CHAPTER V
THE PUBLIC ACCUSATION:
When there is public accusation of a supreme law in article 128 of the legitimate constitution of 1857, it is obvious that the political electoral rights of the rebel leaders like Díaz, Madero, Huerta, Carranza, etc., were affected, so therefore, in his capacity as “alleged offender” under the Criminal Code, he could not have his political rights safe to deal with the tasks of government, which caused them as a consequence his greatest legal impediment to being elected as established in article 77 of the legitimate and still valid Constitution of 1857.
It is noteworthy that the rebel leader Venustiano Carranza together with his coterie of self-styled criminal rebels “constitutionalists”, which translates into alleged defenders of the Constitution of 1857, turned out to be anti-constitutional, abolitionist, absolutist, cons and radicalist of that Fundamental Charter, because so miserable army did not have, nevertheless, the doctrinaire conviction of defending the Constitution, but rather that of annihilating it to impose the rigor of its new particular code called “constitution of 1917″. Between the legitimate and still valid Constitution of 1857 and the bastard letter of 1917 there is no bond of union, since none of the precepts of this mandate that those of that one be accepted; it establishes a completely new order of things. ”
It does not exist in national or international positive law, nor has there ever been a legal power to legitimize a coup d’état or an armed rebellion, since Mexican laws have always provided for the adequate legal means to change the political regime of government.
It is invalid, null, false and bastard the alleged “constitution of 1917” edited by the revolutionary rebels, from the triple point of view legal, political and revolutionary, because the legal mechanism to have reformed the Constitution of 1857 was previously established in the Article 127 of this latest legislation.
The alleged “constitution of 1917” was not made by the people of Mexico or for the Mexican people, this is in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court that determines that: “the existence of two constitutions in the same period is not valid “, And that there is no valid law that has repealed, abolished, annulled or suppressed the Constitution of 1857, only wanted to bury it, but the text of the alleged constitution of 1917 does not reveal any reference in that regard.
The supposed “constitution of 1917” that many have symbolically sworn in fact legally does not exist, and could not arise as a new to replace the legitimate one of 1857, besides, there can not be two constitutions in force and observance at the same time.
The false “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 bloody neo-military caste, it turns out to be an invalid document that in nothing alters the original texts of the legitimate Constitution of 1857 that is still in force.
The tacit submission or express of the people to the false and bastard “constitution of 1917”, as well as their invocation to defend some of their civil rights before any outrage, does not bring any benefit of legitimacy to the governments emanating from the rebellions, on the contrary , such behavior, locates and updates its followers and collaborators in various criminal situations typified in the Penal Code.
It should be noted that there will be those who hold the doctrinal thesis of the “consummated criminal act” as a basis for validity and legal effects in the acts of the revolution, but such a postulate can not have the intended efficacy when the taking of the be able to alter public order (by force), to the detriment of the law, that is, you can not put criminal acts before the provisions of public order as a basis for legitimacy, and even less when seeking the transformation of a political regime of government, because the positive law does not guarantee this possibility, being clear that the use of weapons and violence is not contained in Article 39 as a constitutional power to alter or modify the form of government.