CHAPTER XIII
DAMAGE COUNT:
LIST OF THE 16 RULED RULES FOR THE REVOLUTIONARY AND REVOLUTIONARY REBELS:
1.- Rotate the rule of legitimacy and authenticity. 2.- Rotate the rule of harmony. 3.- Rotate the rule of integrality. 4.- Rotate the concentration rule. 5.- Rotate the rule of “sovereignty”. 6.- Rotates the rule of perseverance of the form of government. 7.- Rotate the rule of legitimacy. 8.- Rotate the rule of public order. 9.- Rotate the rule of legal security. 10.- Rotate the rule of social class equilibrium. 11.- Rotate the rule of equality in the inclusion of all individuals in the national democratic project. 12.- Rotates the rule of authentic political representation. 13.- Rotates the rule of constitutional inviolability. 14.- Rotate the rule of valid electoral processes. 15.- Rotates the rule of additions and legal reforms as provided in Article 127 of the Constitution of 1857. 16.- Rotates the rule of Constitutional Supremacy established in Article 126 of the Constitution of 1857.
1.-ROTA THE RULE OF LEGITIMACY AND AUTHENTICITY:
The position of the usurpers who seized power by force of arms, such as General Diaz, Mr. Madero, General Huerta, Mr. Carranza and General Calles, and others, was illegal, since without the right to not having been elected, they became rulers, provoking the state of slavery and imprisonment of us all the governed that make up the Mexican people. The illegitimacy of these governments is verified by virtue of the fact that the acts carried out to seize power fraudulently evaded compliance with Mexican law, public order and international customs.
The arbitrary imposition of the particular code of those mutineers that is the Rebellious Letter of 1917, unduly superseded the validity of our legitimate constitution of 1857, altering the rules of the constitutional mandate, the elements of order and the form of government or orderly way of existing of the social relations of all Mexicans.
The aggressive attitude of the rebels of 1910, manifested by the use of weapons, was derived in response to a social situation of disagreement with the methodology used by the existing political government regimes, but, violent behavior can never be the expression of the reason nor of the general will, turning out to be only the perverse idea of a handful of adventurers, because the constitution of 1857 still in force in 1917, clearly stated in articles 9, 39, 80, 81, 82 and 127, the adequate means to change the existing political regime of government, that is, those who entered into rebellion, had at all times the inalienable right to alter or modify the form of government, since their purposes had to configure them according to peaceful procedures (element of order), legal (element of justice), legitimate (element of law), to change the political regime of government, should not be by the way of the lencia and the shedding of innocent blood, since it was not considered as a legally correct route being absolutely discarded, and the legality that was listed as an attribute or essential element of public order was ignored by the cowardly murderers, and the coexistence in social relations among the Mexicans she was unjustly deranged.
Thus, being illegal and the existence and validity of two constitutions (or political codes) in the same era, under the use of force and weapons, illegal trespassers assumed the positions of the three branches of government, and in a number no greater than 218 impostors, they subjected as slaves and prisoners of their mandates to 15 million Mexican citizens of that time.
In theory it is understood that whoever plays the role of “representative”, and who are the “politicians”, is subject to the general interest contained in the laws, their will can not be in conflict with that of the community; the deviation or excess of the work of the servants in the government, can not invoke reasons of public interest; Therefore, if this requirement is not met, there will be the possibility of obtaining the inefficiency, inefficiency and disrespect of what they have to obey.
The original desire of society is to help the experts in the art of politics to achieve certain common benefits of public interest, actions aimed at the achievement of a good for humanity, instead, the actions of mutineers coup and rebels in their capacity as thugs they could not invoke reasons supported by the law, which shows that they acted in a personal capacity, with the responsibility implied by the overthrow of a legally established government headed by the then legitimately elected president Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada.
The reason and the law tell us, for example, that the overthrow of President Don Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada, by the military coup member Porfirio Díaz, is illegitimate, since he did not obtain the exercise of power through the processes of popular election in positive law, and contained in the Constitution of 1857; then, and having obtained it by way of violence and force of arms, he made his condition of “representative” illegal and illegitimate, trampling with it the dispositions of public order and the peaceful way of existing of the social relations of Mexican civil society.
On the other hand, the use of violence and the force of arms happened after the revolutionary movement of 1910, aimed at overthrowing the dictator Porfirio Diaz was an action that did not justify in any way the possibility of obtaining a “legitimate representativeness” “In the exercise of power, because the power to govern neither obtained it through the process of popular election, arranged in the constitutional law in force at that time. The “legitimate representation” in the government is invariably obtained based on the rules of the law, obtaining the majority vote in popular election processes, for which there was no alternative way.
The illegitimacy of the governments opposed to the legitimate constitution of 1857 headed by Díaz, Madero, Huerta, Carranza and Calles, as well as the accomplices that to date have cooperated with the rebel movements, only proves that all together or separately they carried out acts of upheaval public; they planned against the law and the institutions, they carried out activities that altered the public order, the governments established contrary to the principles that it contains, they violated the principle of constitutional inviolability, and they submitted their dictates to the set of the people of the people of Mexico. It is the case that, legally there is no right to military coup or civil revolutionary rebellion, therefore, the coup and rioting attitudes that took place in the Mexican Republic, in no way deviate from the law that is what it imposes, in this case, the limits (element of order) of the behavior of both civil society and political societies.
The law has sought legal foundations to measure the attitudes of governments intruders, until they have consulted books that explain the “reasons of force” but in all of them are not justified the reasons that may be taken into consideration, in favor of the rebels revolutionary rioters, because any violent attitude and the use of weapons placed the criminals in the hypothesis of illegality provided by Article 128 of the legitimate constitution of 1857.
The governments emanating from military coups and those arising from the 1910 civil rebellion are lacking in legitimacy because they have fraudulently evaded Mexican law and are manifestly incompatible with public order under the terms of Mexican law and international customs. History throws us interesting aspects related to certain imperfections in the national democratic system; So substantial are they that it can be said that the Mexican people are not really a democratic republic.
We naively think that the “intrusive servants” (the politicians and the military) of before and their accomplices who arrived later, are either dead, or that they no longer exist or work in the government, since in reality they usurp our thinking, they oppress us at your whim The “dead politicians” and the intruders who came after, those who are no longer working in the government, remain lords and owners of the living; (I should say fools) because in schools a large part of teaching time is used to explain and learn their vicissitudes, adventures, shames and theories. Mexican history is an endless book of deaths and acts of shame. The people must obey their codes their formulas of thought, their tax orders. Our museums are full of their works, in our squares parade images of deceased so-called “famous heroes”, whether on horseback, with weapons or in a threatening attitude, those fantochadas can not be the representation of the pride of the Mexican homeland; it is necessary to conclude once and for all, with this deceptive and perpetual slavery orchestrated by the mutineers, to establish a completely new order of things and to translate it into the projected “National Social Constitution of the Mexican People”
We all know that the “dominant single party” composed of intruder politicians associated with the parties, has maintained its hegemonic power; who with political reforms and electoral laws continue with the game of false and non-existent elections; it is from where another part of the deception comes, because there is a “false” opening to the alternation of parties, but it has hardly served as the “new parties” in the government, as long as the constitutional order established in the article 128 of the Legitimate Constitution of 1857, cooperators of the rebellions.
THE REPAIR WILL CONSIST OF: Recovering the legitimacy and authenticity in the exercise of power, as well as the constitutional political charter of Mexicans, as ordered by Article 128 of the Legitimate Constitution of 1857.
2.-ROTATE THE RULE OF HARMONY:
There is no internal harmony, inner peace, or functional balance of the powers of government that lead the current usurpers.
The divergent forces of the popular representatives, left to themselves, generally tear the whole in its attempt to lead it in contradictory directions and, quite often, it occurs: either a fracture of the organism in the form of a secession; or a violent confrontation in the form of a civil war like that of 1910, in which the parties end up considering each other as political enemies.
Now, about the “division of powers”, we have that this expression understood in a literal sense has a symbolic meaning, it has nothing to do with the essence of government, because there can not be more than one government, that is, there can not be more than one power and not three different, of course they can be various and multiple in their actions, tasks or faculties which can not be alien to the factor of “unity”, this means that when civil society needs to comply with its objectives something, so much must the government have faculties to fulfill such a need. If society needs laws; then the government has power to give them: (legislative), acts of administration (executive), to discuss the disputed facts and impose coercion (judicial), but all in a single body of government which is governed by the system of political code that regulate your orderly equilibrium.
Being the “Political Constitution” a document of submission of the will of the action of the “politicians”, it is with the purpose of building a circle (corral) that controls all the movements of the servants at the beginning of the “unity” and the rule of law. Gathering the diversity of wills with unity among subordinates is the great problem that anarchy and disorder have caused us. Some sacrifice themselves for “unity”, others seek “diversity”, in short, what they never have is the perfect “harmony” that must exist between all, so that they do not form more than a single system of action and machinery works correctly. No people will ever touch this absolute perfection because civil society does not have time to order their political servitude, so if plurality in unity is a principle then, where is the utility of the constitutional code? if they can not be obtained absolutely; Unity and harmony in government, progress, freedom and order, will they never be present?
The “attributes” or powers given to the servants, do not engender any superior personality in front of the patrons (constituents), what is conferred to them are “attributes”, trades, occupations or tasks, we must not lose sight of the numerical and hierarchical superiority of the national authority of the people. It is not enough to have pawns, order them, classify them, confer them some attributions and prevent them from certain constitutional contractual rules; the regulatory and constant presence of civil society (of the people) is required to avoid any opposition, divergence, dissatisfaction and inefficiency of subordinates, a real presence of supreme command that guarantees the fulfillment of the objectives for which there is the legal status of the State.
Research in political science concludes that the usefulness of “politicians” and their parties, should not be defined according to their declaration of principles, their action plans, their personal philosophy or their flowery speeches, but in attention to what that they do daily for the full fulfillment of their offices; unfortunately also in the behaviors of the servants generate negative forces that operate on the civil society deforming it, those that originate in their feelings, selfishness, passions, instincts and interests or full comfort or relaxation and the constant relaxation (laziness-laziness) that it causes them a degree of irresponsibility, which prevents them from acting with harmony and efficiency, which gives them time to conspire, conjure, plot, conspire, plot, and sometimes allies with others, commit conspiracy to the detriment of the public interest of society civil. Generally they do not cooperate, a fictitious superior personality is created, a specially differentiated class, very distant from the common people, they do in their parties internal selection processes closed in special political groups, which implies a forced conflict with the majority at people whom they only use as a mere instrument of utility for voting.
That small group, clique, fraction or closed group of politicians belonging to a party, choose, register and promote to their taste the candidacies of those who will govern the entire population later, the generality of the people do not intervene in those internal processes selection, your opinion does not count, has a secondary place, your intervention occurs but until the day of voting, where inevitably there is no alternative to adhere to a pre-established proposal, in reality there is no freedom of choice, ie in fact there is no agreement, concord or prior agreement in the deceptive claim of the supposed election of representatives. There is no harmony because the parties are in charge of precisely that, of “splitting”, which is synonymous with dividing civil society and the “representative” politicians into discordant parties or cliques.
So perfect have been the plans of the intruders, that today the Mexican people continue without the sovereign authority that preaches constitutional article 39, kneeling, cornered, tied, divided, controlled and at the mercy of the owners of the political parties, of the unions, of the peasant groups, crushed by the effects of a terrible globalization, naively believing that they have a great sovereign authority over what happens in the country, ignoring that in truth they are perfectly isolated and without any possibility of maintaining any type of unity or domination about the situation that the servants’ things keep.
The power of authority or sovereignty of the people is only one, and being unique is not subdivided, it is only given to exercise it to the legal situation called “State”, that is, the people can not transfer what they do not have three different opportunities or modalities, that is, it does not have three powers but only one, it is not necessary in the future to make a particular choice for each type of attribution or faculty.
THE REPAIR WILL CONSIST IN: Eliminate the false separation of powers, recovering unity and avoiding the fictitious diversity of functions in the exercise of government, will establish a single legal status of “Authority State”, avoiding the deceptive practice of the subdivision of “powers “, In the understanding that the functions, or faculties, tasks or encomiendas are not powers, but simply a diversity of powers of the State, which can not be different powers.
3.- ROTATE THE RULE OF INTEGRITY:
Here we will examine the degree of affectation to civil society by the decision-making of the servant politicians: The rule of integrality establishes, therefore, that: In every political organism, the governing body needs to have a decision-making power of last instance on the integrality of those issues that have, or may have, a vital importance for the existence or development of the organism.
It must be borne in mind that both “statism” and “privatism” violate this rule, the first, because it forces the State to assume functions that, in reality, do not necessarily correspond to it; the second because it denies the State the power to decide ultimately on issues vital to the community.
The State must have a capacity for an integral response to the essential problems that make the life of a Nation and must make it worth where it is necessary. That is why the governing body of a political unit has a much greater responsibility, which is impossible to equate with that which governs non-political organizations. A decision made by a Head of State affects a whole Nation (town) and can affect each and every one of the people that make it up. The consequences of political decisions are, in a very high proportion of the cases, integral; that is to say: they affect the whole life of the political organism and of the whole society.
In theory it is understood that the “politician” is subject to the fulfillment of the general interest, his will can not be in conflict with that of the community, the deviation or excess of the work of the public servant, can not invoke reasons of public interest; therefore, if this requirement is not met there will be the possibility of obtaining inefficiency and inefficiency.
The desire of society is to achieve certain common benefits (public interest), actions aimed at the achievement of a good for humanity, however, breach involves perjury (perfidy, betrayal, lie, falsehood) to the oath offered at the time of give a protest and in which it is put as a witness to those present that the honor and the word of the public servant remain in pledge of the good performance of the encomienda.
It is not admissible that the “intruder politicians” have compromised the stability, capabilities and integrality of the Mexican state. A simple protest by a show of hands is not enough as a pledge that they will have to fulfill the task; it requires something more effective, a profound transformation to the thesis that for many years have proven ineffective and illegitimate; but most importantly as provided in Article 128 of the Constitution of 1857, it is necessary first to restore the constitutional order of the republic, to judge the intruders and their accomplices, according to the laws that by virtue had been issued.
In order to coordinate, deliberate and adopt decisions that strengthen the public service that is instituted for the benefit of the people, the State as an organ-institution of a single power, will make decisions in a collegiate way, that is, that the taking of agreements on any matter of its public or private competence, will happen in a democratic manner by consensus unanimity or majority, of the plurality of people or representatives of public entities.
THE REPAIR WILL CONSIST OF: Establish that public employees to resolve in an organized manner any vital question for the community, whether public or private, must be accessible 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, acting in each case immediately and When the matter was not their direct responsibility, they should automatically become informal managers of the matter in question, before the collegiate decision-making body of the State.
4.- ROTATE THE RULE OF CONCENTRATION:
Having a political vacuum that dilutes the power of command of the leaders, the State does not have a comprehensive response capacity, we must necessarily conclude that: (A) is limited in its power, and, (B) it is impossible to fulfill all of its functions.
The rule of “concentration of power” states that: Full political activity requires the full disposition of political power. To the extent that political power is restricted or conditioned, political activity will be impeded from developing fully. The State has to fulfill the conduction, synthesis and foresight functions that legitimize it. But, in order to fully comply with these functions, it must not have a priori denied access to the decision levels that make matters vital for the political body; and, finally, for these decisions to be truly sovereign and fully responsible, their power should not be limited by compromises, obstacles or impediments, for example, in economic matters we have to make it impossible for them to act in benefit of the integrality of the social whole. – for example in political matters we have that the true center of power is not as conceived in the “political code”, such power or authority of the people has degenerated dangerously moving towards the will of the parties, the facts indicate that the power (delegate) does not lie in the representatives because they have allowed segmented, restricted and dispersed because either formal or informal, political power is not concentrated in public servants, that is, there is the desired integrality of the power in the nominees by popular election by the vacuum of power that to the effect generate the leaders or owners of the parties that propitiate a phenomenon to which it is called “partidocracia” and that essentially consists of two circumstances.
A.- The substitution of the parties in the role of the State: Their characteristics are: The loss of independence of the popular representatives; _ The sacrifice of the capacity of the representatives in search of a greater party discipline; _ The transfer of the popular will to the partisan will; _ The dehumanization of the representatives of choice that become a mere instrument of voting for the parties; _ The political devaluation of the legislative assembly; _ The development of the actual process of legislation and parliamentary agreements outside the proper premises for this purpose; _ The lack of real control over the government; _ The confusion of the powers of the state; _ The loss of real functions of the representative chambers; _ The deterioration of local political life due to the imposition of partisan criteria; _ The monopolization of political activity that prevents the creation and balanced competitiveness of parties in the exercise of power; and, _ The monopolistic consolidation of an administration that prevents an effective pluralism.
B.- The disintegration of the State: Its characteristics are: An expensive and deranging pluralism, where a majority coalition is not achieved, only a fragmented and chaotic legislative process; _ The paralysis of government action; _ A vacuum of power; and, _ The lack of a defined government project. The displacement of the institutional power of the State towards the parties is: Democracy degenerated in the oligarchical power (the government of a few) of one or more leaders or owners of the parties.
What is a Party-Party State? “The party-state is the one in which the power is monopolized, more or less legitimately by a party or by a plurality of allied parties, which means that they do not substitute for it, nor contribute to it in the exercise of power, but that, when disputed, they invalidate it and dismember it. ”
Under the above conditions, civil society and the servants maintain a relationship of divorce because, the power does not emanate from the people, but from the government, these (the rulers) do not feel committed to those (the governed), prefer to swear unconditional obedience, loyalty and absolute loyalty to the leaders and owners of political parties, this relationship of fidelity does not disappear, the will of the already converted “servant” representatives, remains subject to the dictates of a few, thus maintaining an undue control over the will of politicians.
The political parties are not organs of the State, so much so that, as a reference, the meaning of sentence number 10/1983 of the Spanish Constitutional Court dated February 21, 1983, which in its leading part resolves the following: It prevents the parties from invading the autonomy of the representatives of the people in the parliamentary bodies, regardless of their promoters, since the popular investiture falls on the candidates, not on the parties that present them and these can not deprive or substitute the voters of his mandate “; that is, in the Congress of the Union, the parliamentary factions have no reason to exist; the independence and autonomy of the representatives in relation to the parties that nominated them must be guaranteed in the law itself.
THE REPAIR WILL CONSIST OF: Setting the establishment of the new political system of the DEMARK, to prevent groups of power or factual negative forces (not visible) of any nature interfere in public work, thought or decision making of the employees or officials of the State, it is necessary to praise the importance of the independence of public officials so that in the event that any citizen suspects the independence or autonomy of any of them, should go to the highest hierarchical body closest to their address to make it known orally of which the corresponding record will be drawn up, in this case the knowledgeable institution will open a special procedure on the subject, to determine and sanction the responsibility on the arbitrary interference of the party, its members or a strange third party on the will of the public servant.
5.-ROTE THE RULE OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE:
The people of Mexico have had several coup governments, and several other intruders accomplices of the armed ones of the truncated revolution of 1910, those who founded the dictatorship of the “dominant single party” for more than 70 years, together with the most recent accomplices governments called “Of the change of 2000 and 2006”, all of them lack the principle of legitimacy, which has broken the constitutional mandate and provoked the null validity of the national authority of the people over the political servants.
The “Sovereignty” of the people is intimately related to the “political contract” between rulers and the governed, so much so that according to article 39 of such “contract” is described as “the national power of the people” (power that does not consist configured in public writing), power that in reality is an absolute falsehood because having appointed the people to their deputies, he will still believe he is the sovereign but he is deceived, because after the nomination he remains a slave of his representatives, in this way on behalf of the sovereign people the elect become absolute masters of everything, they will want to enjoy more rights than those of their masters of the civil society, they will displace the legal norms, they will sell, they will plunder, they will devastate, they will kill, they will have professors that teach their rights to enjoy a public culture that strengthens its excessive debauchery, from here take place revolutions, rallies and killings between rulers and the governed, who has to fix these differences ?, the own governors ?, they can not be a judge and an interested party, what is the use of the political contract if it is not respected ?, is it a contract of adhesion to a fantasy ?, or, if it is true, at what moment it is up to the new citizens to express their agreement or disagreement with it?
In theory it is understood that a “sovereign” people is in possession of a social omnipotence: All rights are theirs; otherwise it would not be omnipotent; and not being omnipotent he would not be sovereign. For the same reason all obligations are outside it; because if he had any obligation to fulfill, he would be subject: sovereign is the one who commands, subject who obeys; Sovereign is the one who has rights, subject who has obligations. Thus the principle of popular sovereignty, which is an atheist principle, is also a tyrannical principle, because where there is a subject and has no rights, and a sovereign who has no obligations, there is tyranny.
The human being in contact with other men (historical generational relations), had the need for “equality”, and therefore that of reciprocal and limited rights: then he felt the need for a rule that presided over his reciprocity and his limitation: This rule is justice. However, the principle of popular sovereignty does not recognize reciprocity in rights or limitation of obligations. The idea of the just disappears where there are lords and slaves: it follows that the principle of sovereignty being atheist and tyrannical, is also an immoral principle, because it destroys justice. It is so true that justice and popular sovereignty can not coexist in the world, that, recognized the existence of the first, the second is annihilated, because if the people can only do what justice demands, the people are subject and justice is sovereign, before this truth, the sovereignty of the people is an absurdity.
If sovereignty resides in the general will, and the general will is the collection of particular wills, all individuals must have a part of sovereign power: if the sovereign power is not realized but by means of laws, all individuals still minors must have an active part in the preparation of laws.
The ignorant for example, have the same rights as the wise, because they have a will like them: women have the same rights as men, because they have a will like them: children have the same rights as fathers, because they have a will like them: the proletarians have the same rights as the powerful, because they have a will like them: in short, the insane must claim a part of their sovereignty, because by denying heaven the reason, not the dispossession of the will, and the will makes them sovereigns too.
Political constitutions must never be the expression of reason or the expression of the general will: For example: All the congressmen are in a forum: the will has already been verified: its result is that in half more One of all wills has passed a law.
According to the theory of popular sovereignty, this law only forces those who have voted: the will is unfeasible, because its alienation would be suicide: a will that submits to another will is alienated (sold), and alienated. annihilate. What then is the sovereignty of the people? according to the current political constitution, it is an absurdity, an impossible one.
The certain thing is that, concluded the stage of an election, the elected congressman candidate goes with his will, and has the possibility of doing with it what seems to him without having the consent of the one who chose him, instead the elector remains with his without knowing that he was deceived. Nothing is more ridiculous than recognizing in the people a power that is not even capable of conceiving, it is impossible to discern, let alone apply.
THE REPAIR WILL CONSIST OF: Setting the modification of the new political system of government based on the DEMARQUIA, this to strengthen the sovereignty or authority of the people, so that it will suffice that the citizen who is affected by an act of a public servant of Any level of command, go before the hierarchical body closest to your home with the necessary tangible evidence, to verbally request the revocation of the contract or mandate of powers, so that without delay you will be separated from your order, you must call the next one in the list of priority.
6.-ROTATE THE RULE OF PERSEVERANCE OF THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT:
Article 40 of the “constitutional political contract-mandate” establishes a democratic system for the Mexican people, one that is related to the care of the political, social, economic and cultural rights of the “popular classes”. Popular as a synonym of the common, public, ordinary, generic, universal or general people of a nation. To identify the type that includes the “popular” classes, we will say that it refers to the people of the working, peasant and urban classes (those who live off their labor force), the opposite of the “elite” classes (those that they live off the capital).
The political associations, (parties) try to convince us that their candidates will have to locate their actions according to the form prescribed in the constitutional contract, but, in truth, it is not like that, to check it, it is enough to see the social, political, economic and cultural that keep the aforementioned popular classes. A democratic regime supposes a regime of socialist type, nevertheless, if it is established (agreed) is that public servants must act under the guidelines of the political contract referred to in Article 40, then: Why do they act in contrary ways?
Here we have a conflict that implies the absence of perseverance, tenacity, fidelity and persistence of the form of government agreed in article 40 of the constitutional contract. So we must ask ourselves, why did another form of government called a relative majority and proportional representation come into effect? Why are voters still deceived and turned into soldiers of an artificial war? What are the electors of the popular classes fighting? ?, What should not be agreed so by the majorities ?, then, will it be necessary to reform Article 40 to give legitimacy to the new form of government ?, but when will this happen?
This being the case and even worse, since there is no order, certainty and legality in the rules of the mandate, there can be no security in safeguarding the political, economic, cultural and social rights of the popular classes, then, if in the direction of the country there is only territory and population, but there is no government representative of the people, the nature that gives a sustenance and balance to the life of the community is irremediably destroyed.
THE REPAIR WILL CONSIST OF: Establish clearly in Article 40 constitutional, if the form of government, form of state or form of political system that governs our country, is under one of the systems in particular: capitalist, socialist, communist , parliamentarian, imperialist, monarchist or of another nature, specifying their characteristics, in such a way that it is not up to the rulers to decide in turn to implement whatever is of their greatest pleasure or convenience.
7.-ROTATE THE LAW OF LEGITIMACY:
It consists of non-compliance with the functions of the State in frank contempt of the constitutional mandate and the mandatory nature of the public function.
The commandments of the “political-contract” and of the laws that emanate from it, the popular “representatives” have gradually neglected to comply with the agreement, neglecting to provide welfare to the popular classes (the worker, the peasant and the urban) by the On the contrary, they keep their ears deaf and by action or omission, they have been moving away from procuring quality and effectiveness to the organization of the fulfillment of their respective activities.
The diverse popular representations of government, call state and municipal nationals, even the most recently called “of the change 2000 and 2006”, have ignored consecrating the development of the faculties of the human being, putting into practice the love of the country, the conscience of solidarity based on independence and justice, the struggle against ignorance and its effects, fanaticism and prejudice, under a system of life based on constant economic, social, political and cultural improvement, understanding problems, defending independence policy of its level of government, increase culture under better human coexistence, respect the dignity of the people and the integrity of families, inspired by ideals of fraternity and justice, provide order and rationality to the city according to the plans and programs for urban development in such a way that it represents a place with expectations of well-being.
It has not complied with the duty to guarantee freedom, security, tranquility, morality and order. They have invalidated the balanced development of health, hygiene and ecology programs and committed disrespect to the duty of protecting, protecting, driving, helping, managing and procuring the common good; on the occasion of this initiative, I will only refer those that are in contravention of the articles of the “political contract”, also that related to the requirement to direct public spending to the attention of works and services of greater collective benefit, those that are distinguished for being elementary and priority to ensure the survival of a community of people.
It has been neglected to make use of the faculty of “co-responsibility” among the various governing bodies, in frank contempt of constitutional rules. It can be considered that it is against public order that the representations that result from the various parties, when exercising the government in the different jurisdictions and hierarchies, fail to fulfill their duty of co-responsibility, that is, they do not cooperate with each other, on the contrary, they differ with the others from other parties and tend to face more rigorously as they did before in the electoral campaigns, they do not forget that they were and continue to be adversaries of ideas and, generally, use their authority to fracture and obstruct their respective attributions.
The foregoing supposes a conjunction of two elements because, in addition to the “legal interest”, it is a “legal duty” to hold elected public offices; Therefore, when there is a subjective right (legal interest, faculty or power) given by an objective legal order (legislation), it also regulates the particular action of the individual by imposing the coercive element, that is, there is a power of imperative requirement (of obligatory nature) in base to a public interest in which a position of popular election is for the charity of the community.
The omission of powers implies disobedience to the mandatory nature of the public function of the positions of direct or indirect popular election which is detrimental to the fourth paragraph of article 5 of the contract-mandate constitution, which literally says: “As for public services may only be mandatory, in the terms of the respective laws, the performance of the charges concejiles and those of direct or indirect popular election.
Rafael I. Martínez Morales in his work “Thematic Legal Dictionary 3 of Administrative Law” says: “… the public interest is a limitation of individual freedom, so as not to cause harm to the community, hence, it is necessary the mandatory nature of the public function for the realization of a common purpose. The will of the representative of choice is subject to the fulfillment of the general interest, and the particular interest of the public servant, with that of the community, can not be in conflict. The deviation or excess of the power of the authority, can not invoke reasons of public interest; therefore, if these requirements are not met there will be the possibility of obtaining inefficiency “.
The breach of powers of the “public servants” in any case, entails perjury, perfidy, betrayal, lie and falsehood to the oath demanded in the Constitution. This oath has an essential value, since the one who gives the protest, is promising and putting witnesses to God and to those present that by their honor and their word they give the pledge that will fulfill their task. Regrettably, with or without oath, we can conclude that those we know as “usurping politicians” do not favor the essence of being skilled in the art of government leadership, nor have they placed State institutions at the service of the people. Because public offices of direct or indirect election are mandatory, any non-compliance will imply patrimonial responsibility of the responsible servants.
THE REPAIR WILL CONSIST OF: Configure the modification of the political system of democratic government so that as soon as the superior hierarchy has resolved the procedure against a public official for the separation of his position, the State will immediately take the action of patrimonial and judicial responsibility that it is against the former official concerned, for the payment of the damages or losses caused.
8.-ROTATE THE RULE OF THE PUBLIC ORDER:
Public order has as its object the legal protection of interests, morality, customs, the security of civil society, and actions and omissions of “servant politicians”, those who fail to comply, have been happening. of its obligations to safeguard the principles of legality, honesty, loyalty, impartiality and efficiency of the service, which causes a disorder to the tranquility and tranquility in detriment of the general interest.
It is against morality, the good customs that the “servant politicians” commit violence against the public order provisions because, they disregard most of the prohibitions that are established in the Public Servants Responsibility Law, the one that was created as a fence to limit their irregular behavior.
Regarding Title Four of the constitutional mandate, relating to “responsibilities”, the effectiveness of the “Means of Control System stipulated in the contract to regulate the behavior of Public Servants” is null and void. It has been found that the institutions and procedures in charge of applying the “System of Control of Public Servants”, which was created to contain the irregular behavior of public servants; the instances, the laws, the political judgment, the one of responsibilities, the one of impeachment, the one of protection, the administrative, civil or criminal judgment; they politicians, are associated (partners of interest) in such a way that, the means of legal control are in command of the same membership, (brotherhood) of other associates and thus all conspirators, have guaranteed the dispensation (impunity) of their infractions .
Corruption and impunity from the representatives, that committed by actions or omissions, is due to carelessness derived from the gradual relaxation of the hierarchical superiors in charge of supervising the compliance of the subordinates’ faculties, and their complicity in omitting their obligation (duty ) to denounce and severely punish such improper conduct in an exemplary manner, which presupposes the hypothesis of alleged organized public crime.
The servants of the parties have failed to meet the principles of honesty, loyalty, efficiency in the service as guiding principles of the public function, have fostered an environment of corruption, authoritarianism, deviation of power, outrages to institutions and the form of government, which necessarily entails responsibility and public disorder.
Once the leadership of national development is lost, the sovereignty and its democratic regime are irretrievably lost, the strengthening of the development of economic growth, employment, the just distribution of income and wealth stagnate, the freedom and dignity of individuals, groups and social classes whose safety should be protected.
National development is no longer based on the principle of social responsibility, the forms of economic activity that contribute to national development are undermined, the state stops conducting, coordinates and guides national economic activity, and regulates the promotion of activities that they demand the general interest, changing the framework of freedom for that of the oppression of the popular classes to make way for the select classes.
THE REPAIR WILL CONSIST OF: To avoid any possible public disorder with the character of an armed rebellion, and if we take into account that weapons are the binding element of a hypothetical social destabilization, which can lead us to generalized chaos, it is necessary to protect and protect them. custody is henceforth in charge of the Comptrollers of each State instead of the armed forces and order, stored in specially arranged containers and under the safeguarded cash in safe places.
9.-ROTA THE RULE OF LEGAL SECURITY:
In order that the person, family, possessions, property and rights of the governed find “protection” against arbitrary interference by the rulers, safeguards were established for the correct application of the law that are called “guarantees of security “, are bonds (certainties) (words of honor) that the rulers give to ensure that civilians do not fall into a state of defenselessness or legal uncertainty, making it possible in all possible equality and freedom.
Public rights are the “claims” of civilians who assert themselves against the rulers when they do not fulfill their duties.
It is the very fact that the authorities subordinate themselves to the stability demanded by the rules established in the law, on the contrary, their actions degenerate into conditions of defenselessness, inequality and the impairment of civil liberties.
Examples of the “state of civil defenselessness” we have some like the following constitutional articles: Article 8º.- To the “right of petition” that must have a response in short term, before it is obtained the closure of the authority and even the smallest claim is made use of public force. Article 14.- The “right to a hearing”, which consists in first being heard, results in pre-trial detention, precautionary seizure, arraigo, illegal free will of the judge in civil matters, etc. Article 16.- The “right of competent authority” comes in consideration of acts of annoyance against the individual of any authority and arrests even without a warrant. Article 17.- The right to “expeditious and effective administration of justice” we receive the infamous despotism, corruption and arbitrariness of the judicial system. Article 21 to the right that “the Public Prosecutor’s Office investigates and prosecutes crimes” we see in the statistics that, in 8 out of 10 crimes, this is not the case.
THE REPAIR WILL CONSIST OF: The creation of a Supervisory Body of Legal Security, which is responsible for monitoring (daily) compliance with the powers conferred in the law to public servants, without having mediated complaint to the contrary . The legal security that the provisions of the law are fulfilled, will be in charge of a body equivalent to a foreman or supervising work, who will ensure that officials do not relax gradually in their times and responsibilities for those who were hired.
10.-ROTATE THE RULE OF SOCIAL BALANCE OF CLASSES:
The essential purpose of the existence of the State, of the mandate contract, and of the authorities, is to concretize a social equilibrium of the differences that arise between the popular and the select class.
Indeed, through the plans or programs of politicians, “experts in the art of governing and the tasks of the State”, ensure the guarantees or social rights contained in the constitution, requires them to preserve the “balance” of a class socially and economically inferior and its members, no longer in front of the State and its authorities, but before the well-to-do social class. I refer to the constitutional articles 3rd of education; 4th paragraphs third, fourth and fifth of health, adequate environment and housing; 21 fifth and sixth paragraphs of public security; 27 of the property, national assets and Mexican agriculture; and 123 of the workers and the social security of the proletariat. However, in the facts we have that the education provided by the State, does not have an equal quality balance, or at least similar to that received by people of the select class, the same happens in matters of health, environment, housing , public safety, property, goods, agriculture, work and social security. In spite of what the servants say, who by the way have charged very well for not doing anything, there is still a clear differentiation that visibly indicates that there is no such “balance” (equality, same level).
THE REPAIR WILL CONSIST IN: Prevent the differences between social classes deepen, therefore, the State should be responsible for providing free of charge the three basic needs that generate social imbalance and are those of food, clothing and housing, which will allow maintain a healthy balance A farmer, maquiladora and constructor State is displayed.
11.-ROTA THE RULE OF EQUALITY IN THE INCLUSION OF ALL INDIVIDUALS IN THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PROJECT:
The legitimate Constitution of 1857 prevents in its article 35 what it literally says: “They are prerogatives of the citizen: I. To vote in the popular elections. II. To be able to be voted for all the positions of popular election and appointed for any other employment or commission, having the qualities that the law establishes “.
Thus, we understand that the Constitution that is above the secondary laws provided in article 35 section II, that citizens have the power or prerogative (right recognized by law) not only to vote (Active Law, to act, to give a vote), but also to be voted (Passive Right to receive votes), is nothing but what legal doctrine recognizes as a subjective right; this faculty is proper to people, (of human beings) that is, the legal interest is of individuals (of man in society), it belongs to the patrimony of their legal rights, it is part of their political rights as a human being in society .
To exercise this prerogative, the law is optional non-limiting, that is, it does not oblige citizens to have any membership or be sponsored by any Political Association as a requirement to be a candidate for a direct or indirect election, on the contrary, the legislator also contemplated the legal hypothesis for the cases of candidates, formulas or forms without registration.
On the “democratization of democracy”, and the null equality of opportunities in the collection of political electoral rights of independent citizens of parties, we can say that, if we try to clarify the sense of the vision that the legislator put in the laws of the intruders, as is the case of the Federal Code of Electoral Institutions and Procedures that, in Title II, Chapter Fifth of Article 205, section 2, subsection j, regarding the content of the electoral ballots, says: Article 205 (Reformed, DO, September 24, 1993): Fraction 2 said: The ballots for the election of President of the United Mexican States, senators and deputies, will contain: (ADDITIONAL, Official Gazette of NOVEMBER 22, 1996) j) Space for candidates or formulas not registered.
The inclusion of the text “space in the electoral ballots” gives us the idea that in fact the ordinary citizens can be non-registered candidates, they can participate in a process of election, even if they are not sponsored by any party, leaving open the possibility of being able to legally sustain a candidacy without registration, that is, independent.
Article 279 Fractions I of the then LGIPE law allows the voter to write down on the ballot the name of the unregistered candidate for whom he wishes to cast his vote. To determine the validity or nullity of the votes, the following rules shall be observed: (REFORMED, Official Gazette of NOVEMBER 22, 1996) clause c) Votes cast in favor of unregistered candidates shall be recorded in the minutes separately.
Examined the struggle between the governors and the State intruders for recognizing the “Principle of Equal Opportunities” in the exercise and collection of political electoral rights in favor of independent citizens of political parties is the order of the day, therefore, a of the misfortunes of this country (Mexico) has been precisely the mistake of trusting in that deceitful and false “concurrent faculty” for the disbelief of the (civil) people in allowing the “party runners” to walk ahead on our way trading and negotiating our legal assets, those that are inheritance and heritage bequeathed by our ancestors.
The “concurrent faculty” referred to in the theory of articles 35, fractions I and II and 36, fraction III of the Constitution, – is a right and an obligation – therefore, the citizen is empowered and obliged to resort to a process electoral, but such provisions are omitted in saying if it is possible to attend assisted by some party, because it has in its favor also, the legitimate right to have divergence or rivalry with respect to the political formulas that are offered, and therefore be at liberty to opting better to compete, compete, or contend in the electoral fair by avoiding any support or sponsorship from intermediaries.
It is about guaranteeing to all citizens, including those who do not belong to a Political Association or “party”, the concession as prerogative of the guiding principle of “equality”, but not equality in terms of gender equity, much less equality of opportunities because of their sex, but that which is necessary to make the democratic process in electoral matters a reality, that is, the one that makes it necessary to legislate to make reality 3 such as the following:
1.- The principle of equality in voting;
2.- The principle of equality in effective participation (safe, true, real) and,
3.- The principle of equality in the inclusion of all individuals in the democratic project.
The granting of the principle of “equality”, to have “legal certainty” that as ordinary citizens we are being summoned to a process of electoral election, since we have the right to receive equal conditions and opportunities in the face of candidates of the parties, to have legal certainty that any suffrage issued by the elector in favor of the unregistered candidates will be recognized as valid.
The granting of the “principle of equal participation” in the inclusion of all individuals in the democratic project, to have legal certainty that citizens can individually and freely promote their own candidacy for elected office without the need for sponsorship some match Unfortunately, in many municipal, local and recently national elections several citizens have proposed their candidacy under these legal guidelines, with the negative determination of the intruders of the Supreme Court to admit such an elective figure.
What is to be achieved, in any case, is to guarantee to the members of civil society in general, the “legal security” of the exercise of their electoral political rights, to all those citizens who individually and freely have opted not to join or be sponsored by a political party, before the event of the electoral processes, and who prefer to promote their candidacy without registration and without the intermediation or sponsorship of any party.
According to the legislation, the political “parties” are entities of public interest and have the right to participate in the constitutional elections of the Legislative, Executive and City Councils … That right, as its own word indicates, is limited to a simple “participation” or (collaboration, intervention, adhesion), collaborate, contribute, cooperate, but nothing resembles the right of citizens to participate directly in the exercise of their political rights as individuals or individuals in society.
Recall Max Weber, who in his book “Economy and Society” says: “Political parties are only a means to make the democratic principle effective, they are not the only way to do so, nor can they substitute the direct intervention of citizens in the exercise of their rights. political rights”.
The parties as “medium”, manner, procedure, form, are not the only way in the concretion of the democratic principle by which power is accessed. So, what will be the other way? the answer is, without a doubt, the unregistered candidacies.
As an old conviction we have had a “Party System Regime”, devised by intruders as a means to achieve the democratic principle; thus, and after the time, under the rectory of this “system” it is necessary to pause to reflect that we have learned so much from it, and if it is important to face it. Also, and to plan for the future, it is necessary to know what and how many mistakes have been made in the past under that “system”, so it is necessary to examine how important it is for civil society composed of citizens to have the same possibility in equal conditions of being a beneficiary of the recognition of the validity of the votes cast in their favor as an unregistered candidate when the voter has chosen to mark the electoral ballots in the space destined for candidates, formulas or unregistered forms.
It is very clear that if only the political parties are summoned to a comitical process, the sustenance of the meaning of the convocation is lost, since those who are not holders of any original, essential, fundamental, basic or necessary prerogative are summoned as the main ingredient to give us the legal certainty that we are really getting to know the legitimate and possible interested parties in exercising their right, but, on the contrary, the appointment, the call or the corresponding edict is made to those who do not hold political rights to receive votes, because the beneficiaries are the candidates (natural persons), not the parties (legal or moral persons) who are really mere intermediaries, dealers, traffickers with merely supportive, collaborative powers (contribute, help, assist, cooperate) as its etymology indicates the thermal “COLLABORATE” comes from “COL” prefix “tail”: from “tail-tail”, or final part or back of something; and “LABOR”, to work, to work for something or for someone. So: What is the point of summoning the assistants, the appendices, the interlocutors, mediators, merchants or arbitrators dealing with the matters for which they only concern the citizens as holders of the right?
Thus, it is appreciated that the parties and their candidates maintain a relationship of divorce with the majority of Civil Society, we do not find before a crisis of participation that originates a crisis of legitimacy that throws us as a result popular representations elected by simple minorities.
Recall what Jorge Vera Estañol maintains, in his book, “Apart from the Constitution of 1917”; which says: “When public opinion does not manifest itself in the elections; more than this, he stops making his voice heard at all times in relation to all the important acts of the administration, the community of ideas between the people and their representatives insensibly vanishes, the forces that maintain the bonds of dependence and responsibility, they relax gradually; and if the silence is prolonged, the government ends up feeling independent, irresponsible, infallible, omnipotent. Democracy is then a chimera; (a dream, an illusion) the autocracy (tyranny-dictatorship) dressed in false clothes, in reality: The government is master and not servant; makes the elections, instead of the elections make the government.
The crisis of participation in electoral processes reflects the disenchantment of Civil Society with respect to the “System of the Party System” and also gives us a clear proof that it is in the final phase of its decline, as results show the next upcoming elections where the big winner in the election process was abstentionism.
To qualify the effort made by the smaller parties when they participate in the electoral processes, they are very serious criticisms in which any vote in their favor has been called “useless voting” or useless election. It has been shown that the interest of these parties is artificial because their only task is to work to where they can sustain the level of voting required by the law, to reach them to preserve their registration and the benefits of the public budget.
On the other hand, the “differentiated” vote (divided) reveals the division of Civil Society that is seduced by this or that party, it is the case that after a divided election process, the voters reaped grudges and frustrations many insurmountable times that give rise to the phenomenon that has been called “electoral abstention”. It can be considered that it is against the public interest that a company is divided into fractions when a process of election takes place, it is also against the public order that after a process of election the grudges and resentments between the voters flourish, in the same way it is against the general interest that civil society is not legitimately represented when its servants obtained the electoral triumph by the decision of the simple minorities mistakenly called “relative majorities”.
The way of the elections a common citizen does not guarantee the “equality of participation”, being consequently excluded from participating in the political and democratic life of the State, it obliges then, as a measure to find a way out of the difficult situation to do something, cancel any commitments with the parties and with the calls made by these and the electoral institutions of the intruders, that is, in attention to the “natural right” of the non-existence of regulation of the autonomy of the will and the freedom of individuals to belong or stop belonging to a party, you are in absolute freedom (if it is your desire), to stop making use of this “concurrent power” avoiding any commitment to the parties and institutions responsible for the organization of elections.
THE REPARATION WILL CONSIST OF: Guarantee equality of participation and the inclusion of all individuals (even minors) in democratic processes, implementing a new form of highly democratic election called “demarchy”, because this form of democratical election does not no distinction is made in the access to the exercise of public office of choice, it is random (by lottery) and certainly less expensive.
12.-ROTA THE RULE OF AUTHENTIC POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVENESS:
Montesquieu said: “the people should only do what they are capable of: choosing those who exercise their authority, but are incapable of exercising it for themselves”.
Article 40 of the Constitution of 1857 stipulates that: Article 40. – It is the will of the Mexican people to become a representative Republic, …
The usefulness of the figure of “representativeness” by mandate for the exercise of the government, rests on the fact of a mostly expressed will of the people, and manifested in a public election. In Mexico there is no identity between the terms “representation-election”, this terminology is not so perfect, the “political representation” has degenerated and developed its own characteristics that deviate from the law and adapt to the convenience of intruders such as: a .- Irrevocability. b.- Irrenunciably onerous. (Article 36 fraction IV Constitutional). c.- Irresponsibility of the agents in relation to their electors. d.- Representation of all the people and not of the minorities that designate them. e.- Lack of general will of all the people. f.- Refrendable every determined time.
Regarding the alleged irrevocability of the constitutional mandate contract, we have to: based on the letter from Querétaro that the revolutionary intruders imposed in 1917, and in relation to its “supposed representative character”, legal scholars maintain that all acts celebrated legally are non-existent by the false representatives, because if we take as a supplementary reference the rules of law contained in articles 1802 and 2583 of the Civil Code for the Federal District of supplementary application, qualify as “null” the acts performed on behalf of another by someone who is not a legitimate representative, because in the absence of the consent of the principal (will of the people), it is a true non-existence in relation to the constitutional contract, for lack of consent, manifested in an authentic public election process, nullity that can not be validated by the course of time, that is, by prescription.
However, in the case of an act executed by a “false representative”, although according to article 1802 it is null, unless the person whose name was celebrated ratifies it before the other party rejects it, it must be estimated that, in the absence of the consent of the supposedly represented, in reality there is a real non-existence, in accordance with articles 1794, section I, and 2224 of the repeated Civil Code. Both constitutions, (the legitimate and Queretana) that have the character of public order (not private) recognize the right of citizens to participate in public affairs directly or through representatives, freely elected in periodic elections by universal suffrage made exclusion of the members of the Supreme Court, those who are not bound to this type of popular mandate.
Invariably the representation of the people is acquired through a “popular mandate” (consent), and is legitimized by the expression in the ballot boxes of the general will of the majority of the people. The conception of this mandate is similar to the legal-private, because it has the same consequences. Thus, things, playing a role of representation without being legitimized the right to play, is a clear fraud to the popular will. To renew the public powers are not legal procedures that are considered peaceful as direct consultation with the people, ratification by special conventions or the meeting of closed assemblies called “constituents” erected later in electoral college, as the only legal means to represent legitimately The ordinary public elections are based on the rules previously established in the Constitution of 1857 and the Organic Electoral Law of February 12 of the same year. The authentic representativeness under the democratic system is obtained only under the rigor of the mathematical formula of half plus one of the total of the electors, nevertheless, when not being able to fill that requirement, the intruders devised other diverse principles, like the one of “representation by relative majority “and that of” proportional representation “, perverse formulas that are not at all the accounting basis of the democratic regime that the law requires.
THE REPARATION WILL CONSIST OF: Determining nonexistent with full right all acts, agreements or facts that the governments emanated from the rebellions or rebellions because they are contrary to the legitimate constitution of 1857 for lacking authentic representativeness, in particular the declaration of the electoral organisms that resolved as valid the elections under the principle imposed by the particular constitution of the revolutionaries called “relative majority”.
13.-ROTA THE RULE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INVITATION:
The Constitution of 1917 is illegitimate from the triple legal, political and revolutionary point of view. The legal mechanism to have reformed the Constitution of 1857 was previously established in article 127 of the same order that states: “Article 127.- This Constitution may be added or amended. For additions or reforms to become part of the Constitution, it is required that the Congress of the Union, by the vote of two thirds of its present individuals, agree on reforms or additions, and that these be approved by the majority of the legislatures of the States. The congress of the Union will make the calculation of the votes of the legislatures and the declaration of having been approved the additions or reforms “.
The ideal procedure for renewing public powers was established in article 81 of the same Charter of 1857, which consisted in the holding of extraordinary elections. So we have to, the illegal constitution of 1917 was not made by the people or the Mexican people.
Thesis of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation maintain the following: “The usurpation of Victoriano Huerta broke the mold of the Constitution of 1857, it practically remained in suspense, and without application in part, but there was no law later that on the contrary, the leaders of the revolution recognized its validity for which it existed as the supreme law, even though the observance of many of its precepts would be suspended. ”
Between the Constitution of 1857 and that of 1917 there is no bond of union, since none of the precepts of the latter mandates that those of that one be accepted; it establishes a completely new order of things. ”
The Court’s jurisprudence maintains that: “The existence of two constitutions in the same period does not have validity, since there is no valid law that has repealed (abolished, annulled or suppressed) the Constitution of 1857, it was wanted to be buried, but, nor of the text of that of the one of 1917 some reference in that sense comes off “.
The Constitution of 1917 legally does not exist then, could not arise as a new Constitution to replace the 1857, because the new does not say so, nor is it stated in it that the previous was repealed. There can not be two constitutions in force and observance at the same time. The imposed Constitution of 1917 was not made by the Mexican people, nor by the Mexican people. The Constitution of 1917 was a spontaneous abortion of the minority social sub-class turned into combatants, and in their works resent the passions, hatreds and resentments of that neo-military caste. The Queretaro Constitution of 1917 is an invalid document that in no way alters the original texts of the legitimate Constitution of 1857.
The foregoing indicates logically, that the acts of a revolution do not engender valid legal effects, that is, they do not have efficacy, because a revolution is not consecrated as a source of positive law, neither can nor must it break the old right to impose its own points of view, engendered by his political excitement of revenge against the former holder of power. Now, there can not be a legal vacuum between the power that existed before and the establishment of the new one, that is to say, there is not recognized any possible intermediate situation of “overthrow”, or “preparatory” for the implementation of a new regime, in addition, and since it is the case that judges are not in a condition to do politics, it is also the case that they are prevented from putting themselves at the service of arbitrariness.
In relation to the alleged theoretical principle of the “Constituent Power” that the impostors of 1917 said, it is not such, because according to the experts in law as it is maintained in the work of “Philosophy of Law” by the teacher Luis Recasens Siches, it establishes the following “… not every substitution or amendment to the constitution represents an original production of law, nor does it inaugurate a new legal system, nor does it therefore determine a solution of continuity with respect to the previous order. A constitution can be modified or replaced normally and legally, that is, by following the reform procedure prevented explicitly or tacitly in the previous constitution, that is, in which it is modified or replaced; and then in a way the continuity of the state juridical life is broken, since the previous constitutional foundation is superimposed by another new link with it, founded on it; so that the validity of the new constitution does not represent something primitive, it is not something radically original, it is not something new, but it is derived from the validity of the previous constitution, which serves as the basis for the new one “.
The supposed reform of the Constitution of 1857 made by the mutineers was limited by insurmountable barriers: a series of points could be covered but never the one related to the legitimate ownership of the supreme power, that is, so that a constitutional amendment can be considered as legal reform and valid, and not as another type of diverse alteration, it was also necessary to rescue the original ownership of the supreme power, that primitive power consecrated as legitimate that only corresponded to the ownership of those who legitimately exercised the three branches of government, with the consent of the people and who governed until before the coup d’etat, because the usurpers did not gather such budgets. In the absence of such an element of legitimacy, what was done with regard to the alleged reform of the 1857 constitution, was not such, because denied the foundation of its legal competence, (faculty) constitutes a new legal system, without connection with the previous one, what represents a total rupture of the preceding legal order, even in the event that such changes have happened in a peaceful manner.
There can be no uncertainty about who should be the holder of the “constituent power”, it is clear to us that the impostors, could not and can never base on the general principles of positive law of the Fundamental Charter of 1857; the right of ownership of its alleged constituent power, that corresponds to the people by peaceful means and not to those who place themselves as criminals and used violent force of arms, because if that were the case, we would be exposed to any criminal will configure the general laws in his own way.
The Constituent Power, however, legally existed and exists in the hands of the original creators, it comes from that democratic conception that belongs to the national community and that founded the foundations of the legitimate Constitution of 1857 in a plenary manner. The holder of that power is the Mexican nation, it is the same people or group of subjects that had an awareness of national integrity and the will to affirm it. In truth, the “constituent” and sovereign power of the people is not lost, exists and can be activated, that power or by mistake, although many think otherwise, has been in the hands of a few leaders of thieving frauds, because according to the theory classical democratic, the constituent power is legitimate competence of the national sovereignty of the people and of the legally instituted powers, with the agreement to the will of the majorities, under the protection of their constitutional legislation full, undivided, inalienable, permanent, non-transferable and imprescriptible, which will always remain in latent power against the imposition of any other obviously illegitimate.
There will be those who want to sustain the doctrinal thesis of legitimation by “consummated criminal act”, the legal effects occurred by the acts of the revolution, but such a postulate, can not have the intended validity when the seizure of power succeeded by altering the public order and carrying out acts contrary to the principles of law, that is, criminal acts can not be put before the provisions of public order and even less when the transformation of a political regime of government is sought, since the positive law does not guarantee such a possibility.
It is not uncommon for two or more criminals, gun in hand, to stop public transport and steal the values of their passengers and no one of the victims dares to resist; such is the Mexican case on a large scale: For example: It can be said that some travelers were taken by surprise, they did not have weapons or the opportunity to use them, and before life or money, they preferred the latter; but applied to the case of the Mexican people who have been subjected to the oppression of the usurpers for many years, it has been enough time to recover from the surprise and do something about it. How is it possible ?, ask themselves and strangers, to continue imposing a government by a handful of usurpers that today do not go beyond 640 adventurers between deputies and senators “cheating deceivers” to more than 123.5 million Mexicans.
The rebel delinquents self-called “constituents” of 1917 that were not more than 128 people, could not have such endowment of representatives of the people, because the power of the sovereign power that the individuals of a town have according to article 39 Constitutional is “UNINTERABLE”, that is, it is not transferred to anyone who can be called “representatives” when in truth they were and are real criminals according to the law, hence their illegitimacy of origin.
We naively think that the “usurping servants” of before, and their accomplices who arrived later, are either dead, or that they no longer exist or work in the government, since in reality they usurp our thinking, they oppress us at will. If it is a reality that the “dead politicians” and the intruders who came after, those who are no longer working in the government, are still lords and owners of the living; because in schools a large part of the teaching time is used to explain and learn their vicissitudes, adventures, and shames.
THE REPAIR WILL CONSIST OF: Fulfilling the constitutional mission established in Article 128 of the Constitution of 1857.
14.-ROTATE THE RULE OF VALID ELECTORAL PROCESSES:
All the processes of public election held by the revolutionary rebels are invalid, contrary to the provisions of Articles 80, 81 and 82 of the 1857 Legitimate Constitution. For the particular case of the absolute lack of the President of the Republic Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada , and the inviolability of the Legitimate Constitution of 1857, said Fundamental Charter cites the following: “Article 80.- If the absence of the president is absolute, a new election shall be held in accordance with the provisions of Article 76, and the newly elected he will exercise his functions until the last day of November of the fourth year following his election “. Article 81.- The office of president of the Union is only waived by serious cause, qualified by the congress, before whom the resignation will be presented. Article 82. If for any reason the election of president was not made and published for December 1, when the replacement must be verified, or the elect is not soon to enter in the exercise of his functions, the old one will cease , and the supreme executive power will be deposited temporarily in the president of the supreme court of justice. ”
Not having been called to new elections and to appoint temporarily as president of the Republic the president of the Supreme Court, which at that time was Iglesias, who certainly did not accept the appointment that he made, General Diaz in the “Plan de Palo” Blanco, “the prerogative was blocked and could no longer be co-extensive of public opinion, weakening the necessary force that requires any mandate, that is, took power without the consent of the people, forming a self-government of the force of the weapons.
The use of force of arms can not invoke reasons of public interest, nor can it substitute the vigor of public opinion that manifests itself in the electoral elections. Public opinion is the soul of democracy, in the use of violence of arms the conviction of the general will is not represented, on the contrary, it is an aggravating circumstance that opposes what must be essentially voluntary. It is the submission to political minorities.
Thus, the federal government and that of the States is the government of a caste, and not of a people; public opinion has no influence on it and until this is resolved, the interests of the nation will be unprotected and the people will continue to be victims of greater abuses.
THE REPAIR WILL CONSIST OF: As provided by the legitimate constitution of 1857, it is legally appropriate to appoint as interim president of the Mexican Republic, the president of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, and in his absence, the acting Secretary of Foreign Affairs.
15.- ROTATE THE RULE OF ADDITIONS AND REFORMS BIDDING AS MARKED BY ARTICLE 127 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1857.
Article 127 of the Constitution of 1857 states: “The present constitution may be added or amended. For the additions and reforms to become part of the Constitution, it is required that the Congress of the Union, by the vote of two thirds of its present individuals, agree on the reforms or additions, and that these be approved by the majority of the legislatures of the States. The Congress of the Union will make the calculation of the votes of the legislatures and the declaration of having been approved the additions or reforms “.
It is clear that the additions and reforms made by the rebels did not come from a legally constituted Union Congress, but rather from a meeting of loved ones in the city of Queretaro, who had no right to deliberate under Article 9 of the Constitution, and Obvious reasons are considered illegal any approval or attempt of approval of the legislatures of the States, in such a way that the Congress of the Union could never do some calculation to declare to have been approved any presumed addition or reform proposed by said assembly of insurgents.
THE REPAIR WILL CONSIST OF: Call to decree and decree invalid any attempt of addition or reform intended by the revolutionary rebels gathered in the city of Querétaro, consider such meeting as what was really a simple play, which has no impact whatsoever on validly modify the original texts of the Constitution of 1857, for not meeting the requirements established in article 127 of said Constitution.
16.- ROTA THE RULE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY ESTABLISHED IN ARTICLE 126 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1857.
Article 126 of the Constitution of 1857 establishes: “This Constitution, the laws of the Congress of the Union emanating from it and all treaties made or made by the President of the Republic, with congressional approval; they will be the supreme law of the whole Union. The judges of each State shall comply with said Constitution, laws and treaties, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary that may exist in the constitutions or laws of the States. “
It is evident that the legislatures and the judges of the States were not subordinated to the Constitution of 1857, did not oppose the dispositions of the rebels assembled in Querétaro to approve a new constitution, that of 1917, that is, they omitted to assert the supremacy of the Constitution of 1857 over the bastard letter of 1917.
THE REPARATION WILL CONSIST OF: Calling to decree and decree invalidates any approval of the congress and legislatures or of the judges of all the States of the Mexican Republic, all those that were tending to validate the alleged reforms proposed by the Revolutionary rebel Don Venustiano Carranza within of the alleged “constituent” congress held in the city of Querétaro, and resolve to establish that these are not such or alter the substantive content of the original text of the legitimate and still valid Constitution of 1857 or of the original contents of the legitimate constitutions of the States , that the acts celebrated by the rebels armed in that meeting prohibited by the supreme constitutional law in article 9, do not engender valid provisions, that consequently it is a simple letter of intent that fights against the provisions of article 126 of the Constitution, and that the States were not in a condition to subordinate themselves to the provisions of the particular constitution of the revolutionary rebels.