CHAPTER XIV
SEVEN RELEVANT POINTS:
1.- The false principle of “national sovereignty of the people”.
2.- The false principle of “equality” as the origin of government.
3.- Of the juridical nature of the “constitutional political mandate”.
4.- Of the situation of “the electors”.
5.- The situation of “the governed”.
6.- Of the situation of the “working class”.
7.- Of the shameful situation of the “Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation”.
1.- OF THE FALSE PRINCIPLE OF “NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE”.
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 another need for a rule that presided over his reciprocity and his limitation: this rule is “justice”.
The principle of popular sovereignty does not recognize reciprocity in rights or limitation of obligations. The idea of the just disappears where there are only 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 and elections 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 Half plus one 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.
If the sovereignty of the people is an error, all the political constitutions of the world are powerless to change this circumstance; but if it is a truth, you do not need constitutional laws to sustain yourself. 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 he thinks, instead the voter keeps his own 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.
2.- OF THE FALSE PRINCIPLE OF “EQUALITY”.
The equality of rights between civil society has not only never existed, but is always impossible under all possible relationships, that is, impossible according to its nature; because for this it would be necessary to suppose men without father, without body, without faculties. Impossible according to the reason; because if man is an eminently moral being (part of the rules of the teaching of customs as rules that must govern the free activity of other men), he had to acquire rights over people because of his authority over family generations, and of things (goods, properties) by virtue of work.
The above convinces us that men could not be equal in rights for a single moment: Impossible according to the merit of each one alone, because if in each country the first man had properties and authority over his children, it was not because he had a superior merit, but because he was first, and became sovereign of all his descendants and owner before all those who believed him. If men are by nature equal in rights, why kings, priests, prisoners, rich and poor? Why all these social inequalities?
In theory it is understood that in the constitutional contract concluded with politicians, the parties make reciprocal concessions in articles 1, 2º B-, 4º, 5º first paragraph, 12, 13 and 31 fraction IV, but nevertheless in practice , we Mexicans receive an unequal treatment when State officials apply the laws of public order, because this, in the exercise of its powers, offers us unequal treatment for those who come to the protection of the law with the hope of being treated of the Same way, with the same rights and with the same obligations, but there is no such, because such “security” does not exist in reality, the people continue to endure unequal and unjustified damages or benefits.
Based on the foregoing, it is necessary to examine such budgets and with respect to the “contract of political mandate” or “social pact” between the governors and the governed, the origin of the existence of the State is not based on the principle of “equality” “, Then we have to, that principle presents / displays essential discordant characteristics as they are the following: a. – Extravagant by itself; b.- Impossible in the legislation; c.- Impracticable in the constitution. d.- Terrible in its effects and false in its principles.
a) .- Extravagant by itself: The contract between rulers and governed embodied in the constitution Queretana, which was imposed by the intruders is ridiculous, because the members of a civil society can not be both subjects and sovereigns, dependents and independent obey, and let no one send them; and finally that it serves and that it does not have sir. That each individual is subject and sovereign, every nation governed and governed, all the world on one side and all the same world on the other, are these the same two parts of the contract ?, this is an extravagance (rarity), how to believe that a person acts as two people or that two people do the same thing? This is an absurdity.
The contract-mandate (political constitution) is based on this false magic separation. It is therefore necessary for a national sovereign to have very real rights; and on the other a nation that physically obliges itself to obey. But if in the men’s collection there is not one equal to another, where did the different human elements come from to integrate the government? Would it be necessary to elude (eliminate) the right to equality and found a code of separation of persons? Or would it be simply of wills? If so, that document that contains them must be very convincing and positive, because until today the authority of the two parts of government (governors and governed) is still illusory.
b) .- Impossible in the legislation. It is impossible in legislation because it would be necessary for some to be on one side and others on the other; doing one the law and receiving it the others; some being entirely members of the sovereign people, and the others entirely members of the State, then, because even in the case of uniformity of wills, it is generally impossible, when much could be divided into a majority and a minority, but, the decision of the majority would not bind (subject) to minorities, because the social pact, from which the law flows (the political constitution-contract) recognizes the general will as an essential basis, and, even if it were possible to gather an entire nation in the arithmetical sum It should be counted all the human beings that have will and therefore the children, the truth is that in no State has the whole nation been united, and it can be said that in none will it be joined; and if that were not enough, the previous inconveniences do not disappear with the so-called “representation” of wills in Congress because, by appointing the people to their deputies, he will believe he is the sovereign but he is deceived because, after the nomination, he remains a slave.
But the people give the deputies the power to manifest their wills, which must be known to manifest themselves, and to know them it is necessary to consult them? How does a deputy consult the wills of his people before manifesting them in Congress? the will of civil society will not be duly represented without the concert (meeting) of the wills of the people and their deputies, unfortunately the nomination will leave the deputy with his will and I will keep mine.
It is therefore impossible for deputies to become representatives. Nothing is valid because the silence of the people is understood as their presumed consent. Each of the people has their reasons to be silent, these reasons are not signs of approval. It turns out then that there has never been a government in which the entire people has voted a law and has no legislative power, authority over dissidents, then no nation has been able to give absolute laws, then, no deputy can ever receive power from the people legislative, however, they do it, but if they do not have it from the people, who do they have it?
Speaking of the legitimacy of Mexican governments, the authors of law books have not been able to sustain the validity of governments subsequent to that of President Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada. The reason is very simple, after the military coup by a servant, General Porfirio Díaz, the constitutional order of the Republic was lost, some of them dare to argue that the alleged legitimacy of later intruders such as Madero, Huerta, Carranza and Calles, comes from the silence of the people and their adaptation to the application of the rigor of the imposition of their new private code of 1917; false affirmations as false can be themselves, consolation of plugs that does not help in anything, lies that later we will clarify.
c) .- Inapplicable in the Constitution. For the validity of the “political contract-mandate” (political constitution), all the universality of the individuals is needed, because those who stop adhering are dissidents, and the dissidents can not form, under any circumstance, that association.
If it is presupposed that before the first political-constitutional contract there was no derived executing authority, nor original ordering sovereignty; the primitive freedom of the parties was a freedom of absolute independence, that is, before men were not subordinated to each other, but if the time has come, they have decided to associate and subordinate themselves, it is by a free and spontaneous act of “Will” by virtue of their consent and their vote. According to this, it is clear that no one enters into association, but by virtue of consent and of his vote; and if it is already part of the association, if it is committed to it, if it contributes to sovereignty and if everything is done by its vote, it is logically understood that without them (the will and the vote) there can be nothing.
If an individual does not want to associate, nobody can force him to do so, or subject him to any pretext because he was born free, independent. While he does not consent to associate, he is perfectly independent. If he does not associate, nobody is his sovereign, nor anyone has rights over him. It is clear that in order for the powers and rights of the associates to extend to all of them, it is necessary for all to be associated; and if there is only one that does not consent, the sovereignty of the State will not extend over that which completes the whole, or what is the same, there will be no supposed full sovereignty derived (absolute power of the rulers) because it has a national essence. For there to be a contract it is necessary that all contracting parties (individuals) agree; That is why all members of a society must be satisfied.
But the difficulty of those men accustomed to their independence; There will be many who do not want to hold or do not agree; but if there is division, what will be done for the vote? All those who do not want to leave the country ?, but with what right can they be forced ?, Who does not want to be submitted or voted and be voted in an election, what to do with them ?, Use force, violence, injustice, authority or forced emigration? better, being attentive to the natural right of people’s freedom, we must work to legislate on respect for the right to dissent.
d) .- It has terrible effects and false principles. The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, of December 10, 1948, with obligatory nature for all the countries that have signed, determined in its article 7o. that: “all are equal before the law and have the right, without distinction, to equal protection of the law”.
It remains to be said with respect to its observance that the bastard Constitution of 1917, which the mutineers unduly call “constitution”, contains this proclamation of the material or economic or even intellectual equality of men, and thus, subjecting them (to an entire people) to a kind of general leveling established by force, which is the very negation of all other rights; such document, having been the product of the commission of crimes of the Penal Code, makes it a law of delinquents promulgated “as to its observance” to subject to the condition of slavery entirely free men.
For the idea to be understood, we will say that the conditions of all human beings in society are not the same, enough to prove this fact that not all are equally endowed with intelligence and will, nor is their moral development the same; from this it results that, to obtain, as far as possible, equality before the law, the law has introduced different rules, which would be long to enumerate, already in relation to the ability of people to bind themselves, and supplying the discernment, the inexperience , the weakness of sex or age; with the intervention of third parties that in some way make equality obtained before the law. An alleged law such as the so-called “1917 constitution” that lacks the essential characteristics of legality, goes against the principle of equality guaranteed by Article 13 of the Constitution, and still ceases to be a legislative provision, in the material sense, since it lacks everything that belongs to its essence.
With regard to this issue, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court concludes the following:
“A) The law is exclusive, if the matter in question disappears after being applied to a case foreseen and determined in advance; b) The law is also proprietary when it mentions individually (nominally) the persons to whom it is applied; c) The law is not exclusive when it is applied without consideration of species or persons to all the cases it prevents; d) The law is not exclusive when it comprises a certain number of individuals; e) Laws related to a certain class of people such as miners, manufacturers, robbers, owners of some kind of property are not exclusive provisions, because they include all the individuals that are or may be in the established classification ” .
3.- OF THE LEGAL NATURE OF THE “CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICAL MANDATE”.
The “mandate” commonly contained in a document called “Constitution” is a contract by which a person is responsible without interest, by pure grace, or for a fee, the business of another. We Latinos call it “mandatum”. The origin of this type of contract comes from two factors that are the “weakness” and the “need” of human beings for the “equality” and “justice” that we cited above. The absence, the unavailability and the many impediments of civil society are the reason why we can not take care of our business of a collective nature, and therefore that we have to resort to other individuals.
Those who take care of the affairs of others, usually do so by a principle of “honesty” or “friendship”, and therefore their functions are free, because if there was a salary involved, it would be a “contract”. services “, a kind of lease of skills and abilities, certain people’s skills determined from the contents of the Civil Code relating to the category of domestic, for wages, at a fixed price in which the operator only puts his personal effort and they are governed by the Federal Labor Legislation, in accordance with section “B” of article 123 of the contract concluded with politicians called “Constitution”.
After examining the conditions of the constitutional mandate contract, the usual legal business is usually entrusted to the friends, or to a person of complete trust, they are bound by honor and duty, to adjust faithfully to what has been entrusted to them. Reason dictates that they put into the matter all the care they are capable of, that is, that they perform it as they would do for their own affairs that they deem most appropriate and in accordance with the object and nature of the contract. The ancient Romans regarded it as a thing unworthy of a good man to behave negligently or the servant without permission to act by his own name or refuse to return the matter of the mandate received by such infamy the criminal qualification of theft.
The mandate given to politicians does not necessarily imply services related to the exercise of a profession, it is not free, on the contrary, it is onerous, as of its own is established in article 35 section IV of its Constitution, in addition, it is mandatory according to paragraph fourth of article 5 of the constitutional mandate contract; It has a written form configured by an articulated public deed called “political constitution”, it is special because it refers to a part of the political aspects related to part of the social life of a people. The justification for this type of contract-mandate is due to the fact that licit acts are carried out for which the law does not require the personal and direct intervention of the interested party (of civil society).
If the mandate given to politicians is not of a general nature, then, the people have in their favor the prerogative to act directly in the whole universe of issues that, whether or not contained in the “constitutional contract-mandate,” be their desire to intervene in them in a personal way, that is, there is no limitation to the autonomy of their sovereign authority, which gives them complete freedom to institute with justified reason the configuration of a new form of government through their legislators or through of the independent exercise of a Civil Constituent Power.
4.- THE SITUATION OF “ELECTORES”.
So perfect have been the plans of the visible intruders that today the Mexican people continue without the sovereign authority that is preached in Article 39 constitutional, kneeling, cornered, tied, divided, controlled and at the mercy of the owners of political parties, trade 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 some kind of unity or dominion over the situation that the servants’ things keep nationally and internationally.
It is maintained that such a serious situation obeys two strategies that are known as: 1.- Segmentation, and, 2.- Polarization
These forms of control are implemented by the intruders that emerged from the coup and revolutionary movements, with them, first strengthen the division and rancor (rancor) between the electoral market (the electoral merchandise of the elector citizens) causing disunity from the institutions of the government with the help of political associations and electoral institutions.
A.- What is Segmentation? The “segmentation” is the game with the feelings of the electorate, with it is achieved excite the spirit of the elector citizen to respond to the stimuli of electoral propaganda in a more positive, it is put to the perception of their senses a false scenario , the simulation of a battlefield (which does not exist in reality) so that it fosters feelings of loyalty (identification) with a determined political institute (party), departing that puts its trench, puts on a color, falls in love with a cause, of a supporter symbol, of an acronym, of the charms of the “sale of hopes” of the merchant political servants.
B.- What is Polarization? The “polarization” is a model of communication of ideas that includes a defined process, objectives and precise goals, dynamics that must be known and promoted. Polarization gathers the vital interests (affective needs) of a society and delivers it back to the voter, based on a strategic plan of communicational confrontation. The first thing that must be controlled in the electoral market is to prevent a single party from monopolizing the electorate, that is, the “anti-party vote” must be encouraged, which is an effective alternative of opposition, abstention and confusion.
The ritual by the habit of the “utilitarian vote” (egoistic vote-interested) continues extolling the ambitions (psychological defects) of the electorate in seeking maximum benefits in the promises made by the candidates, certainly, those envisioned by messianic media and prophetic give better results, ideas are sold and introduced to your mind by the media, especially radio and television. Spaces are opened to generate mixed feelings about the acceptance or rejection of a candidate’s personality, historical ideas of his past, his private life are sold and the aspects of his imperfections are scrutinized in detail (defects) because at the end of accounts, the purpose is that the voter responds to the intention of convincing him to give in all his choices, all his votes with a high degree of sense of unshakable loyalty, that always see in his party the best virtues and in others, the worst disadvantages. The image of a saving party institution, a kind of ego-partí-centrism as the infallible whole in the universe, is cultivated and cultivated in the electorate, their ambitions (hopes) are exalted, what is involved is that the adhesion be perpetual, this guarantees the continuity of the unwary in the electoral game.
Now, how can the people separate themselves from this situation? What, perhaps, is the Constitution itself not a contract of adhesion? Why should a sovereign have the responsibility to go to a commissioning process? That would deny its supremacy. authority because a sovereign can not have legal responsibility, that would damage its hierarchy, for that reason the Mexican people are exempt from submitting to the constitutional law, and this can be proved very easily; for example: Article 31 of the Legitimate Constitution of 1857 says: Article 31.- It is the obligation of every Mexican: I.- To defend the independence, the territory, the honor, the rights and interests of their country.
The foregoing means the care of some legal values or assets that are already theirs and are part of their acquired assets; and with regard to paying the expenses that occasion the services and the servants, it is of fair right to compensate the services rendered, which in fact does not imply a submission neither to the law nor to the authorities.
5.- OF THE SITUATION OF “THE GOVERNMENTS”.
A governed according to PJ Proudhon in his work “General Ideas of the Revolution of the nineteenth century”, says: “To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated, regulated, indoctrinated, lectured, censored, is to be sent by beings who they have no title, no science, no virtues. Being governed means, in each operation, in each transaction, being recorded, registered, counted, priced, stamped, carved, quoted, patented, authorized, apostilled, admonished, content, amended, amended, corrected. It is under the pretext of public utility and in the name of the general interest, to be exposed, monopolized, predated, mystified, stolen; then at the slightest resistance, at the first word of complaint, repressed, fined, reviled, harassed, harassed, mistreated, beaten, disarmed, seized, imprisoned, shot, machine-gunned, judged, condemned, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed and for high, mocked, ridiculed, outraged and disgraced. Here is your government, here is your morality, here is your justice, here are your liberties and the well-being of which you presume. ”
The aforementioned Fernando Savater in his work “Politics for Amador” refers to the text of B. Espinosa in the work “Treaty of political theology” in which he says: “From the foundations that justify the existence of the State it is evident that its end it is not to dominate men or silence them by fear or to subject them to the interests of others, but on the contrary to free them from fear of each other so that, as long as possible, they may live with security, that is, to preserve the right It is not the end of the State to convert men from rational beings into beasts or into automatons, but on the contrary that their spirit and body unfold in a natural way. all its functions and make free use of reason without competing for hatred, anger or deception, or war with the unfair mind.The true end of the State is, then, freedom.
The also mentioned Max Weber, in his book “Economy and Society” says: “Human societies anywhere in the world, have their own reasons to maintain obedience or to disagree with a given regime. It supposes a collective sentiment that defends to surpass the crisis that appears to him, and, with the purpose of avoiding that it is formed around the State, a crust of immovable specialists in command, under which all the others we have to be resigned specialists in obey, you can relativize (subordinate) the role of parties, taking away privileges and importance. ”
6.- OF THE SITUATION OF THE WORKING CLASS.
The seditious revolutionaries and their accomplices who govern until this date devised Articles 25, 26, 27 and 123 whose content differs substantially from their original texts contained in the Constitution of 1857.
Thus, under the strictness of the bastard private code called “constitution of 1917” imposed by the armed rebellions, particularly what refers to the current articles 25, 26, 27 and 123 the “Monopolistic Public Capitalist System of the Mexican State” was consecrated, In this way, and under these crafty norms, the rebellious rebels made the State the owner of all the national patrimony for their own perverse interests, and those of their subordinates also traitor capitalists, assuring in the Penal Code sanctions to everything that of somehow put at risk your private patrimony that should be national; In this way, the first part of the “System of Legal Defense of the assets of the State Capitalist Political Society of the Imposters” is completed.
In a second phase, by its statutory law, the article 123 of the Federal Labor Law in which the capitalist production relations are established, a clear “Wage Exploitation System” was established, defines the privileges that intruders self-confer as property owners of the State, controlling in a corporate and institutional way the rights of association and strike of the workers, turning it into a complicated procedure in which in the end, it will only be competence and absolute decision of them and of the “representatives” from the workers.
The phenomenon of “Corporate State Control over Workers” is given using the representatives of workers’ groups can be easily verified, because the legal regime of the Mexican Trade Unions is subject to government control, proof of this are articles 365 and 366 citing: “To be considered legally constituted a union must register with the Board of Conciliation and Arbitration … .., Article 374 defines that” only legally registered unions have legal personality and capacity “; Article 377 obliges trade unions to provide reports of changes of leaders and modification of bylaws; 384 obliges trade union federations and confederations to place their registration and legalization in the hands of the Ministry of Labor.
In this way the unions are subject in absolute form to the intruders who became owners of public capital, but also had to become owners of the will of the representatives of these unions, for that an organizational figure was invented by the “Inverted Union” “That is to say, their formation would not depend on bottom up, but on top down and this can also be easily verified, since since 1931 a special type of syndicalism developed, and a corporate control regime was established in the following way:
I. – The capitalist impostors of the monopoly of state assets, gave registration packages to their “leaders” simple comparsas, traitors, servile and docile that were central as the CTM, CROC, CROM, and others.
II.- With their safe “records”, the “leaders” behind the workers’ backs, in complicity with the intruders, put themselves at the service of private capitalist companies, as a guarantee of submission and as the only ones authorized to sign collective agreements.
This is how the current “Carceral Syndicates” were formed, this is how the workers were left out of all dealings with the company and without union life. Any attitude of protest from the workers is a reason for application of the dreaded “Exclusion Clause” by the union, of dismissal by the company, of repression by the State institutions of the mutineers, and sometimes even of murders or political imprisonment.
But not everything ends here, that submission of union representatives to state capitalism and private capitalism, had to ensure their economic survival by way of the mandatory contribution of workers to union funds, could not happen as in other countries, where the workers receive their full salary and then, themselves, voluntarily and conscientiously, separate the amount corresponding to their union dues, and in an act of free expression of the will the delivery; and when a worker is not happy, he is simply free to change his union and stop paying the fee. This does not happen in Mexico, because the seditious ones devised a “Compulsory Trade Union Contribution System” this against the will of the workers and the prohibition of the salary discount contained in section VI of Article 110 of its spurious Federal Labor Law . In this way, Mexican workers never receive their full salary, but the intrusive capitalist employer who runs the State in collusion with the private capitalist employer and the servile “representatives” of the unions, are authorized to discount such quotas that they ” official leaders “fix and in this way these frauds find it more pleasant to assume an increasingly servile position to the employer who physically gives them the money of the quotas and forgets the interest to act for the benefit of the workers, who in no case can refuse to get the discount, in this way the union economy becomes a source of enrichment.
The “exclusion clause” contained in article 395 of the Federal Labor Law, as a means of repression in favor of the “leaders” of the government and of the state and private public enterprises of the capitalists is extremely serious, which implies another form of oppression against the workers.
7.- OF THE SITUATION OF THE “SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE NATION”.
Let’s see the similar content of article 39 of the Constitution of 1857, and of the alleged constitution of Querétaro. I quote: “Article 39. The national sovereignty resides essentially and originally in the people, all public power emanates from the people, and is instituted for their benefit.” The people have at all times the inalienable right to alter or modify the form of their government. ”
As can be seen, there is the unequivocal text that without distinction cites: “All public power comes from the people, and is instituted for the benefit of this.” Grammatically the word “benefit” must be understood as synonymous with: Service, favor, profit, profit, or utility, however, everything is invested for the benefit of the rulers.
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has the broadest function that can be trusted in the internal order of a Republic: that of maintaining the balance of the active forces of the government; it is entrusted with the task of restoring that balance every time it is broken, using its sole authority as interpreter of the Constitution. This is a public function that repairs evil and restores the good contained in positive law. There is a legal principle that provides that judges and magistrates who are knowledgeable about the law can not be political or political, they only have jurisdictional powers to enforce positive law in the face of arbitrariness, but the reality is that it has been proven that in the face of the problem that we have been systematically proposing have turned their backs on the people.
The System of Justice was twinned to the exclusive rigor of the usurping rebels, and it was evident that those judges and magistrates who imposed a system that from its beginning made it enter an involutive phase, in decline and out of season; their inability to substantiate specific litigation that are now decided by other non-jurisdictional authorities. Traditional judges are mired in the shadows of expired laws, codes and means of delivery, under a slow bureaucratic rhythm, excessive paperwork, exaggerated and complex rituals, corruption and distrust of the parties in those institutions. The conservative and ritualistic formation has oriented them more to a mechanical action of formulations aimed at interpreting the law and the legislators than to the litigants and the litigation in its real fund. The judges do not understand that they do not resolve on their own or on behalf of the parties a litigation but on behalf of the State. The formalist inflexibility of the judges does not allow them to see or consider the social and economic reality or the ethical value elements. The judges by analogy (similarity to other cases) resolve based on standards issued with many hypotheses and precedents that were born before the litigation arose and based on hypothetical authors who surely never considered the type of conflict that would arise to solve. What kind of justice can this be?
Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation means among the Mexicans a painful sarcasm (irony), a bitter ridicule that we do not owe, that we can not consciously call it that way, since through our judicial history it has only been a Court of abjection and servility . This is the truth, sublime, sovereign, supreme, just, noble or something similar, has nothing, in fact such power has not existed in Mexico, we have only had a set of individuals lacking in principles and decorum , appointed by the intruders in turn who have done only what they are ordered, and this is the moral, public and social wound (wound) that we must cure because we are committed to this as children of this country.
The rampant and scandalous corruption that justice has arrived at, is the most effective pain for the conscience, it is what causes the greatest alert among the spirits, and, as a result of this so intense malaise, the insatiable thirst for justice of the people, what was and will be the most serious foundation that will sustain the legitimate direct intervention of the people. All this rottenness of the courts is largely due to the original and unforgivable sin of being allies of the intruders and faithful devotees of their exclusive and perverse constitutional charter of 1917. In Mexico to win a lawsuit in a court you need influences, money or recommendations, if a litigant owns these three things will never lose a lawsuit, however unfair and absurd it may be. Is it that Mexican judges are more scoundrels than those in other countries? Do not; what happens is that the judiciary is not a professional career. Those who occupy these positions run the luck of being later thrown out into the street and replaced by others. This is an evil of greater consequences, a career of the judiciary must be made, separated from politics in order to have the assurance that there will be justice as pure and as respectable as possible.
Article 128 of the Constitution of 1857 does not distinguish: so usurping governments are Diaz, Madero, Huerta, Carranza, Calles, until the most recent; because usurpers of the institutions and the meaning of the law, it is any government or public institution that is established against the principles sanctioned by the fundamental code of the Republic and whose responsibility is made effective in articles 39, 40, 41, 103 and 109 of the Legitimate Constitution of 1857.
The words of the president of the Court, Mr. José María Iglesias, are updated in the minute book of the plenary session on October 27, 1876, which he addresses as a sentence, to all the other magistrates of the Court where he claims the following:
“Ladies and gentlemen, before complicity in crime, it is more worthy to accept dismissal or resignation in the exercise of public functions. You have failed to save and in any case save the Constitution, whose fulfillment and observance are entrusted to you. The law itself has to subject itself to your examination; you judge the law according to Article 126 of the Constitution, then, will you be part of a vassal power, an unarmed and miserable power that has to suffer and accept a public disorder, provoked at the request of others? Even the most common of Mexicans, has the right to occur to you against arbitrariness and despotism, will not that right have the collective people, the whole people, when their interests are trampled by the usurpation of other powers of the Republic? What is lawful in the sight of the intruders, will not be lawful to the people? Is there even shelter for the criminals and there will not be for the sovereign people when they run over and are outraged? The disturbance to public order is a crime to Article 128 of the Constitution, if one of the public authorities commits it, the others should not be its accomplices and have the duty to reject the crime. The constitutional powers have to remain unharmed, not harmonize with the intrusive government, nor concentrate on it. There is no middle ground between complicity and innocence, between abstinence and participation in crime. The Supreme Court will be able to hesitate and stain its honor with the infidencia and the perjury, will deceive the hopes of a town, that established the Judicial Power so that it was the ark santa of the law and the justice; the magistrates will now have three terrible judges; a God, who is the supreme judge of conscience; the people, who will curse you to the edge of your grave and the court of law that will be established when the observance of the constitution is claimed. The deans of science and teachers of the law of the Court, cooperated to the consummation of the crime, have cooperated with only shut up and accept the facts, just operate in consortium with the usurpers. You know well that there is a crime of continuous commission, like plagiarism while the victim is in the hands of the bandits. The Supreme Court has been a receiver that has been accepting the consequences, the breaking of the legal titles of this Nation, has participated in a liberticida oligarchy and not in a Constitutional Republic “.
In relation to the Attorney General’s Office, the same president of the Court José María Iglesias adds the following:
What nobler function of the Procurator General of the Nation than the patronage of the people, when is the victim of despotism? Who will be the Judge who knows the complaint of a people? and Who is the legitimate part that should be asked for by the people? The Judge can not be other than the Supreme Court, and the representative of the people can not be other than the Procurator General of the Nation whose mission is to support them outside of society and the Republic. The inmate in the current circumstances are the Legislative and Executive powers; powers that are not de jusable in fact, but morally responsible before the justice of the people. Is not each official told if he does not keep the Fundamental Charter, the Nation will demand his perfidy? For that demand must be effective, it must have a formula; and the formula can not be other than the motion of the Attorney General of the Republic and the intervention of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. The prosecutor’s accusation should fall on the de facto government and tell them: To the ministers: Within the Mexican territory have been proclaimed various governments contrary to the principles sanctioned by the Constitution. There, the freedom and sovereignty of the people are attacked. You, Supreme Court of Justice, reprove and repair that attack, you people, save your law, and with it your honor and your life. “
“Dictatorships and revolutions have ignored the easy and safe path of the law … Out of the way of the law, let’s not look for aggrandizement of our country or democracy. The law does not exist, it can not live in the midst of despotism or anarchy, let’s preserve it, let’s save it from its bitter enemies”.
The illegitimacy of the current Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation comes from its struggle against the Constitution of 1857 that prevents in its Article 92 the following:
“Article 92.- Each of the individuals of the Supreme Court of Justice will last for six years, and their election will be indirect in the first degree, in the terms established by the electoral law.”
As is known, today the members of the Court are not elected for six years, nor is their election based on the Organic Electoral Law of February 12, 1857, and if these provisions are not respected, their illegality of origin is proven fully. The irremovability of the magistrates has not succeeded in destroying the “ambition”, the spirit of intrigue, the desire to increase the salary and to waste resources. Justice holds Comte, it is administered according to the way the appointments have been made.
For his part Stuart Smill says that: “… nobody could deny that the immobility of the magistrates was an evil. Such a situation implies imposing on the people the obligation to support worn-out, ignorant or delinquent individuals, only because their conduct is good and their home respectable. ” Note that everything said here is not being qualified for the bad that is done, but for the good that they have stopped doing.