why many Americans feared that the Senate would become "a permanent and permanent body" and the president "a king for life, like the king of Poland." Members of the upper house of Congress were so closely associated with the chief executive that on a number of important issues, in the words of the American historian G. Wood, they became "advisers and accomplices in a crime." The President and the Senate together had all the power-

19 J. Madisоn, A. Hamilton, J. Jay. The Federalist. Washington. 1937, p. 337. In October 1787 - April 1788, the delegates to the Convention of J. R. R. Tolkien Madison, A. Hamilton, and J. The Jays published a series of articles in New York newspapers under the general title "Publius" in order to convince voters to support the constitution. On May 28, 1788, the articles were published (together with eight others) in a separate book called The Federalist. Jay owned five articles, Madison-29 and Hamilton-51. "Federalist" later became a recognized classic statement of the principles of the constitution, the true bible of American political scientists, influenced many modern constitutional provisions of foreign countries, for almost 200 years serves as a guide for judges, congressmen, presidents and diplomats, although in the ratification of the constitution played, in general, a minor role.

20 J. Burns. The Deadlock of Democracy. Englewood Cliffs. 1963, pp. 20 - 21.

page 84

2/3 of the legislative power; in the area of contracting, they had full authority, as well as in the appointment and approval of all the most important public servants. It was, in R. Lee's words, "an intimidating combination of power." The House of Representatives, which was considered the" democratic organ "of government, looked, according to anti-federalists, only a "simple particle or drop" of popular power, hardly equal to its "monarchical and aristocratic organs" 21, that is, the president, the Supreme Court and the Senate.

The protection of the interests of the exploiting minority was also guaranteed by such an important addition to the "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" as judicial control over the constitutionality of laws and executive acts. There is no explicit reference to this principle in the Constitution; it is an "invention" of the courts. In 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that " the judiciary not only has the right, but also the duty, to decide what is the law."22 . As a result, the Supreme Court has strengthened its role as an important obstacle to the will of the masses, as another defender of the interests of the propertied, a body that, in Jefferson's words, was assigned to Congress "like a vulture to keep the chicken coop in order."23 The principle of judicial control over the compliance of laws with the constitution remained purely American for 140 years and only after World War II was it adopted by Germany, Italy, Japan and some other countries.

The constitutional system of government, based primarily on the principles of" separation of powers"," checks and balances "and judicial control, was intended to protect the political and economic interests of the elite from the"threat of the masses". At one of the meetings of the convention in Philadelphia, Hamilton clearly stated the credo of the "founding fathers": "All societies are divided into a few and many. The former are rich and well-born, the latter are the masses of the people. The people are restless and fickle; they rarely reason or decide correctly. Therefore, give the former a certain and permanent participation in the affairs of public administration. They will keep the second ones from staggering, ...they will always maintain a proper system of government. " 24 The intention of the framers of the constitution to prevent revolutionary actions is clearly reflected in article IV (section 4), which states that the federal government guarantees each state protection from "internal violence." This motif is even more pronounced in the 9th issue of the Federalist: "There will be a strong union of states... a barrier against internal strife and rebellion " 25 .

The document adopted as the Constitution of the United States on September 17, 1787,26 was a very peculiar combination of elements of the unitary and federal systems, based on the bourgeois-democratic, republican principles of representative and limited state government. In general, the principles of governance laid down in the Constitution were sufficiently formulated

21 I. Wood. The Creation, of the American Republic. 1776 - 1787. Chapel Hill. 1969, p. 521;. R. Kelley. The Shaping of the American Past. Vol. I. Englewood Cliffs. 1975, p. 137,;

22 CM. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 5 U. S. 136 (1803). All judicial decisions and provisions of the American Constitution cit. по: ("The Constitution of the USA. Analysis and Interpretation. Senate Document N 92 - 82". Washington. 1973 (далее - "The Constitution of the USA").

23 Cit. according to: "Constitutions of Bourgeois Countries", Vol. I. Moscow, 1935, p. 10.

24 Cit. by: Ch. Beard. Op. cit., p. 199.

25 J. Madison, A. Hamilton, J. Jay. Op. cit., p. 47.

26 Of the 55 delegates, only 39 signed the final document (S. Wasby. American Government and Politics. N.Y. 1973, p. 15).

page 85

flexibly, so that they can be adapted to new circumstances.

In the preamble to the constitution, the source of power in the United States is declared to be "the people." The political practice of the country over the past two centuries since the adoption of the constitution has clearly shown the true price of this provision. It is enough to recall that the people did not instruct the "founding fathers" to draw up the constitution, and it was also not the people who ratified it. The participants of the Constitutional Convention were only authorized to review and" improve "the previously adopted " Articles of Confederation". Instead, however, they drew up an entirely new basic law of the federation at their own discretion. It is no accident, therefore, that bourgeois-liberal authors note that the constitution was "the brainchild of chance, which appeared illegally." 27
The principle of "separation of powers" is practically carried out through all the most important provisions of the US constitution. Congress is constitutionally and doctrinally considered the first of the three constituent parts of the federal government. Therefore, art. I is dedicated to the legislative branch. Aware of the need to establish a sufficiently strong and relatively independent executive, the "founding fathers" were nevertheless concerned with protecting the country from a relapse into monarchical tyranny. For this purpose, they assigned to the Congress the functions of the central and governing body of the State, except in cases of war and emergency.

The Constitution established a bicameral Congress. The two Chambers were supposed to control each other and ensure careful consideration of draft laws in conditions of "mutual support". In addition, the bicameral structure of the congress corresponded to the idea of "balanced governance" common to the "founding fathers", in the mechanism of which the interests of all segments of society were supposedly represented. According to this concept, the ideological and political attitudes of popular or democratic elements were to be reflected in the House of Representatives, while the positions of aristocratic elements were to be reflected in the Senate. As Washington explained to Jefferson, " the convention created the Senate to serve the same role as your tea saucer... So that the hot legislation passed by the House of Representatives can be cooled before it is poured down the throats of the American people. " 28
A member of the House of Representatives can be a person who has reached the age of 25, has been a U.S. citizen for seven years, and has lived in the state in which he is elected. The number of representatives is limited to 435 (today this means that approximately one representative from 497 thousand of the population is elected). The U.S. Senate consists of two senators from each state (currently 100 senators from 50 states). A senator can be a person who has reached the age of 30, has been a U.S. citizen for nine years, and has lived in that state at the time of the election. In other words, the age limit is slightly higher than the corresponding qualification for a candidate for the House of Representatives.

The U.S. Constitution lists the basic powers of Congress. In the field of finance (which is perhaps the most important area), the rights are indicated to establish and collect taxes, duties, taxes and excise duties, which should be uniform throughout the country, pay US debts; enter into loans; mint coins, regulate its value and the value of foreign coins; establish penalties for forgery of state documents. securities and coins. The Congress ' police powers are also essential: to call for the following actions:

27 J. Keenan. Op. cit., p. 1.

28 "Quotations from Chairman Sam", p. 76.

page 86

the federal service militia (National Guard) of the states, "to enforce the laws of the United States, suppress insurrections and repel attacks," arm it and manage it. The military powers of Congress include the right to declare war, form and maintain the army and Navy, and issue regulations on their organization and administration. In addition, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with and between foreign states, enact naturalization laws, establish the postal service and postal service, exercise exclusive legislative powers in the Federal District of Columbia, and so on.

Both Chambers are also endowed with special powers: the Senate has the right to ratify international treaties and approve the candidacies of officials appointed by the president; the right to consider impeachment charges; 29 the right to elect the Vice President of the United States if no candidate receives an absolute majority of electoral votes. In turn, the House of Representatives initiates all financial bills (but the Senate can propose amendments to them); the House also has the right to initiate impeachment proceedings; the right to elect the President of the United States if no candidate receives an absolute majority of electoral votes.

It is characteristic that in relation to the states, the constitution, first of all, establishes restrictions on their rights. States are prohibited from entering into treaties, alliances, and confederations. The prerogative of carrying on the relations of the United States with foreign Countries belongs exclusively to the federal government. States are prohibited from minting coins and issuing credit cards. They do not have the right to pass laws that cancel or change private contractual obligations. Last in line is the prohibition on states to maintain troops or warships in peacetime, or to enter a war, unless the State has been invaded or is in imminent danger of invasion.

The President (and Vice President) of the United States is elected for a four-year term. Under the XXII Amendment (1951), the President cannot be elected more than twice. At the same time, a person who has held the office or performed the duties of the President for more than two years within the term for which another person was elected to the presidency may be elected to the Presidency only once. The purpose of the XXII Amendment is to limit the influence of the president in order to avoid a situation where the president, who is not constrained by the number of terms in power, turns into a "national mandate" to rule, a "plebiscite" head of state who, relying on his popularity, allows himself not to stand on ceremony with Congress .30 In such cases, the President's power could be limited only by opposition from the unfavorable political majority of Congress or the "ideological" majority of the Supreme Court.

If the President is removed from office, dies, or resigns, the Vice President becomes President. This norm (XXV amendment - 1967) formalized the established practice. In particular, it provides for the case of replacement of the presidential position due to the resignation of the president (for the first time this happened in 1974, when R. R. Tolkien resigned). Nixon). If the position of Vice-President becomes vacant, the President nominates a new Vice-President who will serve as the first Vice-President of the United States.

29 Procedure for holding U.S. Civil Service officials accountable on charges of treason, bribery, and other serious crimes and misdemeanors.

30 См. A. Schlesinger. Jr. The Imperial Presidency. N. Y. 1973, p. 377.

page 87

takes office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress. Only a U.S. citizen by birth who is at least 35 years old and has lived in the United States permanently for at least 14 years can become President. These conditions, according to the XII Amendment (1804), must also be met by persons applying for the position of Vice-president.

The Founding Fathers gave the president, who is indirectly elected "for reasons of purely aristocratic popular fear," 31 such broad powers that he is often referred to as an "elected monarch," and the presidential republic of the United States as " democratic Caesarism."32 . The President is the head of the Cabinet of Ministers and " ensures the precise execution of laws "(article II, section 3); he appoints and replaces officials, and is responsible for preparing the budget of the executive branch. It takes policy initiatives by submitting a State of the union report to Congress and proposing such measures as it deems "necessary and expedient"; it has the power of veto over congressional bills, and can summon both Houses or one of them in an emergency. As the" leading diplomat " of the country, the President enters into treaties "with the advice and consent of the Senate" and executive agreements; 33 he has the right to recognize or not recognize foreign States, the right to receive ambassadors and other diplomatic agents, and represents the country as head of State. As the constitutional Commander - in-Chief of the United States Army, Navy, and National Guard when called to active duty by the United States, the President makes appointments to the officer corps and by law has broad military powers ranging from initiating military action to declaring a state of emergency. And finally, in the course of historical development, with the creation of parties in the United States, the president became the leader of the ruling party, which gave him control over the national committee of the party and its apparatus, over the system of "patronage"34 and levers of influence on state and local party organizations.

The judicial power of the United States, under Article III, is vested in the Supreme Court and such subordinate courts as may from time to time be established by law by Congress. The system of lower courts was created by the First Continental Congress. Therefore, the Constitutional Convention was able to formalize the system of judicial institutions that actually already existed at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and further develop it. Currently, the federal judicial system consists of 94 district courts, 11 appellate courts, one court of claims (that is, a court for considering claims against the state) and one specialized court of appeal - for customs and patent cases. Congress has also established a number of other courts, such as the Court of Military Justice and the District Court in Puerto Rico, to take steps necessary to exercise the legislative powers granted to it.

Judges of the Supreme and lower federal courts hold their positions "as long as they behave properly", which in principle means-for life. The prevailing view in the United States is that a federal judge can only be removed from office by impeachment. Federal judges are appointed to-

31 A. A. Mishin. Central authorities of bourgeois States, Moscow, 1972, p. 29.

32 I. Wood. Op. cit., pp. 586 - 587.

33 Agreements pursuant to the Constitution, laws, or international treaties of the United States.

34 Provision of positions in the State apparatus for political services.

page 88

They are elected by the President on the advice and consent of the Senate. Currently, the Supreme Court has nine judges. The President of the Supreme Court is essentially the Chief Justice of the country. The number of judges sitting in district or appellate courts is determined by the number and nature of cases accepted for consideration. (In the district court, cases are usually heard by one judge, in the appellate court - by three.) In any state, there are two judicial systems - the state and the federation. In relation to each other, both systems are neither superior nor inferior. Some cases fall simultaneously under the jurisdiction of state and federal courts, others under the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts, and still others under the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts.

In article VI, the "founding Fathers" established the principle of the supremacy of federal law over state law: "This Constitution and the laws of the United States to be enacted in its execution, as well as all treaties made or to be made by the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, and the judges of all states are bound to abide by them, even if the constitution or the laws of any of the states provide otherwise." The principle of federalism, with its pronounced preponderance of the" national " principle over the rights of the states, is presented here in a concentrated form.

Although the United States of America is not a homogeneous national and ethnic community, this fact is not reflected either in the structure of the country's state structure enshrined in the federal constitution, or in the constitutions of individual states. The" founding fathers " of bourgeois American statehood deliberately ignored it in the class interests of the ruling exploitative minority.

One of the main reasons why the Convention of 1787 was called was that the Articles of Confederation had not been amended at that time, because the unanimous approval of the draft amendments by the States was completely impossible. The members of the Convention therefore agreed that a "light" procedure should be developed to amend the Constitution. According to article V, 2/3 of the members of both Houses of Congress, or a convention specially convened by Congress, shall propose an amendment at the request of the 2/3 State legislatures. It comes into force after it is ratified by the legislatures or special conventions of 3 / 4 states, depending on which of the two ways of ratification is proposed by Congress. Unlike the usual legislative procedure, the participation of the President of the United States in the adoption of amendments to the constitution is not provided for by it and is purely ceremonial in nature.

Even before the ratification of the Constitution, about 200 amendments were proposed .35 However, almost all the amendments to the constitution adopted to date have been developed by Congress. In the period from 1789 to 1974, more than 5 thousand draft amendments were submitted to Congress, while Congress proposed only 31 amendments. Of these, 26 were ratified (the last one was in 1971). Of all the amendments approved by the states, only one (XXI-on the abolition of prohibition) was ratified by special conventions in 3 / 4 states, the others were approved by the legislatures of 3 /4 states. Thus, political practice here also followed the line of limiting democracy. The undemocratic nature of the established procedure also lies in the fact that there may be a situation when the legislatures or conventions of 1/4 of the states plus one more state (with a total population significantly less than 1/4 of the population of the country) are divided into two groups.-

35 "The Documentary History of the First Federal Elections 1788 - 1790". Vol. I. Madison. 1976, p. 16.

page 89

They will be able to block an amendment that a large majority of American citizens insist on accepting.

The US Constitution is a written constitution. This, however, does not mean that the process of constitutional development of the country has taken place and is taking place only through the cumbersome procedure of adopting amendments. Other methods are also used. It is not only about informal, political, managerial methods, constitutional customs, traditions and practices, but also about judicial interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution and legislative activity. All this in general is a kind of"unwritten constitution". The US Constitutional Code has been formulated so flexibly that the extreme need to amend it has so far been implemented only 26 times. However, over the past almost two centuries, the need to review the practice of applying this document has appeared quite often. It could not have been otherwise: this practice could not have remained unchanged during the long transition from the "free capitalism" that emerged in the American version, with slavery and isolationism accompanying it, to modern state-monopoly capitalism, with the new role of the bulwark of the imperialist camp acquired by the United States. The framework of the constitution has remained the same, but the content, organization and methods of political activity have changed.

If the principle of " separation of powers "was introduced in the constitution by the" founding fathers", then the Congress took over the determination of the legal details of the structure of state power - in the course of normal legislative activity. In turn, when interpreting the Constitution, the courts fill its rather broad wording with socio-political content that changes depending on the circumstances. As President W. Wilson once said, "The Supreme Court is a continuously sitting constitutional convention." 36 Prior to June 29, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court had declared 92 U.S. laws, 796 state laws, and 93 executive orders unconstitutional, with the Supreme Court reviewing its own rulings 143 times .37 Thus, at one time, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government does not have the right to regulate the work of children .38 Circumstances have changed, and today the federal government, again with the approval of the Supreme Court, regulates this work 39 .

Although the constitutional status of the President remained the same, his role in the implementation of legislative activities has grown to limits that the "founding fathers"could not have foreseen. In times of national crises, the White House becomes a truly central organ of federal power. An example of the operation of specifically American constitutional customs is the creation and functioning of the presidential cabinet, 40 and the requirement that members of Congress reside in the state or electoral district from which they are elected. The same can be said of the practice whereby presidential electors commit themselves to supporting their party's candidates. Thus, important and stable political traditions in the country's conditions have acquired the significance of constitutional customs.

36 J. Peltason. Corwin and Peltason's Understanding the Constitution. Hinsdale. 1973, p. 100.

37 "The Constitution of the USA", pp. XVII, 1597 - 1797,

38 Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 151 (1918).

39 United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 11 (1941).

40 The practice of cabinet meetings originated under President Washington; however, the first mention of a cabinet in legislation dates back to 1902.

page 90

When discussing the question of ratification of the constitution, the members of the convention settled on the usual figure " nine "(Article VII) - the number of votes of the states, which, in accordance with the" Articles of Confederation", was required to resolve the most important issues. 10 days after the Philadelphia Convention adjourned on September 17, 1787, the Confederate Congress submitted the constitution to the states for their consideration. The ratification process was as undemocratic as the creation of the constitution. State laws, not federal laws, were used in state legislative elections and special conventions. In 11 states, property restrictions have disenfranchised between 1/4 and 2/3 of all adult males. The sedentary qualification and religious restrictions further increased this share. In Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia, all blacks were excluded from the voting list. In many states, Catholics were denied the right to vote, and in Georgia, atheists were denied the right to vote. Since, according to the ideas of that time, women were not considered as possible voters at all, various restrictions eventually excluded up to 5/6 of the entire amateur population from voting. In addition, indifference, ignorance, and ignorance were even more effective "censors", deterring 60 to 80% of eligible citizens from voting. In Pennsylvania in 1788, out of 430,000 citizens, only 73,000 were allowed to vote, but only 13,000 came to the ballot box. In Maryland, for example, only 2% of the adult population participated in this election. Only one state - New York-guaranteed universal male suffrage, but this was not without fraud: the central district with a population of less than 90 thousand people elected 23 delegates to the convention, and all other districts with more than a quarter of a million people-only 40%. This was probably the most important election in the history of the United States, when the people elected delegates to the state conventions that would decide the fate of the constitution.

Ironically, those who at the Constitutional Convention successfully defended the "national", against the "purely federal", decentralized plan of government, and then took the initiative to ratify it, called themselves federalists, although the constitution did not mention anything" federal". The opponents of the constitution, on the other hand, found themselves in the anti-federalist camp. These two factions, which later formed the first political parties in America, already reflected the conflicting interests of the merchant bourgeoisie and the planters, the wealthy and the poor, the colonists of the Atlantic coast and the small farmers from the interior. True, the federalists for the most part did not hide that they were defending the right of the "new aristocracy" to decide for all, while the anti-federalists believed in the possibility of a democratic "power of the many", and not just the elected. But for all their class, regional, and other differences, they were primarily parties of the national American bourgeoisie. Therefore, there is nothing unexpected in the fact that among both federalists and anti-federalists there were quite a lot of rich and influential representatives of the then American society.

Among the main arguments put forward against the constitution by anti-federalists (P. Henry, R. Lee, R. Whitehill, W. Findlay, E. Gerry, L. Martin, etc.) was the indication that it does not contain a bill of rights, and the fear that thanks to the sanctioned practice of endless re-elections, the president may actually turn into a monarch. In response to the first of these arguments, the federalists promised

41 J. Keenan. Op. cit., pp. 15. 16, 18.

page 91

prompt adoption of relevant amendments. The fear of the possibility of establishing a monarchy was to some extent offset by the widespread belief that J. R. R. Tolkien would be the first president. Washington.

The U.S. Constitution came into effect on March 4, 1789. However, it was not made public at that time, which also testified to the anti-democratic nature of the procedure for its adoption. The "Founding Fathers" did not establish an American version of the English constitutional monarchy, nor a revolutionary democratic version of the republic with representative institutions free from elitism. Their brainchild was sufficiently original, although they were undoubtedly influenced by the enlightenment ideas of Rousseau, Locke and Montesquieu and took into account the state experience of Cromwell's English bourgeois republic. The country was born free from the shackles of the old regime, but the planters and bourgeoisie who came to power did not really want to share this power with the one who won it for them - the American people. Such a flexible system of government suited the "founding fathers" quite well. They considered the federal presidential republic, which was essentially bourgeois and oligarchic and democratic in form, to be most suitable for American conditions.

American bourgeois ideology, statehood, and the rule of law are based on the principles of European liberalism, but in a modified form and combined with significant elements of conservatism. It is enough to point out the restriction of the electoral rights of the population by a number of discriminatory qualifications - property, race and gender, which, according to the state and federal constitutions, continued to operate in the XIX and even in the XX century. It is no coincidence that many American authors conclude that the work of the Convention of 1787 was largely "a reflection of the conservative reaction to the period of the revolution" and, according to R. Lee, was aimed at "transferring power from the many to the few." 42
The question of whether the constitution should guarantee certain - and what - rights to US citizens turned out, as one might expect, to be one of the main ones in the heated controversy that unfolded around this document during its ratification by the states. The Constitution was adopted on the assumption that the first Congress of the first convocation would consider the necessary amendments to it in this regard. Twelve such amendments were proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789. Of these, 10 became part of the Constitution upon ratification in the form of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. The bill contains basic bourgeois-democratic freedoms and rights - freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly and petitions, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. These amendments were largely borrowed from the English "Declaration of Rights of 1689" and the writings of such scholars as E. Coke, J. Hampden, J. Bate, J. Milton, etc.

By 1789, most state constitutions contained bills of rights. In general, the prevailing view was that the "people" had sufficient political power to prevent abuse of power by state and local government officials. However, centralized federal power was a new phenomenon in the political life of America at that time, and it was also far away in this country.-

42 See: E. Redford a. o. Politics and Government in the United States. N.Y. 1968, p. 69; J. Wood. Op. cit., p. 516. Some American historians believe that the general trend of the convention document was not even liberal-conservative, but simply reactionary, for, unlike the state constitutions, it did not have a bill of rights (see G. H. Merriam. A History of American. Political Theories. N. Y. 1968, p. 100).

page 92

there was something menacing about the vise and inaccessibility. In order to somehow limit its real powers and real or apparent claims, it was necessary to supplement the original text of the constitution with a bill of rights. But the forced concession to the democratic elements on the part of the conservative part of the then elite was limited to the sphere of relations between citizens and the federal government. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, J. Marshall, formulated this provision quite unambiguously: the bill of rights applies only in the sphere of competence of the federal government; it does not impose any restrictions on the activities of state and local governments.43 The practical result of such a separation of "spheres of influence" was somewhat unexpected. It turned out that, with some exceptions, the federal government does not pose the same threat to bourgeois civil liberties and rights as the state and local governments do to them.

Ultimately, the Bill of Rights was practically incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. Currently, with the exception of Amendments II, III, and X, the XIV Amendment imposes on the states all the requirements that the Bill of Rights imposes on the federal government, except for the requirement that a grand jury draft 44 indictments in cases of serious crimes and the requirement that a jury consider all civil cases with a claim price exceeding $ 20. The absorption of most of the Bill of Rights provisions by the fourteenth Amendment has had three important consequences. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review cases involving the application of these provisions, as well as to establish standards of proper conduct for state, local, and federal government officials. Federal district judges have expanded their jurisdiction to hear complaints from individuals who claim to have been treated in violation of the Constitution by considering applications for a "Habeas corpus" order (i.e., a court order to bring a detainee before a court to verify the legality of their arrest). Congress has been given the power to pass any laws it deems "necessary and appropriate" to enforce constitutional safeguards.

The Bill of Rights of 1791 reflected a certain alignment of class and political forces. As in other similar cases, its adoption was not so much a completion as a stage of development, a continuation of the political struggle. The fact that this document has never been textually modified in the nearly two-hundred-year period of the Bill of rights does not change the case on its merits. Maintaining the illusion of the inviolability of the rule of law for decades, and even more so for centuries, is also a form and method of politics and political struggle. Designed to last for many generations, the Bill of Rights now grants American citizens seemingly "the same" rights as it did two hundred years ago. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, while extending the requirements of "due process of law" to state criminal justice and playing a certain historically progressive role within these rather broad boundaries, at the same time did not intend to introduce and did not change either the outline of individual "rights" or their list.

Keeping the masses under ideological and political control has always been and always remains the ultimate goal of bourgeois class rule. However, its individual detachments - you can see this on the map.

43 Barren v. Baltimore, 7 Peters 243 (1843).

44 Grand jury - a panel of jurors that decides whether or not to bring an accused person to trial.

page 93

on the example of the political history of the bill of rights - they adhere to different methods of solving this problem. Believing that it is more convenient for them to "manage" the masses, who are deprived of the political and legal opportunity to conduct an organized struggle for their interests, some groups of the American bourgeoisie at the time of the adoption of the constitution went straight to this goal, while others, trying to avoid extremes, preferred detours. Realizing that bourgeois demands for equality provoke proletarian demands for equality, which ultimately amount to the destruction of private property and the economic inequality based on it and the domination of some people over others, the reactionary bourgeoisie preferred not to "tempt fate" and refuse to proclaim any political rights in the basic law. In the very act of proclaiming the political rights of citizens in the Constitution, she saw an invitation to the" rampage and folly of democracy", and in these latter-the source of all other troubles and misfortunes. This was "taken into account" in the original text of the constitution of 1787. Other groups of the bourgeoisie did not want to bring the matter to a boiling point. They saw depriving the masses of their basic political rights as a step towards refusing their support, and they saw this as an unjustified political risk. The adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791 was a victory for these political elements and, consequently, for the masses of the people who were exerting pressure on them. It took four years between 1787 and 1791 to achieve this.

The political battle over the bill of rights continues today. Of course, it occurs in different forms than it did at the end of the eighteenth century, but perhaps not with less, but even with greater acuteness. True, the artful policy of maintaining the appearance of inviolability of constitutional guarantees also has its downside. It determines the need to take into account the norms of the bill of rights not only as a valid law, but also as a law that has been operating unchanged for almost 200 years, that is, according to American concepts sanctified by antiquity. If in the revolutionary period the reactionary bourgeoisie saw its task as not giving the people the "sacred rights" promised to them, today it sees it as taking them away from them as much as possible, or at least limiting their scope by issuing "appropriate" laws or by judicial interpretation.

The New Program of the Communist Party of the United States expresses the conviction that in the process of building and defending socialism in the United States, a socialist society will be able to guarantee American citizens all the rights and freedoms proclaimed in the Bill of Rights. Socialism in America will mean " the maximum expansion of democracy based on the democratic traditions and institutions of the American people." Moreover, "under socialism, the freedoms enunciated in the bill of rights will have an immeasurably deeper meaning for the overwhelming majority of the people." 46
After the Bill of Rights was passed, only 16 amendments were adopted in 185 years, and 10 of them somehow related to the electoral process. Under the pressure of the masses, the US electoral system was democratized to a certain extent. And yet it is far from being a subterfuge-

45 See, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court's 1972 discussion of the constitutionality of the provision of the 1968 federal law on the Right of Law Enforcement Agencies to conduct "electronic surveillance authorized by a president acting on 'national security' grounds "(Newsweek, 1972, July 3, p. 25).

46 New program of the Communist Party of the USA. "USA-Economy, Politics, Ideology", 1971, N 2, p. 93.

page 94

but democratic. So, despite a significant increase in the number of black Americans taking part in elections, in southern states, far less than half of them still come to the ballot boxes or cars .47 The fact is that in some southern states, until just before the beginning of the 70s, legal restrictions directed mainly against the colored population were maintained in the form of property and tax qualifications - in federal elections; literacy and settlement qualifications - in state and local elections.

The number of voters is also limited by the registration procedure: depending on the state, it is held either once every four years, or only once for a given voter, or only on strictly defined working days in any one place, most often from 9 to 17 hours, that is, when the majority of workers are at work. In many states, registration stops 30 to 60 days before the election, and in Mississippi, even four months before the election. In 24 states, there is a residency requirement that requires a voter to live in a given state for at least one year, in 17 states-six months, and in 10-less than six months. It is no coincidence that in 1968, out of 47 million Americans who did not vote, about 38 million were not registered .48 According to a December 1969 Gallup poll, the registration system has the greatest discriminating effect on young people (50% do not register) and people who rent housing, i.e. do not usually have private property (44%). In 1968, 84% of those with an annual income of more than $ 15,000 registered, while 53% of those with an income of less than $ 3,000 registered. In addition, 89.4% of those registered took part in the voting .49 All this clearly shows what the class orientation and anti-democratic nature of the modern US electoral system is.

One of the main conditions for winning an election is money. Thus, the cost of the 1972 election campaigns is estimated at $ 400 million. The cost of running for a Senate seat in a large state is often more than $ 1.5 million to $ 2 million, and the cost of a presidential candidate is in the tens of millions of dollars. It is well known that both the Democratic and Republican parties rely primarily on the help of large "contributors" to election funds: since 1952, 50-60% of the total amount of funds was made up of one - time receipts of more than $ 500, that is, from people who are certainly rich. According to Senator R. Long, who is by no means a democratically minded politician, about 95% of all funds spent in congressional elections come from the business community .50
Is it any wonder then that the freedoms proclaimed in the Bill of rights are being implemented as "democracy" for an exploitative minority? It is enough to look at how truly "representative" the highest representative bodies of the United States are in comparison, for example, with the Soviet ones. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR consists of almost 33% of workers, more than 31% of women, and about 20% of young deputies. There are 2.4% of workers in the US Congress, half of them are union bosses; there is no representation of all other parties, except for the two leading bourgeois parties - the Democratic and Republican. Black Americans, who make up over 11% of the U.S. population, are now

47 "Congressional Quarterly's Guide", p. 453.

48 Ibid., p. 453.

49 "Voter Registration. Hearings Before the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. US Senate. 92nd Congr. 1-st Ses." Washington. 1972, pp. 93, 153.

50 "Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report", 26.III.1971, pp. 709, 713; 14.VIII. 1971, p. 1711; "Congressional Quarterly Almanac", 1970, Vol. XXVI, p. 1101; "USA-Economics, Politics, Ideology", 1972, N 2, p. 95.

page 95

among the 535 deputies, only 16 have their own representatives in the Legislative Assembly. Women, who make up more than half of the country's adult population, make up 3% of Congressmen, all of them members of the House of Representatives, and the Senate has generally remained a "gentlemen's club"since 197251 ; Congressmen under the age of 30-less than 1%. This is "equal opportunity" in the United States. According to the American press, the majority in the current Senate are people whose wealth exceeds 200 thousand dollars. Manufacturers, bankers, corporate executives, capitalist farmers, and members of law firms are the largest group in U.S. representative bodies .52
Thus, with the help of the anti-democratic electoral system, representative bodies are transformed into an instrument of the big bourgeoisie. The civil rights and freedoms enunciated in the Bill of Rights remain formal and declarative, because they contradict the realities of class society. As Lenin noted, in the United States, "the bourgeois and the proletarian have equal political rights. But they are not equal in class status. " 53 That is why the civil rights activists of the black population, led by Priest B. Chavis, known as the "Wilmington ten", have been behind bars since 1971. Anti-racism activist A. Shakur, a Black woman, has been held in solitary confinement for over a year and a half. But in February 1977, G. Hunt, a former CIA agent and direct supervisor of the Watergate hack, was released early from custody, which marked the beginning of the "case" that became a symbol of immorality, corruption and violation of civil liberties in the US political elite. This is not an isolated case. American Femida has always been remarkably generous towards "notable" lawbreakers, whether it's billionaire heiress P. Hearst, former Vice President S. Agnew, or former President R. Nixon.

Bourgeois democracy and such an attribute of it as the constitution are democratic to the extent that the working masses can and do achieve this. The democratic institutions, rights, and liberties won by the masses in a difficult, long struggle and enshrined in the basic law of the United States reflect not" generosity", but the forced will of the ruling class. The sphere of actual operation of guaranteed institutions, rights and freedoms, its content, expansion or narrowing at various stages of the development of the state and society is the object of class and political struggle. The US Constitution is the first written bourgeois constitution; it remains the only constitutional code in the West that (with amendments and additions) has been in force since the XVIII century. Therefore, it can be considered the most "ancient" in modern history .54 At the same time, the historical significance of the American Constitution was that it was the first Republican constitution that divided State power into legislative, executive, and judicial branches and proclaimed the basic bourgeois-democratic freedoms in the Bill of Rights. For its time, this constitution as a whole but-

51 "Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report", 1.I.1977, pp. 19 - 20;. "Soviet State and Law", 1976, N 6, p. 4.

52 For more information, see: V. A. Savelyev. USA: Senate and Politics, Moscow, 1976, pp. 27-39.

53 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 24, p. 363.

54 Only the English "Act of Government" (1653), "Bill of Rights" (1689) and "Act of Succession" (1701) were earlier, which still form part of the current unwritten constitution of Great Britain, as well as the "Fundamentals of the Rule of Law of Connecticut" (1639). These include the written constitutions of 11 American states adopted during the first five years of the Revolutionary War, and finally the Articles of Confederation.

page 96

It has a historically progressive character, consolidating part of the bourgeois-democratic gains achieved during the War of Independence. At the same time, the US Constitution served and continues to serve the purpose of creating the illusion among the masses of their participation in the management of the capitalist state and masking the omnipotence of the bourgeoisie.

As L. I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, noted in his report "On the draft Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU on May 24, 1977, "bourgeois countries where only a small capitalist class really governs" do not and cannot know that " the ever-growing real participation of the broad masses of the people in the management of affairs state and society " 55, which is characteristic of a socialist society. The indisputable advantages of socialist democracy, its immeasurable superiority over bourgeois democracy, were embodied in the draft of the new Constitution of the USSR. The nearly two-hundred-year experience of the American constitution convincingly proves the class character and historical limitations of bourgeois democracy.

55 L. I. Brezhnev. On the draft Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Moscow, 1977, p. 14.

page 97


© libmonster.com

Permanent link to this publication:

https://libmonster.com/m/articles/view/THE-US-CONSTITUTION-THE-CODE-OF-BOURGEOIS-DEMOCRACY

Similar publications: LUnited States LWorld Y G


Publisher:

John AndersonContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://libmonster.com/Anderson

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

A. S. NIKIFOROV, V. A. SAVELYEV, THE US CONSTITUTION: THE CODE OF BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY // New-York: Libmonster (LIBMONSTER.COM). Updated: 19.01.2025. URL: https://libmonster.com/m/articles/view/THE-US-CONSTITUTION-THE-CODE-OF-BOURGEOIS-DEMOCRACY (date of access: 10.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - A. S. NIKIFOROV, V. A. SAVELYEV:

A. S. NIKIFOROV, V. A. SAVELYEV → other publications, search: Libmonster USALibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
John Anderson
Chicago, United States
72 views rating
19.01.2025 (21 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
Духовно нас не уничтожить!
Catalog: Other 
23 hours ago · From Libmonster Online
PROBLEMS OF SCOTTISH HISTORY IN THE SCOTTISH HISTORICAL REVIEW
Catalog: History 
8 days ago · From John Anderson
НЕ обезболивайте, не отключайте меня от меня
Catalog: Literature study 
10 days ago · From Libmonster Online
G. P. KUROPYATNIK. RUSSIA AND THE UNITED STATES. ECONOMIC, CULTURAL AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS. 1867-1881
Catalog: History 
10 days ago · From John Anderson
NEW NETHERLANDS
Catalog: History 
10 days ago · From John Anderson
PUSHKIN ON THE UNITED STATES IN "JOHN TANNER"
Catalog: Literature study 
11 days ago · From John Anderson
AMERICAN BOURGEOIS HISTORIOGRAPHY OF A RUSSIAN FEUDAL CITY
Catalog: History 
11 days ago · From John Anderson
A. F. VASILIEV. URAL INDUSTRY DURING THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR 1941-1945
Catalog: History Bibliology 
11 days ago · From John Anderson
A. Y. BORISOV. THE USSR AND THE USA: THE ALLIES DURING THE WAR. 1941-1945
Catalog: History Bibliology 
11 days ago · From John Anderson
DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC SPHRAGISTICS
12 days ago · From John Anderson

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

LIBMONSTER.COM - U.S. Digital Library

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

THE US CONSTITUTION: THE CODE OF BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: U.S. LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

U.S. Digital Library ® All rights reserved.
2014-2025, LIBMONSTER.COM is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of the United States of America


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android