What does the first article of your cunt's constitution say?

What does the first article of your cunt's constitution say?

In my cunt it's:

"All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted."

Other urls found in this thread:

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatstheorie
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soberanía
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

it deals with the divisions of the legislative branch, about number of representatives and process of procedure

"All persons in Sudan should never suffer the indignity and societal crime of having rent less than pump's lean or their mommas living in tents'

Article 1:
(1) The Slovak Republic is a sovereign, democratic state governed by the rule of law. It is not bound to any ideology or religion.
(2) The Slovak Republic acknowledges and adheres to general rules of international law, international treaties by which it is bound, and its other international obligations.

>All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Also, for some reason this is the image that pops up when you google the first article.

It outlines constitutional/human rights apply to all people and cannot be denied or suspended, it strictly prohibits discrimination "whether it be for ethnic origin, national origin, gender, age, different capacities, social condition, health condition, religion, opinions, sexual preferences, or civil state or any other which attacks human dignity and has as an objective to destroy the rights and liberties of the people"

It also outlaws slavery and grants any slave reaching our soil their freedom, you know because historically we used to border this really big slaver nation.

...

Preamble invokes the divine right of the sovereign to institute government.

The first section is this:
>1. Short title
>This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

A fine reminder that civilian legal systems are utter rubbish.

>The Russian Federation -- Russia shall be a democratic federal rule-of-law state with the republican form of government. The names "Russian Federation" and "Russia" shall be equivalent.

As for the actual Constitution itself:

>1 Legislative power
>The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth.

1.
Albania is a parliamentary republic.
2.
The Republic of Albania is a unitary and indivisible state.
3.
Governance is based on a system of elections that are free, equal, general and periodic.

>WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:
Nice theocracy you have there.

It's self-contradictory. On one hand, it says that state is not bound to any ideology but at the same time it invokes concepts like rule of law, democracy and secularism - terms tied to classical liberalism.

Italy is a democratic Republic founded on labour.
Sovereignty belongs to the people and is exercised by the people in the forms
and within the limits of the Constitution.

It's not theocracy; it's caesaropapism, which is the opposite of theocracy.

And thank you; it's just the way it should be (although in implementation it disappoints).

Does "persons" mean only physical or both physical and moral person?

the fuck are you talking about?

Last version says
"France is an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. She ensures the equality before the law of all citizens without distinction of origin, race or religion. She respects all beliefs. Her organisation is decentralized."

i guess physical
how the fuck do you treat equally a moral person with the rest

Why is France known as a prime example of centralized state?

You forgot the second paragraph: "The law grant equal access of women and men to electoral mandaté and fonctions, and professionnals and sociales responsibilities."

He is referring to the distinction between natural persons and legal persons.

out of my head, but i might be wrong:

>Every people are born and remain free and equal in their rights

right, the later is the declaration of human rights

Yes i was too lazy to translate it

Humans are physical persons while societies, states etc are moral persons.

The Republic of Belarus shall be a unitary, democratic, social state based on the rule of law. The Republic of Belarus shall have supreme control and absolute authority in its territory and shall implement domestic and foreign policy independently.

The Republic of Belarus shall defend its independence and territorial integrity, its constitutional system, and safeguard legality and law and order.

israel has no formal constitution

It is actually not in the Constitution itself, but the preamble refeers to the DDHC.

>Preamble
Conscious of their responsibility before God and man, Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic
Law. Germans in the Länder of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringia have achieved the unity and freedom of Germany in free self-determination. This Basic Law thus applies to the entire German people.

>Article 1
(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law.

>US Constitution
>Preamble
>WE

underrated

>Theological reference

The only thing that is bugging me.

How does the law work if they have no formal constitution?
They're up to some shady shit.

Treating arabs as second-hand citizens is not illegal if you don't guarantee equality.

from what ive read they were supposed to device a constitution in the 50's but whoever was in charge there decided it was not important/didnt want to.
since then they have just passed a couple of laws that are supposed to 'ensure human rights' but they are constantly rewriting the laws in their legislature because there is no constitution that makes any of them permanent

pretty much this

In the first place, people seem to misunderstand what a constitution is. It is the law that constitutes the state. All this focus on silly bull-shit like human rights is entirely non-essential.

Consider, for example: the UK has no one document called "the Constitution", either. It still has a well-developed body of constitutional law, and a variety of constitutional documents and principles.

...

Article 1 in the Constitution states that India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. The territory of India shall consist of: The territories of the states, The Union territories and Any territory that may be acquired.

The names of the States and the Unions have been described in the First Schedule. This schedule also holds that there are four Categories of State and territories - Part A, Part B, Part C and Part D.

Part A - includes the nine provinces which were under British India
Part B - princely states consisted of this category
Part C - centrally administered five states
Part D - Andaman and Nicobar Islands
In the seventh amendment of the Constitution in 1956 the distinction between the Part A and Part B states was abolished. Subsequently states were reorganized on linguistic basis. As a result several new states were formed, eg. Haryana, Goa, Nagaland, Mizoram etc. At present there are 29 States and 7 union territories.

>not Pakistan included

why

Constitution was made after partition.

you should carpet bomb Pakistan and take it back

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If only......
Fun fact: Neither India nor Pakistan has signed the NPT , so a nuclear 1v1 is not completely out of the table

Actually no, you do have a point but modern states are based on the idea that sovereignity belongs to the people and is not invested in the constitution unconditionally, constitutions, apart from forming government, are a very real social contract, they acknowledge and guarantee rights as a pre-condition to government exercising coercion, which in the end is the basis of any law.

Due process is the best example of this, constitution grants the government a duty to observe laws in a manner that is not arbitrary. Most constitutions are therefore divided into a dogmatic part (rights) and an organic part (the actual "constitution" of the government) it's autistic to take it that literal as to say human rights are not essential.

More or less same.
The preamble to the 1867 Constitution Act (it was originally called the 1867 British North America Act and is still known under that title in the UK) goes:

>An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes connected therewith

>(29th March 1867)

>Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:

>And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the Interests of the British Empire:

>And whereas on the Establishment of the Union by Authority of Parliament it is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but also that the Nature of the Executive Government therein be declared:

>And whereas it is expedient that Provision be made for the eventual Admission into the Union of other Parts of British North America

First article is:

>1. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1867.

>when will they learn

That's one of the reasons the U.S rebelled. Due to the fact that rights aren't written in stone in the U.K people would be found innocent of crimes in New York but then attacked by british soldiers and hauled off to London and be found guilty of the same crime there.
The U.K still uses this barbarous system today

Forgot to add here, the Westminster system is an anachronic exception, sovereignity belongs not to the people but to the sovereign (the queen is still formally responsible for forming government even if it's only a ritual role) that's the reason even if Parliament passed a law in the early 80's declaring the British "citizens" they're in reality subjects and not true citizens in the Classical Republican sense.

Preamble in picture related.

Article I, The Republic.
>The Republic of Poland shall be the common good of all its citizens.

>no Union Jack ITT
Really gets the noggin jogging

>sovereignity belongs not to the people but to the sovereign (the queen is still formally responsible for forming government even if it's only a ritual role)

Isn't that the case for almost every constitutional monarchy?

1§ Regeringsformen:

>All governmental power comes from the people.
>The Swedish government is built on the freedom of opinions as well as an equal right to vote. It is brought into reality through a representative and parlimentary system.
>Governmental powers are executed in obedience with the law.

>not having your constitution being a bunch of random documents plus unwritten conventions
pleb af

>modern states are based on the idea that sovereignity belongs to the people
Popular sovereignty is not a universal ideology. Frankly I think it's bull-shit, and happily it has no place in the Constitution (or in the constitution) of my country.

>not invested in the constitution unconditionally
I don't know how you got the idea that I was suggesting that sovereignty resides in the constitution. Sovereignty resides in the sovereign! How could a constitution have sovereignty? It hasn't a mind or any power.

>constitutions, apart from forming government, are a very real social contract
What do you mean "apart from"? The formation of government (the constitution of the state) is the primary social contract. Constitutions are a social contract precisely because they establish government.

>they acknowledge and guarantee rights as a pre-condition to government exercising coercion
But not all rights are called "human rights". Clearly-defined legal rights which are enforceable in the courts, are real rights. Typically, "human rights" are political/ideological fluff, mostly used for propaganda value; at best they are aspirational ought-statements, not practical rights.

Rights, be they bull-shit "human rights", or real rights, are not a pre-requisite to coercion. People have natural rights (by which I mean, rights in the state of nature - capacities or potentials), which are reduced or reassigned by coercion. There is no prerequisite concession by the sovereign that subjects must have claims, by right, over him. That is absurd; how could he be sovereign if the subjects had rights over him?

>Most constitutions are therefore divided into a dogmatic part (rights) and an organic part (the actual "constitution" of the government) it's autistic to take it that literal as to say human rights are not essential.
One can have a perfectly functional constitution without any non-sense about "human rights" - thus, non-essential.

Who cares lol

As for the assigning or reassigning of rights, in the real, legal sense, that is a matter for the courts or for legislation. Why would that be part of the constitution? It isn't essential to the state, but rather one of the purposes for establishing a state in the first place.

Republicanism is an insane ideology. Case in point: it leads people to call more rational approaches to government "anachronic". Every state, whether people admit it or not, functions on the basis of the sovereign-subject relationship. The idea of citizenship is empty propaganda - though, granted, propaganda that has clearly proven quite effective.

Go and read Hobbes (or better yet, Filmer).

Organization. Not tax collection.

Yes, I suppose so, the point stands regardless it is demeaning to formally derive all your rights and liberties from the sovereign's grace rather than as an exercise of individual freedom. You might have a point in that it isn't sadly as much of an exception as there are still several monarchies around the world, including you guys, so I may have misspoken on that.

Article 1

The Republic of Poland shall be the common good of all its citizens.

Article 2

The Republic of Poland shall be a democratic state ruled by law and implementing the principles of social justice.

Article 3

The Republic of Poland shall be a unitary State.

>it is demeaning to formally derive all your rights and liberties from the sovereign's grace rather than as an exercise of individual freedom

It's more sensible to have a sovereign imo, but for practical purposes they work the same.

It's no more demeaning than, say, a child relying upon his mother and father to look after him. If anything, it's an honour. You are just a barbarian and an ingrate.

Oh yes, the idea God singled out enlightened individuals to rule over inferior commoners is so fucking rational. I guess some peoples are born for kneeling.

>Popular sovereignity
That is the formal theory regardless, not an opinion.

>Sovereignity resides in the constitution
Sovereignity resides in the ideals of the constitution, it's an abstraction is not that the physical constitutions themselves hold magical properties. Ordinary folk, as voters, transfred their sovereign rights to a constitutional assembly which in turn drafted the principles of government. It's a matter of opinion but to me that's far better than being at the whims of the chosen one.

>Social contract
This is just nitpicking, yes, technically you're correct.

>not all rights are human rights
That would've been true in the 20th century but most republics have moved towards acknowledging constitutional rights as human rights, my country's constitution originally "granted" "guarantees" for instance, it now "acknowledges" "human rights" it may seem like an obscure point but it's actually an important distinction in theory. All rights are enforceable in courts, can't think of any example of any fluff that isn't. As for 18th century naturalism it kind of is the basis for constitutional systems, you can't take Hegel literally when it comes to coercion and we've kinda moved beyond that.

>One can have a constitution without human rights
Again, I'm not making this stuff up and it sin't my opinions, that's how the theory of state works, you may be able to have a constitution without rights in it, sure, you'd only be formalizing tyrany in it tho, you can't grant the state the power of coercion (law) without ensuring rights are at the same or above level. It's called hyerarchy of laws, the constitution is the ultimate law of the land, not just one of many, lesser laws cannot contradict it, that's what chalenges in courts against other laws are all about.

t sovereign's child

>Governmental powers are executed in obedience with the law.

Why haven’t we executed anyone yet?

>Governmental powers are executed in obedience with the law.
Do i have autism?

Art. 1 The Federative Republic of Brazil, formed by the indissoluble union of the States and Municipalities and the Federal District, is constituted as a Democratic State of Law and is based on:

I - sovereignty;

II - citizenship;

III - the dignity of the human person;

IV - the social values of work and free enterprise;

V - political pluralism.

First article

§ 1
Denne grundlov gælder for alle dele af Danmarks Rige.

This constitution is binding for all parts of the Danish Realm.

Divine right is propaganda, of course. It's a fancy way of saying that the system follows the natural order of things; that is, a rational structure. You really must read Hobbes.

>popular sovereignty
You were wrong when you made the general claim that modern states are based on popular sovereignty. That is a false claim.

>constitutional sovereignty
Sovereignty is a personal power. Popular sovereignty, wrong though it is, at least makes sense. The idea that the constitution can be sovereign falls down at that hurdle.

>principles of government
In fact, these arise automatically from the nature of man an the nature of power. They cannot be "drafted". What the drafters of Constitutions do is write propaganda or write formal law (which, if it be contrary to those natural principles of government, is bad law).

>whims
Because, of course, voters, not to mention politicians, never do stupid or evil things. At least a sovereign has a real right to have his whims enacted.

>human rights
This talk of "acknowledgement" is the exact sort of aspirational, ideological rot about which I've complained.

>enforceability
Yes, because if you cannot have it enforced in a court, then it isn't a right. But go and have a look at the UDHR if you want some examples of utter, impossible rubbish being paraded about as "human rights".

>opinion
By advancing a specific, very stupid theory (the modern, liberal one), you are endorsing it. Why would you do that with an opinion that you did not hold? What you have been describing is one (and one wrong) "understanding" of the way things work. On the contrary, I present (mostly) Hobbesian theory, and it is not only Hobbes' opinion, but mine, too.

>essentiality
Now you agree with me that "human rights" are non-essential to the constitution of a state.

Tyranny is a stupid propaganda word, these days. What would be formalised is authority. And that would be exactly right, because the entire purpose of a Constitution is to set out, formally, for legal use, the authority of the state.

The state isn't "granted" the power of coercion. The state arises only thanks to coercion. The coercive power of the state is the same thing as the power of the sovereign.

>hierarchy of laws
The constitution allows us to measure inferior laws using established standards, by an orderly and predictable process. This is a practical matter. There is no need or cause to recite a lot of wacky "human rights" in such a context; even if they have value as real, legal rights, they will typically be of such narrow application as to be wholly out of place in any Constitution.

I will say that the Constitution in Australia actually does grant real, legal rights - to the federal government, from the state governments! This is a good example of a Constitution doing what it is supposed to do: setting out how the state shall operate. The constitution is concerned with the state, after all; it is the state that is constituted (by the sovereign), not the subjects.

Only a warped mind could think this an insult.

1. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed

You haven't proven anything I've written wrong, try using google translate to read this as apparently this is one field of knowledge Anglos are wilfully ignorant about

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatstheorie

Here's a discussion on popular sovereignity

es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soberanía

Also stop using falacies, I didn't concede the point on constitutions just because I cited an ad absurdum example, I might as well have said constitutions can be written on candy for you to argue they're subject to disolution.Also nice contradictions, you argue for natural law but scoff at acknowledgement6 of rights as ideological rot?

I get it, you love the queen and are willingly in her bondage, don't try to rationalize it as if there haven't been a full two centuries of philosophy and theory since the French revolution, that it makes you feel patrician to have the glorified equivalent of an abo chieftain isn't an argument and your knowledge of constitutional theory is clearly defficient and limited to propaganda, if you can't understand something as simple as any contract puts down rights for the parties involved, most important of all such a thing as an actual social contract, there really is no common ground on which to hold a discussion, same for your failing to understand individual rights grow into collective rights or any other number of high school tier concepts.

Free citizens in a Republic cannot absolve themselves of responsibility by running to mommy to decide what's better for us, constitutional government is adult government.

my favorite

Constitution of the Republic of Belarus (1994)

Chapter 4 President of the Republic of Belarus

Article 97. The President shall be elected directly by the people of the Republic of Belarus. The President's term of office shall be five years. The same person may be President for no more than two terms.

Paragraph 112 of Belarusian Electoral Code lists "questions connected with election and dismissal of the President of the Republic of Belarus" among questions prohibited from being brought out to the Republican referendum.

Our constitution is un-codified, so it's not set out in a single document. But it's most important part is centred around parliament being sovereign (can make or unmake any law while being the ultimate authority) so basically we don't have entrenched law protections or anything like that

Honestly that's a pretty shit system for multiple reasons. First of all, there's no clarity what random documents and unwritten conventions form the constitution. It's merely vague 'tradition' that can be shaped, written and rewritten and can add and drop documents as it forms. The same documents can also radically change meaning over time: originally the Magna Carta was intended to do nothing more than secure the rights of the nobility (considering John Lackland was shit and the nobles hated the monarchy from that point onward, more or less), now Brits wank it off as the origin of British democracy.

Secondly, relating to the first point, there's no real legal certainity. You can't just point ot the constitution as a citizen and say "Yes, these are my rights. I can clearly read them. This is how affairs in my country go" et cetera. Even in an ordinary legal case you can go to the judge, have a legally sound case but have it thrown out over some kind of obscure document or vague principle that I guess is part of the constitution now.

Paine was right.

>He thinks Hobbes was a proponent of divine right to rule
Hobbes' argument was pretty much a combination between "might makes right" (which Rousseau takes to its logical extreme in order to debunk it) and "any state is better than no state". He had nothing to do with divine right to rule, to a certain extent offered an alternative to it and that's what made him not only controversial but actually earned him (probably falsely) the reputation of being an atheist. Hobbes doesn't believe the king is the king because God wills it, the king is the king because he's the king. And if he can no longer hold the throne and someone else takes over, so be it. And if then a republican government takes over and kills the king, so be it. And if then socialists line the republicans up along a wall, shoot them and redivide all wealth in the country, so be it.

"Venezuela must be carpet bombed before 2020 and its oil stolen"

>It's merely vague 'tradition' that can be shaped, written and rewritten and can add and drop documents as it forms.
>The same documents can also radically change meaning over time

That is more or less the case with every constitution. A nation's real "constitution" is never just the documents.

>You can't just point ot the constitution as a citizen and say "Yes, these are my rights. I can clearly read them. This is how affairs in my country go"
You actually can

>Paine was right.
Absolutely not.

>That is more or less the case with every constitution.
Of course there will always be case law elaborationg on the factual application of principles, but these principles are usually clearly codified in the constitution itself, and if other documents have constitutional force they are named in the constitution as having constitutional force. There's a lot less power for judges to just decide what they do and do not deem of constitutional value more or less at will. Even in the retarded instances where the Supreme Court dictates the US constitution legalizes abortion, it's obvious to everyone with eyes that they're being full retard (and even that was eventually overturned by federal legislation).

>You actually can
If you are entirely up to date on what documents have constitutional power and how they're to be interpreted. Which can change at the drop of a hat, rather than by codified constitutional change.

>Nah-uh!
Ya-huh!

"Portugal is a sovereign republic, based on human dignity and the popular will and focused on the construction of a society that is free, fair and solidary."

>Even in the retarded instances where the Supreme Court dictates the US constitution legalizes abortion, it's obvious to everyone with eyes that they're being full retard (and even that was eventually overturned by federal legislation).
What are you talking about? That's still the case. The US constitution is a document that rarely changes but has been interpreted to mean all sorts of things with the passage of time. What's the difference?

>If you are entirely up to date on what documents have constitutional power and how they're to be interpreted
Which honestly isn't that hard to find out

>Which can change at the drop of a hat
So can any constitution

>codified constitutional change
Will never happen in Canada

Not a fan of liberals in general, certainly not Paine.

El Salcador recognizes the human person as the beginning and the end of the State's activity, which is organized for the fulfillment of justice, judicial security and the common well being.

It also recognizes as a human person every human being since the moment of conception. In consequence, it is the State's obligation to secure for the inhabitants of the republic, the enjoyment of freedom, health, culture, economic well being and social justice.

>What's the difference?
It's more obvious that it's bullshit.

>Which honestly isn't that hard to find out
It is when a single court case could give or rob a document of constitutional status.

>So can any constitution
Most constitutions have internal declarations explaining when they can be changed, such as a 66% majority in all legislative chambers and/or a referendum.

>Canada
Literally nobody cares.

>Not a fan of liberals in general
Really? I couldn't tell.

its fucking trash, plebstitution for fucking plebeian retards on the countryside

FOUNDATION
Article A
The name of OUR COUNTRY shall be Hungary.
Article B
1.
Hungary shall be an independent, democratic state governed by the rule of law.
2.
Hungary’s form of government shall be that of a republic.
•
Type of government envisioned
3.
The source of public power shall be the people.
4.
The people shall exercise its power through its elected representatives or, in
exceptional cases, in a direct manner.

>first page
In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom
is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all
actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our
Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers
through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and
unremitting struggle to regain the rightful
independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with
due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so
that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be
assured, true social order attained, the unity of our
country restored, and concord established with other
nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this
Constitution.

this really annoys lefties because the constitution says we're a secular state but then it calls on God and Jesus in the opening sentence

>first article
The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable,
indefeasible, and sovereign right to choose its own
form of Government, to determine its relations with
other nations, and to develop its life, political,
economic and cultural, in accordance with its own
genius and traditions

concise

>this really annoys lefties
All the more reason to keep it.

>Russia shall be a democratic federal rule-of-law state with the republican form of government.

>Hungary’s form of government shall be that of a republic.
Dislike this very much, restore Habsburgs

I am Christian and I don't like it either. It just shouldn't be in a constitution of a secular state

I don't understand the difference

Yeah who would've thought that a country of Jews was up to something shady

you jumped the Préambule

>France is an indivisible
good
>secular
I can dig it
>democratic
Alright
>social
HOLY SHIT WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING? I wouldn't be surprised if some limpwristed lefties added this after Charles "no foreskin? not my kin!" de Gaulle died.
>She ensures the equality before the law of all citizens without distinction of origin, race or religion. She respects all beliefs. Her organisation is decentralized."
Bretty gud.

7/10 would constitution again.

1.1 Spain is constituted as a social and democratic State of Law, which advocates freedom, justice, equality and political pluralism as superior values of its legal system.

1.2. National sovereignty resides in the Spanish people, from whom the powers of the State emanate.

1.3. The political form of the Spanish State is the parliamentary Monarchy.

All republicans need to be butchered like the disgusting animals that they are.