My Cuz the rapper–Julian “the Hooligan” Bonbrest


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Julian "the Hooligan" Blake Bonbrest

Julian “the Hooligan” Blake Bonbrest

Every generation or so in my family somebody comes out  eclectic, radical, creative and open minded.  My first cousin once removed, Julian Blake Bonbrest raps under the moniker “Julian the Hooligan” and I think he’s got a great career ahead of him:

“Let it go”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLpcpfSxlus

“Black Cat”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7VQe4NnklE

Posted in Ideas & Opinions | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What I Learned About Stop-and-Frisk From Watching My Black Son – Atlantic Mobile


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

This is an excellent article from a white New York attorney on the problem of walking while black…..

http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/04/what-i-learned-about-stop-and-frisk-from-watching-my-black-son/359962/?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email#disqus_thread

Posted from WordPress for Android

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Senators’ Suspension Justifies Taxpayer Ripoff

Senator Ron Calderon, D-30th District

Senator Ron Calderon, D-30th District


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

 

Leland Yee

Senator Leland Yee, D-8th District

Senator Rod Wright, 35th District

Senator Rod Wright, 35th District

Three California Democratic Party State Senators, Ron Calderon, Rod Wright, and Leland Yee are either convicted or under felony indictment for crimes that are grounds under Article IV Section 5 of the California Constitution for expulsion from the legislature.  So why did the State Senate elect to “suspend” them from office–especially when there’s no such thing as “suspension” in the California Constitution?

Well, with this so-called “suspension” they will continue to draw their $95,291.00 a year salaries!!!!!!

Article IV, Section 5(a)  provides that:

Each house shall judge the qualifications and elections of its Members and, by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two thirds of the membership concurring, may expel a Member.

FBI raiding Ron Calderon's Senate office

FBI raiding Ron Calderon’s Senate office

There is no authority even mentioned, alluded to or anywhere else contemplated in the California Constitution for a so-called “suspension.”  They’re just making this up as they go to justify these guys continuing to draw their pay.  The Constitution is clear:  if the Senate wants to, it can expel members.  There’s no provision allowing them to suspend or otherwise discipline them (other than slapping them on the wrist with a censure).

Posted in Ideas & Opinions, Private Investigation Industry | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thank you Obamacare


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

ObamacareObamacare detractors KISS MY ASS. Just got my new Obamacare cards. SAME INSURANCE COMPANY, Platinum Plan, all existing doctors covered, a specialist I really needed to see is now covered who wasn’t before and I don’t need HMO approval to see specialists in-network.

Price: $700 LESS than what I was paying!

Thank you President Obama and the Democratic Party and BTW, I’m not a Democrat, I’m Peace & Freedom Party but credit where credit is due, even though I’d have preferred the Dellums National Health Service Act.

There is a little weirdness:  I now have breast reconstruction surgery covered (I’m a guy but it’s not as strange as when years ago I joined the Feminist Women’s Health Center and they sent me a vaginal speculum as a membership benefit).  I also now under California regulations have to buy a $5.00 a month plan for pediatric benefits even though I don’t have children, but it’s a fine thing to pay if it insures that all children will get dental care through spread of risk to society to pay for it; that I’m glad for.

So if you’re not covered, go to Covered California and get covered:

https://www.coveredca.com/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=COiQ7bK9tb0CFSho7AodABwAPg

Posted in Anecdotes & Adventures, Ideas & Opinions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rudy Acuna on CSUN Developments


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

 

 

 

Chicana/o Studies, Faculty Governance, Academic Freedom

 

Why we struggle?

 

By

 

Rodolfo F. Acuña

 

 

 

In 1994 the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) issued a report “On the Relationship of Faculty Governance to Academic Freedom” that I doubt many professors have read.  It set out the fundamentals of governance and its relationship to academic freedom. The irony is that in less than 20 years these principles are in danger.

 

 

 

Instead of focusing on these important rights faculty organizations are holding forums on “academic bullying” without thinking through the question. It took years to define racism and sexism.  But, finally, a consensus was reached that sexual harassment involved power relationships. It was sexual harassment when a faculty member, a supervisor or an employer harassed someone of lesser status – it was not usually the other way around.

 

 

 

If two full professors scream at each other, the question is who is bullying who? It would appear to me that it is much more grievous when an administrator censors a professor and limits his or her academic freedoms that if a professor criticizes an administrator.

 

 

 

In my lifetime I have witnessed the erosion of academic freedom and faculty governance. After World War II, McCarthyism imposed political tests on professors in an effort to root out the “subversive” bullies. Ellen W. Schrecker in her book No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities concludes that academe did not enjoy its finest hour in this era.

 

 

 

In very real terms the 1960s were a reaction to the 1950s.  The Civil Rights, Vietnam War Movements and the baby boomers spurred changes.

 

 

 

When I arrived at San Fernando Valley State College, there were small clusters of professors to whom faculty governance and academic freedom were important. Some of them had been refused tenure at major research institutions because of their political views. These dissidents thrived in the climate of activism at SFVSC that was forged between 1967 and 1969.

 

 

 

Inconceivable as it might seem, on March, 1969, the Los Angeles Times called SFVSC a “hotbed of radical youth.” That same month Life magazine ran a lengthy feature about Valley State, which it called “painfully familiar.”

 

 

 

The anti-war movement at Valley State had heightened in 1966 when students were arrested at antiwar protest at Van Nuys Air National Guard Base. By December, Los Angeles police were called to campus to disperse student protests.

 

 

 

In September 1967, the Faculty Senate urged the SFVSC administration to stop calling police during campus disputes and protests. At the time, there were 15,600 students, 23 were black and 11 Latino.  By December more than 500 antiwar and pro-war students clashed, yelling at each other for three-hours about the Vietnam War and Dow Chemical.   

 

 

 

The demonstration was led by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) whose spokesman was Bob Shaw. The following academic year, the protest movement expanded with the entrance of a larger black student population and a small but an emerging Chicana/o student movement. This led to the November 4, 1968 African-American student takeover (Preview) of the administration building and the arrest and conviction of eight members of the Black Student Union who did hard time.

 

 

 

The example of the students forced many faculty members to follow their conscience. In relation to my volunteer work, I was a frequent visitor on campus, but some of the SDS students standout.  

 

 

 

Michael Klonsky started out San Fernando Valley State College where he joined the SDS. In 1968 he became its national chairman; he was involved in the Democratic National Convention rebellions. By the time I was involved on campus the SDS students I remember  were Cliff Freed, Mike Lee, and Marc Cooper who were part of  a larger and more diverse group. 

 

 

 

As today, the majority of the faculty was conservative, most just did not give a shit. However, there was a faction who believed in academic freedom and the importance of preserving faculty governance. They were not necessarily radical, but they knew the importance of free speech and defended that principle in the faculty senate.

 

 

 

The leader of the American Federation of Teachers was a man who I greatly respected – English professor John Stafford. More than once he defended my right to be a “bully” and fight for the interests of Chicana/o students. He along with the liberal faction he worked openly and behind the scenes to get minority student access and then fought for Pan African American and Chicano Studies.

 

 

 

Stafford was supported by Jerome Richfield and Vern Bullough who also became presidents of the faculty senate.  Morton Auerbach as chairman of the Committee on Faculty Information Concerning Minority Problems, during the tumultuous times after November 4, was a master negotiator. Along with Richard Abcarian and Larry Litwin, Mort kept the students and faculty on the same page. I have little doubt that without them it would have been a much rockier. They brought together the disparate liberal clusters spread out throughout the campus.

 

 

 

Under their leadership, the faculty senate was a place of debate, reason, and the defender of free speech and faculty governance. They were not afraid to take on the president, their supervisors or Chancellor Glenn S. Dumke.

 

 

 

Today, the faculty senate is a social club that does not care why Chicana/o studies is fighting for academic freedom and its and their governance rights. Stafford and Auerbach understood the importance of faculty checking the administration’s arbitrary and clandestine actions.

 

 

 

The truth be told, the CSUN administration in bypassing the traditional consultation process hurt the rights of every department, and gave it the right to encroach on their areas of study. Because of this the administration is empowered to make its own rules.

 

 

 

Because CHS protested this violation, it has been labeled a bully. However, the reasonable person should ask, does it have the power to control the dialog or the outcome? Adding further insult, the administration chose to make a clandestine trip to Mexico City to sign an accord that the faculty did not approve. For Stafford and others this perfidy would have been a major threat to the liberal traditions of the academy. He remembered that McCarthyism thrived in the fifties because no one spoke out.

 

 

 

Being a reasonable person, ask why are CHS professors demanding respect?

 

 

 

Are they bullies because they demand an accounting of the impact of the UNAM accord on student fees? Who will pay for it?

 

 

 

Are they bullies because they demand faculty diversity data?

 

 

 

Are they bullies because they are asking why students are being overcharged for campus housing?  Like in flop houses students pay $800 a bed a month, double the rent of private apartment. The irony is students are slated to pay for new dorms that they cannot afford to live in.

 

 

 

What about the Tseng College?

 

 

 

I erroneously attributed this decline of faculty governance to Harry Hellenbrand. I stand corrected. It started in the 1990s under Provost Luanne Kennedy who classified her deans administrators directly answering to the provost. They were no longer part of the faculty body or responsible to its members.

 

 

 

In the historical context, the arbitrary actions of administration are eroding the protections of the minority. McCarthyism thrived because of the failure of professors to fight for their governance rights and academic freedoms. It was temporarily reversed by the John Staffords, but unfortunately this generation of scholars is not enjoying their finest hour and is being cowed by bullies.

**********

Reminder: Manuel Andrés López Obrador will be speaking at CSUN at 6 PM on March 28. You are invited. I apologize for editorial failures, I have been writing at a clip of 15 -20,000  words a week that is necessary when you are in chinga. My priority has always been the message and not the form. The editing will come with the book.–Rudy Acuna

**********

Jan B. Tucker, a few observations

Jan B. Tucker, Rudy Acuna, Estela Ayala

Jan B. Tucker, Rudy Acuna, Estela Ayala

Rudy Acuna was of course one of my most important professors, mentors and will always be my Tlamatini.  At my request he bestowed upon me the designation of “Tlamatini” with a wave of his hand.  He was puzzled as to why I wanted him to so designate me and as I explained to him, he was the only person I felt was qualified to judge whether I passed  muster for the title.

Morton Auerbach:  see the resemblance to Joe Stalin?

Morton Auerbach: see the resemblance to Joe Stalin?

Mort Auerbach and Larry Litwin were also my professors at CSUN.  Mort was a dead ringer for Joseph Stalin.  I once put up a 1944 edition Time Magazine behind him on above the chalk board while he was lecturing with Stalin on the front cover and within minutes the whole class was laughing hysterically.  When we pointed out the joke to Mort, he was flattered that he looked like “Uncle Joe.”  Mort was my Marxism professor and he was brilliant.  He also understood Maoism like the back of his hand:  after courageous World War II service in Burma with the Kachin Guerrillas as an OSS Officer, he was assigned as OSS liaison to Chou En-Lai.

Larry, along with Blase Bonpane (for whom I was grad assistant) gave me a firm understanding of Communitarianism.  If you don’t understand that philosophy and the movements that organize around it, it’s as impossible to understand the world as we know it anymore than if one had no knowledge of capitalism or Marxism.

Marc Cooper

Marc Cooper

Marc Cooper was thrown out of CSUN in 1971 on the orders of then-Governor Ronald Reagan.  He went down to Chile to assist the Allende government and came close to losing his life to the fascists who took over on September 11, 1973.  As Wikipedia explains:

From 1971 to 1973, Cooper served as the Spanish-English translator for Chilean Socialist president Salvador Allende. Following the military coup of 1973, he fled the country, fearing execution as a participant in the Allende government;[1] some of his American friends were executed by the military, including journalist Charles Horman. In 2002 he testified before a Chilean magistrate in the investigation of Horman’s death.

J.B. Stoner; that was the message of his speech on November 22, 1987 at the Glendale Holiday Inn, i.e., God sent AIDS to kill Gays, Blacks, and Jews

J.B. Stoner; that was the message of his speech on November 22, 1987 at the Glendale Holiday Inn, i.e., God sent AIDS to kill Gays, Blacks, and Jews

Mike Lee went on to a tremendous career as a crusading Deputy Public Defender in Los Angeles County.  During the “Battle of Glendale” (I was there) on November 22, 1987 when anti-racist demonstrators were confronting neo-Nazi/KKK leader Jesse “J.B.” Stoner of the “National States Rights Party” (who once ran for congress on a platform of making Judaism a legal offense punishable by death), Mike confronted this prick of a Senior Deputy District Attorney, John C. Spence III who advised notoriously racist Glendale Police Sergeant Randy Tampa to read the “riot act” (resulting in the Glendale Fire Department bringing in water cannons and back up riot police) to disperse our peaceful picket line.  Mike, as an attorney questioned their right to read the riot act and in essence, trample all over our First Amendment rights….and was arrested on the spot by Randy Tampa.  Thankfully he was acquitted.

Cliff Fried went on to become a long time and critical leader of the union movement at UCLA.  Last I knew he was a key leader for the UPTE-CWA local there.

 

Posted in Anecdotes & Adventures, Ideas & Opinions, Private Investigation Industry | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Constitutional History of Secession of the former USSR


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Before anything else read my two prior blogs (especially if you don’t have at least a B.A. in Political Science and even then, if you didn’t have a specialization in international relations):

 

http://janbtucker.com/blog/2014/03/16/to-ukraine-sevastopol-is-fort-sumter/

 

http://janbtucker.com/blog/2012/11/16/mythology-of-secession/

Now that you’ve boned up on some of the elements of international relations, foreign policy and constitutional history, think about the effect of the constitutional history of the former Soviet Union and how it affects the perceptions of common people, politicians, and academicians in the former Soviet states as they now all squabble over the Crimea, parts of Ukraine, Trans Dneister, and other areas that have majority populations of Russian language speakers.  Pay special attention to my explanation of “Romantic Nationalism” in my blog on the “Mythology of Secession” and how that is playing out in the present day.

Rus'Kaya Pravda

Rus’Kaya Pravda

Russian and later Soviet constitutional history dates back at least to the Rus’Kaya Pravda of Kiev of 1280, the Pskov Judicial Charter adopted in 1397, and the Novgorod Judicial Charter of 1440 all of which led to Ivan III (“Ivan the Great” as opposed to Ivan IV, i.e. “Ivan the Terrible”) promulgating the Sudebnik of 1497.  This in turn was revised by Ivan IV’s Sudebnik of 1550, followed by the 1649 Sobornoye Ulozheniye of Czar Alexy Mikhailovich.  These documents were brought up to date in the 1833 promulgation of “The Code of Laws of the Russian Empire” by Czar Nicholai I.

Russian 1906 constitutionFollowing the unsuccessful 1905 Russian Revolution, Czar Nicholai II was forced to cede some power to the legislative Duma with the “Russian Fundamental Laws of 1906,” seen as the beginning of modern constitutionalism in Russia.  The 1906 document is very clear about the inseparable and autocratic nature of the Russian nation-state:

1. The Russian State is one and indivisible.

2. The Grand Duchy of Finland, while comprising as inseparable part of the Russian State, is governed in its internal affairs by special decrees based on special legislation.

3. The Russian language is the common language of the state, and its use is compulsory in the army, in the navy and in all state and public institutions. The use of local (regional) languages and dialects in state and public institutions are determined by special legislation.

 

 

BolshevikFollowing the success of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution and Civil War, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was formed by Treaty in 1922 followed by a formal “Constitution” in 1924, that established a system which was a voluntary union amongst theoretically equal nation-states, i.e., Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Trans-Caucusus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia).  This constitutional arrangement was on paper at least, akin to the “Articles of Confederation” which governed the United States of America prior to adoption of the U.S. Constitution.  As Wikipedia explains [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Creation_of_the_USSR]:

Finally the declaration then specifies that the resultant Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is one that is created on free will of the peoples, that its purpose follows the ideals of the October Revolution, that each and every socialist republic has the right to join and leave the Union at its own will, and hinting at the Soviet foreign policy of socialist irredentism (see World Revolution), finishes stating that the treaty …will serve a decisive step on the path of unification of all workers into a “World Socialist Soviet Republic”.

Following the declaration, is the treaty itself consisting of a preface and 26 articles.

In the preface it is fixed that the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic, the Byelorussian Socialist Soviet Republic and the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic(containing Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia) acting in free will, agree to form a single Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that is governed on articles listed in the treaty.

Note importantly:  it was clear on paper that the participating Republics had the right of secession.  In essence, to join or pull out of the USSR the individual sovereign polity (be sure to look up the terms “sovereign” and “polity” if you’re not familiar with those terms as used by political scientists) was ratifying or abrogating its responsibilities under this treaty.  It is important from that standpoint to understand the timeline that Wikipedia puts together for the history of this treaty:

  • December 21, 1922 – Treaty signed.
  • December 30, 1922 – Treaty ratified.
  • October 27, 1924 – Uzbek and Turkmen populated regions of the Turkestan ASSR (previously of RSFSR) elevated into union republics.
  • October 16, 1929 – Tajik SSR created from the Tajik ASSR (previously part of the RSFSR).
  • December 5, 1936 – Simultaneous split of the Transcaucasian SFSR into Armenian, Georgian and Azerbaijani SSRs. Simultaneous breakup of the RSFSR-administered Turkestan (then consisting of Kazakh and Kirgiz ASSRs) into Kazakh and Kirgiz SSRs.
  • March 31, 1940 – RSFSR-administered Karelian ASSR raised into the Karelo-Finnish SSR.
  • August 3, 1940 – Lithuanian SSR joins USSR.
  • August 5, 1940 – Latvian SSR joins USSR.
  • August 6, 1940 – Estonian SSR joins USSR.
  • August 24, 1940 – Moldavian SSR created from the Ukrainian administered Moldavian ASSR and annexed Romanian territory of Bessarabia.
  • July 16, 1956 – Karelo-Finnish SSR downgraded into an autonomous republic and re-annexed by RSFSR.
  • December 8, 1991 – Treaty termination agreed by three of the four founding republics.
  • December 25, 1991 – Treaty terminated.

 

Crimea was originally, within the context of the USSR, a part of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic) until the regime of Ukrainian Nikita Krushchev at which time, as pointed out in my last blog on this subject, it was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954.

 

The principles of the treaty were incorporated into Chapter II of the Soviet Constitution of 1924 and pay close attention to these provisions:

 

CHAPTER II Sovereign Rights of the Member Republics

ARTICLE 3.

The sovereignty of the member Republics is limited only in the matters indicated in the present Constitution, as coming within the competence of the Union. Outside of those limits, each member Republic exerts its public powers independently; the USSR protects the rights of the member Republics.

ARTICLE 4.

Each one of the member Republics retains the right to freely withdraw from the Union.

ARTICLE 5.

The member Republics will make changes in their Constitutions to conform with the present Constitution.

ARTICLE 6.

The territory of the member Republics cannot be modified without their consent; also, any limitation or modification or suppression of Article 4 must have the approval of all the member Republics of the Union.

ARTICLE 7.

Just one federal nationality is established for the citizens of the member Republics
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/1924-constitution-of-the-ussr#ixzz2wSjb3EVp

In 1936 under the rule of Joseph Stalin (my genetic cousin who was Y Chromosome Haplogroup G, subclade G2a, while I’m G2b), a new constitution was adopted with the following relevant Articles:

ARTICLE 13. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a federal state, formed on the basis of the voluntary association of Soviet Socialist Republics having equal rights, namely:

The Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic
The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Azerbaidjan Soviet Socialist Republic
The Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic
The Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic
The Tadjik Soviet Socialist Republic
The Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic
The Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic
The Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic
The Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic.

ARTICLE 15. The sovereignty of the Union Republics is limited only within the provisions set forth in Article 14 of the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. Outside of these provisions, each Union Republic exercises state authority independently. The U.S.S.R. protects the sovereign rights of the Union Republics.

ARTICLE 16. Each Union Republic has its own Constitution, which takes account of the specific features of the Republic and is drawn up in full conformity with the Constitution of the U.S.S.R.

ARTICLE 17. To every Union Republic is reserved the right freely to secede from the U.S.S.R.

ARTICLE 18. The territory of a Union Republic may not be altered without its consent.

ARTICLE 19. The laws of the U.S.S.R. have the same force within the territory of every Union Republic.

ARTICLE 20. In the event of a discrepancy between a law of a Union Republic  and an all-Union law, the all-Union law prevails.

ARTICLE 21. A single Union citizenship is established for all citizens of the U.S.S.R.

Every citizen of a Union Republic is a citizen of the U.S.S.R.

 

ARTICLE 22. The Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic consists of the Altai, Krasnodar, Krasnoyarsk, Ordjonikidze, Maritime and Khabarovsk Territories; the Archangel, Vologda, Voronezh, Gorky, Ivanovo, Irkutsk, Kalinin, Kirov, Kuibyshev, Kursk, Leningrad, Molotov, Moscow, Murmansk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Orel, Penza, Rostov, Ryazan, Saratov, Sverdlovsk, Smolensk, Stalingrad, Tambov, Tula, Chelyabinsk, Chita, Chkalov and Yaroslavl Regions; The Tatar, Bashkir, Daghestan, Buryat-Mongolian, Kabardino-Balkarian, Kalmyk, Komi, Crimean, Mari, Mordovian, Volga German, North Ossetian, Udmurt, Checheno-Ingush, Chuvash and Yakut Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics; and the Adygei, Jewish, Karachai, Oirot, Khakass and Cherkess Autonomous Regions.

ARTICLE 23. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic consists of the Vinnitsa, Volynsk, Voroshilovgrad, Dnepropetrovsk, Drogobych, Zhitomir, Zaporozhe, Izmail, Kamenets-Podolsk, Kiev, Kirovograd, Lvov, Nikolaev, Odessa, Poltava, Rovno, Stalino, Stanislav, Sumy, Tarnopol, Kharkov, Chemigov and Chernovitsy Regions.

ARTICLE 24. The Azerbaidian Soviet Socialist Republic includes the, Nakhichevan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region.

ARTICLE 25. The Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic includes the Abkhazian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, the Adjar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and the South Ossetian Autonomous Region.

ARTICLE 26. The Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic consists of the Bukhara, Samarkand, Tashkent, Ferghana, and Khorezm Regions, and the Kara-Kalpak Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.

ARTICLE 27. The Tadjik Soviet Socialist Republic consists of the Garm, Kuliab, Leninabad and Stalinabad Regions, and the Gomo-Badakhshan Autonomous Region.

ARTICLE 28. The Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic consists of the Akmolinsk, Aktyubinsk, Alma-Ata, East Kazakhstan, Guryev, Djambul, West Kazakhstan, Karaganda, Kzyl-Orda, Kustanai, Pavlodar, North Kazakhstan. Semipalatinsk, and South Kazakhstan Regions.

ARTICLE 29. The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic consists of the Baranovichi, Byelostok, Brest, Vileika, Vitebsk, Gomel, Minsk, Moghilev, Pinsk and Polessye Regions.

ARTICLE 29a. The Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic consists of the Ashkhabad, Krasnovodsk, Mari, Tashauz and Chardzhou Regions.

ARTICLE 29b. The Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic consists of the Dzhalal-Abad, Issyk-Kul, Osh, Tian-Shan and Frunze Regions.

The question arises with all this of whether society ever actually “consented” to any of these constitutional arrangements that were imposed over Czarist and later Soviet society.  Note for example that Nagorno Karabakh was granted to Azerbaijan, in spite of 90% of its inhabitants being Armenians and despite the fact that the Soviet Union’s commission on nationalities itself had decided to put Nagorno Karabakh in Armenia–until it was overruled by Stalin when he was Commissioner of Nationalities.  Note also that areas like North Ossetia (now part of the disputes with the Republic of Georgia) and the Crimea were expressly then parts of Russia; Abkhazia and South Ossetia were expressly part of Georgia.

As with the 1922 Treaty and the 1924 Constitution, the right of secession of Republics was preserved as was the provision of Article 18 that “The territory of a Union Republic may not be altered without its consent.”  From the Russian perspective, the 1954 transfer of Crimea with its majority of Russian speakers to Ukraine by Ukrainian Soviet Premier and Communist Party Chief Nikita Krushchev was not really with Russian consent and was frankly shoved down Russia’s throat.

Chapter 8 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution which superseded Stalin’s 1936 Constitution is likewise relevant to this discussion:

Article 70. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is an integral, federal, multinational state formed on the principle of socialist federalism as a result of the free self-determination of nations and the voluntary association of equal Soviet Socialist Republics.

The USSR embodies the state unity of the Soviet people and draws all its nations and nationalities together for the purpose of jointly building communism.

Article 71. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics unites:

the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republicthe Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic,the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic,the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic,the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic,the Azerbeijan Soviet Socialist Republic,the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic,the Moldovian Soviet Socialist Republic,the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic,the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic,the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic,the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic,the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic,the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic.

 

Article 72. Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.

Article 73. The jurisdiction of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as represented by its highest bodies of state authority and administration, shall cover:

  1. the admission of new republics to the USSR; endorsement of the formation of new autonomous republics and autonomous regions within Union Republics;
  2. determination of the state boundaries of the USSR and approval of changes in the boundaries between Union Republics;
  3. establishment of the general principles for the organisation and functioning of republican and local bodies of state authority and administration;
  4. the ensurance of uniformity of legislative norms throughout the USSR and establishment of the fundamentals of the legislation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Union Republics;
  5. pursuance of a uniform social and economic policy; direction of the country’s economy; determination of the main lines of scientific and technological progress and the general measures for rational exploitation and conservation of natural resources; the drafting and approval of state plans for the economic and social development of the USSR, and endorsement of reports on their fulfilment;
  6. the drafting and approval of the consolidated Budget of the USSR, and endorsement of the report on its execution; management of a single monetary and credit system; determination of the taxes and revenues forming the Budget of the USSR; and the formulation of prices and wages policy;
  7. direction of the sectors of the economy, and of enterprises and amalgamations under Union jurisdiction, and general direction of industries under Union-Republican jurisdiction;
  8. issues of war and peace, defence of the sovereignty of the USSR and safeguarding of its frontiers and territory, and organisation of defence; direction of the Armed Forces of the USSR;
  9. state security;
  10. representation of the USSR in international relations; the USSR’s relations with other states and with international organisations; establishment of the general procedure for, and co-ordination of, the relations of Union Republics with other states and with international organisations; foreign trade and other forms of external economic activity on the basis of state monopoly;
  11. control over observance of the Constitution of the USSR, and ensurance of conformity of the Constitutions of Union Republics to the Constitution of the USSR;
  12. and settlement of other matters of All-Union importance.

Article 74. The laws of the USSR shall have the same force in all Union Republics. In the event of a discrepancy between a Union Republic law and an All-Union law, the law of the USSR shall prevail.

Article 75. The territory of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a single entity and comprises the territories of the Union Republics.

The sovereignty of the USSR extends throughout its territory.

With all that constitutional water under the bridge it’s not shocking that Russians, Ukrainians, and all sorts of other players see things differently than each other and from the United States and other nations throughout the world.  How many people in the United States government, whether the executive branch or the legislative branch, do you think actually understands this history?  If they don’t, do you trust them to make decisions about United States Foreign Policy in connection with these disputes?

Posted in Ideas & Opinions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Letter to Kamala Harris on Andy Lopez


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Letter to Kamala 3,14.2014_001 Letter to Kamala 3,14.2014_002Letter to Kamala 3,14.2014_002Letter to Kamala 3,14.2014_003

Posted in Ideas & Opinions, Private Investigation Industry | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The cast of “Secrets” soon to open at the Santa Monica Playhouse–a MUST SEE!

image

Cast of SECRETS.

Posted from WordPress for Android

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

At Santa Monica Playhouse

image

Posted from WordPress for Android

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

To Ukraine, Sevastopol is Fort Sumter


 

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

A family in Gorodishche, Ukraine, circa 1900

A family in Gorodishche, Ukraine, circa 1900

I have been studiously watching the goings on between Russia and Ukraine with interest.  My maternal grandmother was from Gorodishche, Ukraine (the same region as was the grandmother of my great friend and colleague, Igor Timofayev of Kiev, former KGB and first private investigator in the former Soviet Union).  My maternal grandfather was from Nizhni Novgorod in Russia proper (near Moscow).  On my father’s side, my grandmother was from St. Petersburg (later Leningrad and now back to being St. Petersburg) and my grandfather was from Tereshki, Belarus.

Although on its face what’s going on between Ukraine and Russia looks like “foreign” interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs, it’s not that simple.  On an emotional level, Sevastopol to the Ukraine is like America’s Fort Sumter, but there is a long history of Soviet era machinations that have left emotions in the old Soviet Union like the views of some descendants of former Confederates about the American Civil War.

Baron Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel in Sevastopol, 1920

Baron Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel in Sevastopol, 1920

During the Russian Civil War, the Crimea was the last holdout of the Czarist forces (who had been hell bent on killing every Jew they got their hands on and which had routinely executed Bolshevik prisoners of war–until Leon Trotsky put out the word that until the forces of General Wrangel stopped executing Bolshevik prisoners, all Czarist officers captured would have their epaulets nailed into their shoulders).  Pay back for General Wrangel’s troops was the massacre of 50,000 of those who finally surrendered by the Bolsheviks in the Crimea.

Crimean Tatars

Crimean Tatars

During World War II Sevastopol heroically held out from the Nazis from October 1941 until July 1942, critically delaying the Nazis behind their front lines.  To Russia to this day, historic battles like that are a source of enormous national pride.  Ethnic Tatars, some of whom had formed pro-Nazi “Tatar Legions,” were deported in 1944 after the Soviets reconquered the Crimea to Central Asia, along with sizable Greek, Armenian and Bulgarian populations.  Following this ethnic cleansing (which caused the death of nearly one in two of the deportees), Crimea was colonized primarily by Russian speakers, many of whom had in turn been displaced by World War II.

In spite of having a Russian speaking majority, in 1954 when Ukrainian Nikita Krushchev was Soviet leader the Soviet parliament voted to transfer Crimea to the Ukraine.

We will bury youIt’s important to note at this point that as languages, Ukrainian and Russian are both Slavic tongues.  During the period of Czarist and later Soviet rule over the Ukraine the official line from Moscow was that Ukrainian was a “dialect” of Russian, but the fact is, Ukrainian is to Russian as Polish is to Russian.  It’s such a separate language that it resulted in a critical mistranslation of a Krushchev speech in the United Nations which in turn accidentally exacerbated the Cold War:  http://janbtucker.com/blog/2008/10/30/november-25-2005-great-mis-translations/

With this background, consider the following decision of the Ukraine’s supreme court on the constitutionality of proposed Crimean secession–and whether to Russians or Russian Crimeans it will matter based upon that history:

 

Judgement of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on all-Crimean referendum

Yesterday, 22:15

On March 14, 2014 the Constitutional Court of Ukraine declared unconstitutional The Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea No. 1702-6/14 “On holding of the all-Crimean referendum” dated March 6, 2014.

Unofficial translation

IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE

J U D G M E N T OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAINE

In the case on the constitutional petition of the Acting President of Ukraine, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights concerning the compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic Crimea “On holding of the all-Crimean referendum”

(the case on the all-Crimean referendum in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea)

Kyiv Case No. 1-13/2014  March 14, 2014  No. 2-rp/2014

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine consisting of Judges:

Baulin Yurii Vasyliovych – the Chairman,

Bryntsev Vasyl Dmytrovych,

Vdovichenko Sergey Leonidovych,

Hultai Mykhailo Myroslavovych,

Zaporozhets Mykhailo Petrovych,

Lytvynov Oleksandr Mykolaiovych,

Melnyk mykola Ivanovych,

Sas Sergii Volodymyrovych,

Serheichuk Oleh Anatoliovych,

Slidenko Igor Dmytrovych,

Stetsiuk Petro Bogdanovych – Rapporteur,

Tupytskii Oleksandr Mykolaiovych – Rapporteur,

Shaptala Natalia Koctiantynivna,

Shevchuk Stanislav Volodymyrovych,

Shyshkin Victor Ivanovych,

considered in the plenary session the case on the constitutional petition of the Acting President of Ukraine, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights concerning the compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic Crimea No. 1702-6/14 “On holding of the all-Crimean referendum” dated March 6, 2014 (the newspaper “Krymskiye izvestiya”, March 7, 2014).

The consideration of the case in accordance with Articles 39, 40 and 41 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine” was caused by the constitutional petition of the Acting President of Ukraine, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights.

The ground for considering the case in accordance with Article 71 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine” is the assertion of the subjects of the right in the constitutional petition of unconstitutionality of the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic Crimea No. 1702-6/14 “On holding of the all-Crimean referendum” dated March 6, 2014.

Having heard the Judge-Rapporteurs Stetsiuk P.B., Tupytskii O.M. and having investigated the materials of the case the Constitutional Court of Ukraine

e s t a b l i s h e d:

1. Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea by the Resolution No. 1702-6/14 “On holding of the all-Crimean referendum” dated March 6, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Resolution”) decided:

- To accede to the Russian Federation as a subject of Russian Federation;

- To hold on March 16, 2014, of the all-Crimean Referendum (including the City of Sevastopol), to which to submit the following alternative questions:

“1) Do you support the reunification of the Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?

2) Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea of 1992 and the status of the Crimea as a part of Ukraine?”

- To approve the text of the ballot for the all-Crimean referendum on March 16, 2014, and to establish that the ballots to vote in the referendum printed in Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar;

- To adopt the Temporary regulation on a republican (local) referendum in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea;

- To establish the Commission of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea on holding of an all-Crimean referendum;

- To address the President and the Federal Council of the State Duma of the Russian Federation to initiate the procedure of accession to the Russian Federation as a subject of Russian Federation.

In the Regulation it is also provided that the option supported by the majority of votes shall be deemed a direct expression of will by the Crimean population, and instructed the Commission of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea on holding of an all-Crimean referendum to organize conducting of the referendum in accordance with the Temporary regulation on a republican (local) referendum in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to organize financial, technical and other support of holding of the all-Crimean referendum.

2. The subject of the right to constitutional petition – the Acting President of Ukraine, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine – under Article 112, paragraph 2 of Article 137 of the Constitution of Ukraine by the Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 261 “On suspending the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea No. 1702-6/14 ‘On holding of the all-Crimean referendum’ dated March 6, 2014,” dated March 7, 2014, has suspended the Resolution and at the same time submitted to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine the request to consider its conformity with the Constitution of Ukraine (its constitutionality). According to the author of the petition, the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea by adopting the Resolution violated the constitutional principles of state sovereignty of Ukraine, basics of the constitutional order, territorial organization and exercise of state power in Ukraine. As the subject of the right to constitutional petition alleges the Resolution does not match Articles 2, 5, 8, 13, 73, 75, paragraphs 2, 3 of Article 85, Article 91, Articles 13, part 20 of Article 92, Articles 132 – 138 of the Constitution Ukraine, parts 1, 3 of Article 1, paragraph 7 of Article 18, Article 26 of the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Articles 1, 9, 10 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.”

The subject of the right to constitutional petition – the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights – requested the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to recognize the Resolution as non-conforming with Article 73, paragraph 2 Article 85, Article 137, 138 of the Constitution of Ukraine and noted that the issue of altering the territory of Ukraine must be resolved exclusively by an all-Ukrainian referendum.

3. Under the Decision of the Second panel of Judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of March 11, 2014, constitutional proceedings in the cases on the constitutional petitions of the Acting President of Ukraine, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights concerning the compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of the Resolution were consolidated in one constitutional proceeding.

4. Resolving of the issues initiated in the constitutional petition the Constitutional Court of Ukraine proceeds from the following:

4.1. The Constitution of Ukraine proclaimed that sovereignty of Ukraine extends throughout its entire territory; integral part of sovereignty is integrity and inviolability of the territory of Ukraine within its present borders; protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine is the most important function of the state and a matter of concern for all the Ukrainian people (Article 2, part 1 of Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine).

The Constitution of Ukraine shall be regarded as superior law; laws and other regulatory legal acts shall be adopted on the basis of the Constitution of Ukraine and shall conform to it; norms of the Constitution of Ukraine shall be the norms of direct effect; public authorities and bodies of local self-government and their officials shall be obliged to act only on the grounds, within the powers, and in the way determined by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine (Article 8, Part 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine).

The territorial structure of Ukraine, the legal regime of the state border shall be determined exclusively by law of Ukraine (paragraphs 13, 18 of part 1 of Article 92 of the Constitution of Ukraine).

4.2. The people shall be the bearer of sovereignty and the sole source of power in Ukraine; the people shall exercise power directly or through the state authorities and local self-government bodies; the right to determine and change the constitutional order in Ukraine shall belong exclusively to the people and shall not be usurped by the state, its bodies, or officials; no one shall usurp the state power (Article 5 of the Fundamental Law of Ukraine).

The expression of the will by the people shall be exercised through elections, referendum and other forms of direct democracy; citizens shall have the right to participate in the administration of state affairs, in all-Ukrainian and local referendums, to freely elect and to be elected to the bodies of state power and local self-government (part 1 of Article 38, Article 69 of the Constitution of Ukraine).

The right of citizens to participate in a referendum is their inalienable constitutional right. Questions submitted on the all-Ukrainian referendum must be national-level issues, i.e. the resolution of which affects the fate of all Ukrainian people – citizens of Ukraine of all nationalities. Questions submitted on the local referendum may be only issues within the jurisdiction of the local authorities of relevant administrative and territorial unit.

4.3. Under Article 132 of the Constitution of Ukraine the territorial structure of Ukraine shall be based on the principles of unity and integrity of the state territory, the combination of centralization and decentralization in the exercise of the state power, and the balanced socio-economic development of regions taking into consideration their historical, economic, ecological, geographic, and demographic characteristics as well as ethnic and cultural traditions. Such constitutional principles of territorial structure are determined by the form of state structure of Ukraine as a unitary state.

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine in its Judgment No. 11-rp/2001 of July 13, 2001, (the case of administrative and territorial structure) established that administrative and territorial unit is a compact part of the united territory of Ukraine, which is the spatial basis for organization and activity of public authorities and local governments.

The system of the administrative and territorial structure of Ukraine shall include: the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, oblasts, rayons, cities, city districts, settlements and villages (Article 133 of the Constitution of Ukraine). According to Article 133 of the Fundamental Law of Ukraine the Autonomous Republic of Ukraine Crimea and the City of Sevastopol are parts of Ukraine as separate subjects of administrative and territorial structure of Ukraine. The City of Sevastopol is not a part of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, has a special status determined by the law of Ukraine.

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine stressed that the principles of integrity and territorial inviolability of Ukraine within its present borders, extending of sovereignty of Ukraine throughout its entire territory are established by the Constitution of Ukraine. Reduction of the existing borders of Ukraine, withdrawal of any subject of the administrative and territorial structure of Ukraine from its body, changing of the constitutional status of administrative units, in particular of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol as an integral part of Ukraine, within holding of a local referendum contradicts the above-mentioned constitutional principles.

4.4. Any changes to the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the all-Ukrainian referendum (Article 73 of the Constitution of Ukraine). Authority to call the all-Ukrainian referendum on issues indicated in said Article of the Constitution of Ukraine belongs to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (paragraph 2 of part 1 of Article 85 of the Fundamental Law of Ukraine). Organization and procedure for conducting elections and referendums shall be determined exclusively by the laws of Ukraine (paragraph 20 of part 1 of Article 92 of the Constitution of Ukraine).

The Autonomous Republic of Crimea shall be an integral constituent part of Ukraine and shall resolve issues relegated to its authority within the frame determined by the Constitution of Ukraine (Article 134 of the Constitution of Ukraine). The list of matters that are under the authority of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and areas in which it effects normative regulation is determined in Articles 137, 138 of the Constitution of Ukraine.

The constitutional status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea complies with European Charter of Local Self-Government ratified by the law of Ukraine No. 452/97-VR dated July 15, 1997, according to which the basic powers and responsibilities of local authorities shall be prescribed by the constitution or by statute; local authorities shall, within the limits of the law, have full discretion to exercise their initiative with regard to any matter which is not excluded from their competence nor assigned to any other authority (paragraphs 1, 2 of Article 4).

4.5. According to the Constitution of Ukraine it is under the authority of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to organize and hold of local referendums (paragraph 2 of Article 138) in the manner determined by the law of Ukraine (paragraph 20 of par one of Article 92). Regulatory legal acts of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and decisions of the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea shall not contradict the Constitution and laws of Ukraine and shall be adopted in accordance with and in pursuance of the Constitution of Ukraine, laws of Ukraine, acts of the President of Ukraine and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (part 2 of Article 135 of the Fundamental Law of Ukraine).

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine considers that the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea by adopting the Resolution, which provides pore accession to the Russian Federation as its subject, addressing to the President and Federal Council of the State Duma of the Russian Federation to initiate the procedure of accession to the Russian Federation as a subject of Russian Federation, putting to the referendum mentioned questions, violated constitutional principle of territorial integrity of Ukraine and exceeded its authorities, and thus the Resolution does not comply with Articles 1, 2, 5, 8, paragraph 2 of Article 19, Article 73, paragraph 3 of Article 85, paragraphs 13, 18, paragraph 20 of Article 92, Articles 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138 of the Constitution of Ukraine.

The Resolution contradicts also the fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of a state, constituted in international law instruments, in particular the principle of mutual respect for the sovereign equality of each state including political independence, the ability to change the borders under international law by peaceful means and by agreement. As a result of these principles States Parties shall refrain from violation of territorial integrity or political independence of any state by use of force or threat of force or other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, as well as actions directed against the territorial integrity or unity of any State Party (The United Nations Charter, the Final Act of Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe of 1975, the Framework Convention the Protection of National Minorities of 1995).

5. By the Resolution, the Commission of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea on holding of an all-Crimean referendum is established. Under the Temporary regulation on a republican (local) referendum in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea it is provided for establishing of territorial and district commission on preparing and holding of the referendum.

According to the Resolution, the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea shall organize financial, technical and other support of holding of the all-Crimean referendum. Due to the fact that the Resolution contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine and according to Article 81 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine” activity of all organs created to hold of this referendum as well as financing activities to hold of the referendum should be terminated, and ballots and campaign materials should be destroyed.

Thus, based on the materials of the case the Constitutional Court Ukraine came to the conclusion that the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea by adopting the Resolution No. 1702-6/14 “On holding of the all-Crimean referendum” dated March 6, 2014, violated the Constitution of Ukraine.

Given the above and pursuant to Articles 147, 150, 153 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Articles 51, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 70, 73, 78, 79, 81 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine” the Constitutional Court of Ukraine

d e c i d e d:

1. To recognize as non-conforming with the Constitution (unconstitutional) the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea No. 1702-6/14 “On holding of the all-Crimean referendum” dated March 6, 2014.

2. The Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea No. 1702-6/14 “On holding of the all-Crimean referendum” dated March 6, 2014, declared unconstitutional shall be voided on the day of rendering by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of this Decision.

3. To terminate the work of the Commission of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea on holding of an all-Crimean referendum, and territorial and district commissions established to hold the referendum.

4. The Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea must terminate funding of activities connected with holding the referendum; ensure the destruction of ballots and campaign materials.

5. The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine shall be compulsory in the territory of Ukraine, final and may not be appealed.

The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine shall be subject to promulgation in “Visnyk of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine” and other official publications of Ukraine.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAINE

Based solely on the technical constitutional and legal argument, the Ukrainian Constitutional Court’s decision is wise; but perhaps the greatest wisdom to come out of that part of the world is the Pete Seeger song “Where have all the flowers gone,” which was inspired by the Cossack folk song, “Tovchu, tovchu mak” and adapted to the Russian folk tune “Koloda Duda.”  As sung by Peter, Paul & Mary:

Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing?
Where have all the flowers gone, long time ago?
Where have all the flowers gone?
Young girls have picked them everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?

Where have all the young girls gone, long time passing?
Where have all the young girls gone, long time ago?
Where have all the young girls gone?
Gone for husbands everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?

Where have all the husbands gone, long time passing?
Where have all the husbands gone, long time ago?
Where have all the husbands gone?
Gone for soldiers everyone
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?

Where have all the soldiers gone, long time passing?
Where have all the soldiers gone, long time ago?
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards, everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?

Where have all the graveyards gone, long time passing?
Where have all the graveyards gone, long time ago?
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Gone to flowers, everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?

Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing?
Where have all the flowers gone, long time ago?
Where have all the flowers gone?
Young girls have picked them everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?

Now, for some more very important wisdom on the subject from my friend Lionel Menuhin Rolfe:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lionel-rolfe/raining-on-the-ukrainian-_b_4942242.html?utm_hp_ref=christianity

Posted in Anecdotes & Adventures, Ideas & Opinions, Private Investigation Industry | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment