Military Review

"The right of the Russian people to identity." The co-author of the Constitution told what revisions to the text were ripe for her 20 anniversary.

22
"The right of the Russian people to identity." The co-author of the Constitution told what revisions to the text were ripe for her 20 anniversary.

“I consider it justified to correct the mistake that we made in the beginning of the 90-s, when the phrase“ the Russian people ”was not included in the Constitution at all,” Oleg Rumyantsev, co-author of the Constitution, told the VIEW newspaper. In his opinion, one should recognize the right of the Russian people to national identity, that is, to identity throughout the Russian Federation.


On the eve of the 20 anniversary of the Constitution, President of the Foundation for Constitutional Reforms, co-author of the Constitution, Oleg Rumyantsev, presented a report of experts proposing to supplement the Basic Law with three new chapters. Among the experts there were many who actively participated in the creation of the Basic Law 20 years ago, including the former deputies of the RSFSR.

“In this report, we propose to supplement the Constitution with three initiative heads: Parliamentary Control, Civil Society, and Electoral System and Referendum,” said Rumyantsev, speaking at the Interfax central office.

“In order to prepare society for the third package of amendments, it is necessary that the state power should get used to it and the society should recognize it. Therefore, we would like this topic to be discussed in the society and professional environment over the next few years, ”Rumyantsev said.

Recall that Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking at the beginning of December to law students, made a change to the country's Constitution, but also stressed that the rights and freedoms of citizens should remain unshakable. As ITAR-TASS reported, the editing should, according to Putin, be very “cautious”.

About why the General Law can already be edited and how it can be, for example, for the first time it can consolidate the status of the Russian people, in an interview to the VIEW newspaper, the President of the Foundation for Constitutional Reforms told, in 1990 – 1993 years - responsible secretary of the Russian Constitutional Commission Oleg Rumyantsev .

VIEW: Oleg Germanovich, when you were preparing the Constitution, did you sometimes have doubts? Did you have the idea that the Basic Law should be adequate to the society in order for it to work in practice? Shouldn't there be a constitution in 1993 that would fit? Corresponded to the real level of legal literacy, respect for the law among ordinary Russians? For example, you keep saying about parliamentarism, but according to opinion polls it is clear that in our country people perceive only the president and the government as “real” power. Recently, another poll showed that 40% of Russians do not understand why a parliament is needed. And this is despite all the longstanding efforts of the authorities to develop legal literacy, overcome legal nihilism ...

Oleg Rumyantsev: When your colleagues on the pen and on the gadget constantly say what a bad parliament, that he is a copy machine, makes unsuccessful laws when there is a massive attack on representative power, this leads to the fact that people start to think about whether it is necessary at all parliament.

I'll give you an example: when in America there was a crisis with the adoption of the budget, according to surveys, the level of confidence in the US Congress fell to 23%. 58% of respondents believed that, in general, the state system was effective, but Congress failed. This does not mean that the United States abandoned the separation of powers. A specific conjuncture of the moment played a role. Therefore, when the number of people who believe that we need the State Duma has fallen to 39%, this is the result of a fairly opportunistic action, including the media.

I think the literacy of our population should not be underestimated, but it still needs to be brought up. It is important to cultivate knowledge of the Constitution, an understanding of the fundamentals of the constitutional system ... Educating citizens' constitutional sense of justice is one of the responsibilities of the state, one of the goals of civil society. And this should be the cooperation of civil society and the state.

VIEW: How did you take the call of State Duma Deputy Elena Mizulina to fix the defining role of Orthodoxy in the Constitution? She emphasized that it is a reference to the “significance of Orthodoxy in the development of stories Of Russia ”, and not about the“ dream religion ”or its“ decisive role ”. “This is not my point of view, it is an initiative of citizens, under which today there are already more than 300 thousand signatures,” said Mizulina ...

O. R.: I, as a Russian and Orthodox person, believe that the Russian Orthodox Church should not de jure, but de facto restore its prestige, its role, its high authority in society. Along with the law, religion is one of the social regulators of society, and the ROC is one of those who hold together a common state identity, especially for the Russian people. The Russian people is undoubtedly the main basis of the multinational people of the Russian Federation. But it is not necessary, in my opinion, to write this role in the Constitution. This is not entirely constitutional matter, it should be carried out by appropriate examples of the social role of Orthodoxy in the life of our society.

Another thing is that I consider it justified to correct the mistake that we made in the beginning of the 90s, when the phrase “Russian people” was not included in the Constitution at all. This could be corrected with one elegant formula: what is recognized and guaranteed by the right of the Russian people to a common state identity. Thus, we say that the multinational Russian people adopt the Constitution, while recognizing and guaranteeing the right of the Russian people to a nation-wide identity.

What does such a rule mean? The fact that the Russian Federation does not need to have, for example, the Russian Republic, as we have Tatarstan. By the way, in the preamble of the Tatarstan Constitution it says: “The multinational people of Tatarstan and the Tatar people”.

We need it not in the preamble, but directly in the section "Civil Society", because it would recognize the natural right of the Russian people, that it exercises its statehood throughout the Russian Federation.

VIEW: What about the famous first words of the Constitution? "We are a multinational people ..."

O. R.: I emphasize that this proposal does not affect in any way, and certainly does not in any way cancel the formula from the preamble of the Constitution that “we are a multinational people”.

The problem of finding identity is. It is worth recognizing. Behind this is not nationalism. Behind this is a completely normal search by the Russian people for their identity. It seems to me that the recognition of this common state identity could satisfy both, say, Western liberals and conservatives, that a successful formula has been found - a tribute is paid to the enormous value of the Russian people and other ethnic groups are not violated.

VIEW: For such an important amendment will not have to convene a constitutional assembly?

O. R.: It does not affect the "carriers" of the chapters of the Constitution - 1, 2 or 9. And if so, then the convocation and the Constitutional Assembly is not required.

VIEW: On the eve of the anniversary, the plenipotentiary of the Federation Council at the Constitutional Court, Alexey Alexandrov, indicated the “mistake in the Constitution”. He stated that enshrined in Art. 13 "prohibition of state ideology" is a prohibition of "the promotion of law by the state, as well as the promotion of humanistic, universal values ​​through the structures of state bodies, educational and educational institutions." “It is necessary to revive the Russian idea, formulate the foundation of unity - the national doctrine,” the senator urged. State Duma deputy, United Russia Yevgeny Fedorov recently also called for the removal of this ban from the Constitution. Do you agree? Is it appropriate to raise the question in this way, if, as conservatives and liberals recognize, a national idea in Russia has not yet been felt?

O. R.: One can argue with that, since the national idea is the construction in Russia of a democratic legal federative social state. This national idea is rational ...

VIEW: But this is your point of view. Many, even parliamentary parties, do not support it.

O. R.: I do not think that other parties do not support. The task of building a constitutional order is in many ways our national idea. It is about the Constitution. This idea is unifying and, of course, constructive and constructive. Otherwise, there may simply be a set of national ideas depending on the region, on religious preferences, on whether you are a Westerner or a Slavophil.

VIEW: So you think it's time to remove this ban from the 13 article?

O. R.: No, why? We have one of the foundations of the constitutional order is ideological diversity. And this is the strength of the Constitution. Such proposals increase the "roughness coefficient" in society, which we would not like. We are strong in our ideological diversity. But at the same time, the Constitution aims us at the unity of the country, at unity in diversity.

VIEW: In its report on the eve of the anniversary, your club proposed three ways of amending the Constitution: modernization without changing the text itself, that is, by concluding and interpreting certain issues by the Constitutional Court. Secondly, the development of the Constitution through the adoption of new federal constitutional laws. And the third way is the convocation of the Constitutional Assembly to revise the Constitution. And which of the options from a political point of view, the most real?

O. R.: The majority of members of the constitutional club, the authors of this report, consider the combination of the first two to be reasonable. On the one hand, as a priority, we are proposing the introduction of new three chapters to the Constitution. On the other hand, of course, we need interpretations of the COP on the issues that require it.

In our society, there is a split on the conservatives and liberals. Liberals want modernization. Conservatives want to use security tools in the interests of national identification. Our club tried to reconcile these two opposing sides.

We have come to understand that three things are very important. The first is to connect civil society to the management of public affairs. Alternatively, we remember what happened in the 80s in the USSR. Civil society has become an alternative, the second - and as a result it made a revolution. Therefore, it is very important that there be partnerships between civil society and the state, a relationship of solidarity, if you like.

The second topic is parliamentary control. Of course, I would like to give the Parliament the opportunity to resolve questions about the resignation of individual officials. Of course, there are not enough parliamentary commissions of inquiry at the constitutional level. Many cases of violations of human rights and freedoms, embezzlement, corruption, of course, should receive a response not only from the Investigative Committee, but also from parliamentary commissions of inquiry.

But no less important is the third component - the relationship of popular representation with the people themselves, with voters. And for this it seems important to modernize the electoral system. That is why we have proposed these three chapters. This is not the desire to "file the leg of the chair," it is a proposal that could unite these different two camps at different poles.

VIEW: So this is a step towards the creation of a parliamentary republic!

O. R.: Russia needs a strong head of state. The transition to a parliamentary republic is not for Russia. It should be understood that our power is not in two dimensions (parliament and president). We have the power "in the 3D-dimension" - we also have federalism. In such a complex federal state there must be a strong head.

Largely due to the fact that the presidential institution has such great powers, in 2003, Vladimir Putin managed to bring the statutes and constitutions of the subjects of the Federation in line with the federal Constitution. This is a very important decision, which could not be with a weak federal government. Putin completed the process that we began by signing a federal treaty in 1992, with the active participation of the Constitutional Commission. We need a strong power, but it must be balanced by a strong plenipotentiary parliament.

VIEW: The Constitutional Court decided, as recently as Saturday, whether to preserve as it was the provision of the Basic Law of the country on the priority of Russia's international obligations, in particular the decisions of the Strasbourg court, over domestic legislation. As a result, the court made a difficult half-hearted decision. As interpreted by lawyers, the Constitutional Court, in fact, reserved the right to revise the decisions of the ECHR. But the words about the priority of international treaties are recorded in chapter 1 of the Constitution, which can be changed only through the convocation of the Constitutional Assembly. Isn't it time, in your opinion, to allow the Russian authorities to ignore the verdicts of Strasbourg?

O. R.: I think that here the issue can be resolved not so much in the interpretation of Valery Zorkin, as in the systemic interpretation that the Constitutional Court could give.

We must have a reasonable balance. The preamble itself says both about the revival of our sovereign statehood and about the fact that we are part of the international community. Probably, it would not be necessary to break this balance. This would give one of the parties a public dispute, which is now clearly aggravated, a clear advantage. And the advantage is not needed here. That was the task of the Constitution, so that it would provide a basis for agreement between always opposing megaparties.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/
22 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. mirag2
    mirag2 13 December 2013 07: 24
    +2
    Maybe he suggested well, but it is unlikely to pass.
    They will discuss in some council, or some public figures, where the fifth column lies as a red thread - it will sharpen and howl about the infringement of the rights of small nations or something ...
    1. vladimirZ
      vladimirZ 13 December 2013 09: 49
      +6
      The 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation (Yeltsin) needs to be changed.
      Everyone understands this, except for those who hold power. She arranges them with the impossibility of control of society over the anti-state actions of senior officials of Russia.
      The principle laid down in the Constitution of Russia for the President, "I can do whatever I want," does not suit the people, the parliamentary opposition.
      In the last discussion at "Duel", by Solovyov, the liberals themselves and the authors of the current Constitution of the Russian Federation admit that:
      - it was compiled and adopted under the authoritarian rule of Yeltsin,
      - after tank shooting of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation,
      - insufficient discussion,
      - and with fraudulent illegal voting - at the same time voting for the Constitution according to the rules and mechanisms that were just laid down by the future Constitution.
      Participants in the discussion at Soloviev recognize that The constitution was adopted interim, as the "Constitution of the temporary transition", and now they themselves are claiming "do not touch the 1993 Constitution - it is the guarantee of our stability." Where is the logic of those in power and liberals?
      There is no logic. There is a great desire, as long as possible, is in power of the essentially anti-people liberal power of the oligarchs.
      1. Yarosvet
        Yarosvet 13 December 2013 13: 18
        0
        Quote: vladimirZ
        The 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation (Yeltsin) needs to be changed

        Rather, change without touching the first two chapters.
    2. avt
      avt 13 December 2013 10: 39
      +7
      Quote: mirag2
      Maybe he suggested well-

      Now many will lean on the topic "Russian people", parasites always feel when they need to fall off the old and stick to the new, promising one. Wait, they will also sing about collegiality, Mizulina has already made a run about Orthodoxy in the preamble of the constitution. recognize them. It is necessary to look at the "combat" path of the characters. Here is the same Mizulina - an ex-Yabloko fighter forever in the Duma, in general, to betray, it means to foresee in time.
      1. Pinochet000
        Pinochet000 13 December 2013 14: 33
        +1
        Quote: avt
        Now many will lean on the topic "Russian people", parasites always feel when they need to fall off the old and stick to the new, promising
        Only in order to "stick" it is necessary to change the worldview, to Russian .... intellect and logic will not help here. Opinion.
        According to the identity of the Russian people, in my opinion, the words in the hymn "Great Russia united forever" would have been enough.
  2. Same lech
    Same lech 13 December 2013 07: 31
    +9
    International laws imposed on us by WEST should not prevail over our traditions and values.

    If this happens, then we are waiting for a tragedy of a national scale - juvenile, pederasty, multi-culture, hefeminist evil spirits and other base charms will dictate to us their conditions for us to live.
    Our liberal government led by DIMON diligently push our people into the pit.
    You can’t calmly look at it.
    I will always be against the destructive reforms imposed on our people.
    1. Yarosvet
      Yarosvet 13 December 2013 13: 29
      0
      Quote: The same Lech
      International laws imposed on us by WEST should not prevail over our traditions and values.

      Nobody can force us to impose any laws; moreover, the USSR created the basis of the world legal system.
      No agreements of the Russian Federation that contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation can be applied on the territory of the Russian Federation.
      1. not good
        not good 13 December 2013 16: 00
        +1
        Can't or shouldn't ??? The current constitution has been imposed on us !!! And if you dig into existing treaties more than one contradiction of the constitution will surely creep out. Today, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation will check if it receives permission from the top t. to. the independence of our courts is very conditional.
        1. Yarosvet
          Yarosvet 13 December 2013 21: 09
          -1
          Quote: Negoro
          The current constitution is imposed on us !!!
          By whom? How?

          And if you delve into existing treaties, more than one contradiction of the constitution will surely creep out.
          There is a president and a constitutional court for this - if they do not fulfill their duties this is not a constitutional problem.

          Today, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation will check the compliance of adopted laws and concluded agreements with the Constitution if it receives permission from the top. the independence of our courts is very conditional.
          Questions to the president.
  3. makarov
    makarov 13 December 2013 07: 32
    +8
    "did not include in the Constitution the phrase "Russian people". This could be corrected with one elegant formula: that the right is recognized and guaranteed Russian people on a common state identity. Thus, we say that multinational Russian people adopts the Constitution .. "

    And not a word about the wording of what it is and who can be called the Russian people. After all, the words "Russian" and "Russian" carry slightly different meanings.
  4. Valery Neonov
    Valery Neonov 13 December 2013 07: 36
    +8
    It took the co-author 20 years to admit a mistake that concerns WHOLE PEOPLE... And there was a mistake ... recourse
  5. Normal
    Normal 13 December 2013 07: 37
    +9
    They made a mistake .... am
    the right of the Russian people to national identity should be recognized,

    Oh thank you, bari-in. I don’t know how to thank you for your great mercy! I’ll write you down in remembrance! And I will punish the children for the punishment of your soul, light-th-th-th-th-th!
    The master’s cab was already hiding behind the hillock, and the man was still standing on the road and wailing something quietly. Big, as if children's tears rolled down the stern peasant face and fell into roadside dust ...
  6. saag
    saag 13 December 2013 07: 56
    +7
    First you need to return the nationality to the column in the passports so that there is a reason when they ask who the Russian people are
  7. major071
    major071 13 December 2013 08: 02
    +9
    A constitution written with Western money, with the help of Western "friends" and prescribing Western laws - is this a constitution for Russia? For 20 years we have been living by this law, for 21 years they finally figured out that not everything is correct in the constitution, and even then in small things. We decided to PROPOSE to make a small change - to introduce the concept of the Russian people. Everything else is unchanged, and most importantly, not to touch the rights and freedoms of the peoples of Russia. "Iniquity" and "pseudo-freedom" according to the Western model are the basis of the Russian constitution.
    1. Yuri Y.
      Yuri Y. 13 December 2013 09: 03
      +3
      Quote: major071
      Everything else is unchanged,

      Yes, more like excuse. Although why it is like.
  8. Humpty
    Humpty 13 December 2013 08: 17
    +1
    The Russian people and civil society in my opinion are mutually exclusive concepts.
    I’ll try to give a definition in Russian, because it is a society to call my tongue wedges.
    Civil society is a collection of people who are constantly involved in criminal activities, between which friendship, support, and trust are excluded.
    Gr. society is an enemy of traditional human values.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. Stiletto
    Stiletto 13 December 2013 09: 21
    +4
    Yeah They registered everything in the law, they missed one small detail: they forgot about the Russian people. It is clear about whom, and, most importantly, WHAT the developers thought.
    1. askort154
      askort154 13 December 2013 10: 41
      +3
      Stiletto ... Hmm. They registered everything in the law, missed one small detail: they forgot about the Russian people. It is clear about whom, and, most importantly, WHAT the developers thought.

      Developers: Sobchak, Shakhrai, Rumyantsev, maybe one of none is Russian.
      The Constitution is far from unanimously adopted: For - 58,43%, against - 41,57%.
  11. Warrawar
    Warrawar 13 December 2013 11: 36
    +4
    It is necessary to include the concept of "Russian people" in the constitution, otherwise it turns out an absurd situation - about 200 nationalities live in Russia, almost each of which is enshrined in legislation and the majority has its own republics and autonomies, within the Russian Federation, but the Russian constituents of 80% of the population, not as are not mentioned in the constitution and do not have their own land.
  12. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 13 December 2013 11: 36
    +2
    Quote: The Constitution of Tatarstan says "The multinational people of Tatarstan and the Tatar people."

    And in the Constitution of Russia you need to write: "The multinational people of Russia and the Russian people." And this will be fair and emphasize the importance of Russian people in the formation and development of our state.
    1. vlad0
      vlad0 13 December 2013 12: 36
      +3
      By the way, the Tatars fought to the last to leave the column "nationality" in the passport. They even tried to enter their green passports, and then, when it did not work, they introduced an insert in the all-Russian passport in the Tatar language.
      Where are the Leberast’s calls for tolerance and equality?
  13. Hort
    Hort 13 December 2013 11: 42
    +1
    I consider it justifiable to correct the mistake that we made in the early 90s, when the phrase “Russian people” was not included in the Constitution at all, Oleg Rumyantsev, co-author of the Constitution, told the newspaper VZGLYAD. In his opinion, the right of the Russian people to national identity, that is, to identity within the entire Russian Federation, should be recognized.
    hha, it’s necessary how they started talking! And more recently, during the presidential election campaign, I asked a question to Medinsky, who was part of Putin’s election team (who is now the Minister of Culture, on the state status of the Russian people, to at least reflectively reflect this in the preamble to the Constitution. So he’s nothing he didn’t intelligently answer: like why, what will it give, only to the separatists in the same Tatarstan we will give food for the riot, etc. and in general we need administrative-territorial division instead of national formations. Well, about the administrative division it is possible to agree with him, but with the status of the Russian people - at that time Medinsky voiced the position of the authorities (in fact), although Putin did curtsies towards the nationalists, the topic did not go beyond conversations.
    Well, now, apparently, they decided to remember or didn’t believe that it was necessary to do this, until the people themselves began to "determine" their status ... uh-uh ... by unconstitutional methods
    1. Yarosvet
      Yarosvet 13 December 2013 13: 37
      +1
      Quote: hort
      Well, now, apparently, they decided to remember or doperi the same, that we need to do this

      Nifiga - they are on the drum.

      It seems that under the loud slogans about the Russian people and sovereignty they want to stick something that will be very bad for the people and for sovereignty.
      1. Hort
        Hort 13 December 2013 14: 10
        0
        probably also
  14. Hort
    Hort 13 December 2013 12: 07
    +1
    The problem of finding identity is. It is worth recognizing. Nationalism is not behind it. Behind this is the perfectly normal search by the Russian people for their identity.
    what is the problem of identity search, etitsky cat ?! Maybe there is a certain percentage of individuals who doubt their nationality and identity with Russian (or even common Russian) culture, history, etc., but this is a minuscule compared to the bulk of the population.

    Generally speaking, in my opinion, it is possible to do so in the matter of status and identification: nationality - Russian, citizenship - Russian (not Russian). And from a historical point of view, it will be more correct, because all subjects of the state used to be called Russians. And the term "Russian", if my memory serves me right, began to be used under Peter.
    Again, the benefit - instead of the mythical "Russian nation", which has been trying to grow since 93, and which the bulk of the population does not accept, because stupidly does not understand what kind of nation it is, you can introduce the term "Russian", which will be more natural. Well, that's it, my speculation :)
  15. dmb
    dmb 13 December 2013 12: 12
    +3
    Bastard, another definition just doesn't fit this gentleman. The drunkard - Boris with the stupid Grachev would not have done anything without people like him. It is on his conscience the collapse of the country. and now with the shibanuta Mizulina for a couple, he is trying to finish her off. Well, let's imagine for a moment what was written in the Constitution about the Russian people. What's next? This entry will not hurt to continue pushing money into Chechnya, and saw it with the "shadow of Allah on earth" there. It does not at all guarantee that the standard of living in Ryazan will even match the standard of living in Grozny, let alone exceed it. Or maybe someone naively believes that after reading such a record, Abramovich will get scared, sell Chelsea, and build kindergartens in Tambov with the proceeds? Parliamentary control. Have you seen their faces? "Honest" Isaev and a bandit with a golden pistol will investigate how much money Serdyukov stuck up? Constitution is paper. And what is written in it is realized only when the power really belongs to the people. In the society in which we lived until the end of the 80s, not everything was smooth with the rule of the people, but at least it was somehow closer to what was written in the Constitution.
  16. Grbear
    Grbear 13 December 2013 13: 23
    +1
    I read the comments. Most pay attention to identification, ideology and other abstractions.

    In my opinion, it is much more important to define practical things:
    • Refusal of the unconditional priority of legal norms of an alien to us Western civilization, which is built on the ideology of usury and capture.
    • Reforms in the electoral system with the aim of forming a Parliament reflecting the interests of voters, ie reporting by deputies, recalls, etc. This will allow them to speak with the President on behalf of the people and there will be no need for legislative strengthening of the Parliament (initiating resignations, impeachments, etc.).
    • Separatism and actions aimed at the collapse of Russia (political, economic, territorial) should be considered a crime at the level of treason.

    I do not think that the peoples of Russia will strongly object to the name Russian (when identifying them in a foreign land) if they are citizens of a country that is strong and respected in the world.

    Then we can talk about the Constitution.
    1. Hort
      Hort 13 December 2013 14: 07
      -1
      with regard to practical issues, in my opinion, the lower house of the Parliament - the Duma - must either be removed altogether by transferring its functions to the Federation Council, and the functions of the Council to the newly formed State Council (consisting of governors and the president), or reduced to the necessary minimum type of low efficiency of its functioning.
      In other words,
      Federation Council - develops and passes laws and sends them to the State Council for consideration
      The State Council - considers the adopted bill, based on the effectiveness of its implementation in each constituent entity of the Federation, makes the necessary adjustments, approves and sends it to the Federation Council for amendments or to the President for signature if there are no claims to the law.
      Such a reform would reduce budget costs by reducing the number of deputies ...
      And part of the functions of the Federation Council could be transferred to the State Council.

      Or, if nothing is changed in the structure of government bodies, it is necessary to tighten control over the activities of the Duma both from the side of the Federation Council (which, in general, is being done, although not efficiently and efficiently enough), and from the side of the population, which actually chooses deputies.
  17. coserg 2012
    coserg 2012 13 December 2013 13: 57
    +1
    I have a primitive comparison. Here are the pigeons, together one community, like people. But if you scare them, the Nikolaev people stand still and gain height, the Persians just flip around, the postal ones only shoot down chimneys at home. How can you send them all after all, you can determine in advance that only the postal ones will fly quickly, the rest will arrive with a significant delay — they have such a breed. I don’t understand these clever people that they offer me to be called Russian and not Russian, it’s not possible to anonymize the breed, it’s all the same climbs out. And on the other hand, how much I have not wandered around the world - a Jew climbs into your friends without soap, but does his own business. Tatar, Armenian, Georgians, etc. behave in the bulk for the most part. The question is why? They say you don’t be offended, but you’re not ours. The conclusion suggests itself!
  18. kelevra
    kelevra 13 December 2013 14: 04
    +1
    I read or heard somewhere that the CIA wrote our Constitution!
  19. kair_kz
    kair_kz 13 December 2013 15: 13
    0
    Quote: coserg 2012
    I have a primitive comparison. Here are the pigeons, together one community, like people. But if you scare them, the Nikolaev people stand still and gain height, the Persians just flip around, the postal ones only shoot down chimneys at home. How can you send them all after all, you can determine in advance that only the postal ones will fly quickly, the rest will arrive with a significant delay — they have such a breed. I don’t understand these clever people that they offer me to be called Russian and not Russian, it’s not possible to anonymize the breed, it’s all the same climbs out. And on the other hand, how much I have not wandered around the world - a Jew climbs into your friends without soap, but does his own business. Tatar, Armenian, Georgians, etc. behave in the bulk for the most part. The question is why? They say you don’t be offended, but you’re not ours. The conclusion suggests itself!
    not everywhere like that. Here is my mother, for example, a pure Kazakh, but she loves Russians very much, and among my friends there are many Russians and we live, and all of ours are)))
  20. vedmeddd
    vedmeddd 13 December 2013 15: 21
    +1
    Balabolstvo! And his suggestions about anything!
  21. coserg 2012
    coserg 2012 13 December 2013 18: 27
    +1
    Quote: kair_kz
    not everywhere like that. Here is my mother, for example, a pure Kazakh, but she loves Russians, and

    Yes, not everywhere. I think that you relate to all nations basically evenly, but when they start pushing their tail it leaves an unpleasant aftertaste.
  22. alone
    alone 13 December 2013 23: 42
    +1
    In Russia, everything is decided by one person. Decides to change the constitution, they will do it. He will say no, but no, there is no trial!