PC: 1936 Soviet Constitution gives more dejure power to the Union

Would it be possible for Stalin to include the following two things in the 1936 Soviet Constitution:

1. Language taking away the Republics right to secede.
2. A clear statement of Federal supremacy over local law.

If these two are possible and everything plays out as historical up until the historical collapse of the Soviet Union, how would they impact the historical crisis?
 
Assuming that? They just ignore it.

That's debatable. I think the central government could certainly drag the independence process out especially for those SSRs that weren't raring to go, until the political atmosphere would change to be more favourable to a renewed union, a-la Tatarstan. Or, depending on other factors, it could end in more contested separatisms, like Chechnya or Abkhazia, since the legal basis isn't there any more.
 
That's debatable. I think the central government could certainly drag the independence process out especially for those SSRs that weren't raring to go, until the political atmosphere would change to be more favourable to a renewed union, a-la Tatarstan. Or, depending on other factors, it could end in more contested separatisms, like Chechnya or Abkhazia, since the legal basis isn't there any more.

That begs the question, how historical could things really remain?

Assuming there is some Soviet collapse, the resulting states would look quite different from IOTL
 
That begs the question, how historical could things really remain?

I won't argue that it's a tremendous assumption. But the OP is specifically asking us to ignore the intervening years and have the USSR wake up one day in 1990 with this new, separation-unfriendly constitution.
 
Nobody would care. Nobody paid much attention to the Soviet Constitution before the country collapsed whey would they suddenly pay attention to it when it collapses?
 
Nobody would care. Nobody paid much attention to the Soviet Constitution before the country collapsed whey would they suddenly pay attention to it when it collapses?
Because the secessions of the various SSRs were predicated on constitutional language giving them the right to secede. No secession clause means things may get more violent, as you get less Singing Revolution and more Fort Sumter, as they no longer have a legal leg to stand on, and basically it just becomes, "We secede because we have the guns, and fuck you, Gorby."
 
You could get a Yugoslavia scenario with the central government trying to kept the union in others word a soviet sized civil war corpse will start to pill up dramatically.
 
Seems I made an error on the Union supremacy issue. I was somehow under the impression it was vague as to which laws were supreme, Union or local. But both the 36 and 77 constitutions say in the event on conflicting laws the Union law prevails.
 
Top