I am fully certain that in Socialist countries like the Soviet Union, there is a constitutional basis regarding the implementation of the Work-Standard. For example, the 1936 Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) had an Article which can be interpreted as an Constitutional Intent for pegging the Soviet Ruble to the Work-Standard. This means it is perfectly constitutional for Josef Stalin and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) to peg the Soviet Ruble to the Work-Standard. I am referring to “Article 12” from “Chapter 1: The Organization of Society” from that Soviet Constitution:
“ARTICLE 12. In the the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”
The principle applied in the the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is that of Socialism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.”
How would somebody in the Soviet Union from 5 December 1936 to 7 October 1977 interpret Article 12 if they were proposing the Soviet Ruble to be pegged to the Work-Standard?
“ARTICLE 12. In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [Arbeit] is a [Legal Duty] and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with [this Constitutional Obligation]: [“He who does not contribute any Arbeit to the Life-Energy Reserve shall not be entitled to receive any Geld whatsoever.”]
[This Constitutional Obligation] applied in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [adheres to the following Constitutional Intent]: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his [Arbeit].”
When the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev decided to phase out the 1936 Soviet Constitution in favor of a newer Constitution in 1977, the Article 12 reappeared as “Article 14” from “Chapter 2: The Economic System.” It reads as follows:
“ARTICLE 14. The source of the growth of social wealth and of the well-being of the people, and of each individual, is the labor, free from exploitation, of Soviet people.
The state exercises control over the measure of labor and of consumption in accordance with the principle of Socialism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work”. It fixes the rate of taxation on taxable income.
Socially useful work and its results determine a person’s status in society. By combining material and moral incentives and encouraging innovation and a creative attitude to work, the state helps transform labor into the prime vital need of every Soviet citizen.”
How would anyone in the Soviet Union between 7 October 1977 and 26 December 1991 interpret Article 14 if they were advocating for the Soviet Ruble to be pegged to the Work-Standard?
“ARTICLE 14. The [Value] of the [Soviet Ruble] and of the well-being of the people, and of each individual [in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics], is the [Quality of Arbeit], free from exploitation, of [the] Soviet [Totality].
The [Soviet State] exercises [National Sovereignty] over the [Soviet Life-Energy Reserve and the Total Productive Potential] in accordance with [this Constitutional Intent]: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his [Arbeit].” It [is also permitted to also change] the rate of taxation on taxable income.
[Quality of Arbeit] and [Social Rank] determine a person’s status in [the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]. By [providing Explicit and Implicit Intents under the Intents of Command and Obedience], the [Soviet State shall] transform [the Soviet Ruble] into the [basis of a Socialist Monetary Policy].”
If I had to choose between the 1936 Soviet Constitution’s Article 12 and the 1977 Soviet Constitution’s Article 14, it will have to be the Article 12 from the 1936 Constitution. That one is more straightforward and easier to follow because it only has a Constitutional Intent and a Constitutional Obligation. And I am saying this as an American relying on the very same Constitutional arguments posited by Alexander Hamilton from The Federalist Papers.
I can also argue, from the standpoint of Federalist Paper No. 84, that the entire 1977 Soviet Constitution resembles more like the Bill of Rights than the US Constitution itself. The 1977 Constitution states only the most obvious of Legal Rights and Legal Duties, which is really redundant if one thinks critically enough about “Chapter 2, Article 14.”
Seven American Questions on the Constitutionality of the Work-Standard
- Are there any Constitutional Intents regarding the Work-Standard in the US Constitution?
- Are there any Constitutional Obligations regarding the Work-Standard in the US Constitution?
- Why is the Federal government the overriding authority on pegging the US Dollar to the Work-Standard instead of the State governments?
- Which of the two Branches in the Federal government is the overriding authority if the US Dollar gets pegged to the Work-Standard, the US Congress or the President of the United States?
- Has the US Supreme Court issued any Rulings that can be favorable to the Work-Standard?
- Does American history provide any Constitutional precedents relevant to the Work-Standard?
- And why should any American political party, adhering to Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism, obey the Implicit Intent given by Alexander Hamilton himself in Federalist Paper No. 85?
Unknown to most American Nationalists and American Socialists, any implementation of the Work-Standard is perfectly legal within the framework of the US Constitution and Federal Law by extension. However, understand that none of the States in the Union have the power to issue their own Currency or maintain their own Life-Energy Reserves; that power has always belonged to the Federal government since the Ratification of the US Constitution. In fact, it is also part of the same Implicit Intent as to why the national capital of the United States is Washington DC and not Philadelphia and why the Federal government has full command and control over the US National Debt.
The US Constitution has provided the necessary Constitutional Intents and Obligations under Article I Section 8, all of which is related to the powers of the US Congress. The most relevant passage of all is the “Necessary and Proper Clause”:
“[Congress has the power] [t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
This is the same Necessary and Proper Clause which Hamilton was relying on to establish the “First National Bank of the United States.” It is also the same Necessary and Proper Clause that the Federalists on the US Supreme Court were relying on to make their unanimous decision while ruling in favor of McCulloch v. Maryland case from 1819.
“In an opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Supreme Court held that first, Congress had the authority to create the Bank of the United States. Second, the Bank of the United States had the right to establish branches within the States, and the States did not have the power to tax or otherwise interfere with any constitutional means by which the Federal government exercised its authority. Although the Constitution did not specifically enumerate the authority of Congress to establish a Federal bank, Congress nonetheless had the implied power to do so. Because the government had the powers of the sword and the purse, it must have ample means to execute those powers. The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution (Article I, § 8) enabled Congress to pass all laws to effectively pursue its specified ends: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution….” Thus, Congress had wide discretion to make policy decisions so long as those decisions were plainly adapted to a constitutionally authorized end, and the Court would defer to Congress in these cases.”
Under Justice John Marshall, the Supreme Court was the last Branch of the Federal government that the Jeffersonians took over. Previously, the Jeffersonians took over the Presidency when Thomas Jefferson became the President of United States. And prior to that, Jefferson himself was the Vice President under John Adams, which cannot be possible without the Democratic-Republican Party exerting greater control over the US Congress than the Federalist Party.
Therefore, under the US Constitution, the power to decide whether the US Dollar gets pegged to the Work-Standard or not will always belong to the US Congress. The President of the United States can veto it, but a two-thirds majority from both the House of Representatives and the Senate will override that veto. And if the Supreme Court decides to claim that pegging the US Dollar to the Work-Standard is unconstitutional, the Congress is still the overriding authority because it can always add a new Amendment to the US Constitution on behalf of the American Totality, the Union of these United States
An argument can be made that the constitutional precedent on the constitutionality of the Work-Standard was already set by Hamilton and the Federalists early on in the American Union’s existence. In fact, we cannot read Federalist Paper No. 85 without realizing that Hamilton had to have anticipated the possibility of something like the Work-Standard more than two centuries prior to this Blog post and anyone who happens to be reading it. In essence, only with the support of the American Totality can Congress be compelled to peg the US Dollar to the Work-Standard.
Even so, I am also confident that there are other constitutional precedents and Supreme Court rulings in American history. It can become an effort all on its own and may be beyond the focus of this Blog post and the SMP Compendium in particular.