national constituent assembly

WHAT’S HAPPENING IN VENEZUELA? // long post, but worth the read.

So, it’s official. The Constituent was approved. In the past 18 years, aka since Hugo Chávez was elected President of Venezuela, the government has altered election results to their benefit so it really isn’t strange to us that they would do it this time. However, we didn’t think they would be so shameless as to alter them this much. According to Tibisay Lucena (President of the Electoral Power) there was a total of 8.089.320 votes in favor of this Constituent, and these numbers simply don’t add. This past 16th of July a referendum was held where voters would have to answer to 3 questions about whether or not they agreed to move forward with the Constituent; the results? 6.492.381 votes made in Venezuela and 693.789 votes outside the country, meaning a total of 7.186.170 against the Constituent. While these two results add a total of 15.275.490 votes that fit under the 19.805.002 of venezuelans summoned to vote, here’s why yesterday’s number makes no sense:

  •  8.191.132 votes in favor of Hugo Chávez (Presidential elections of 2012). - While these numbers were most certainly altered, it’s no lie that at the time Chávez had a huge group of supporters, called Chavistas.
  • 7.505.338 votes in favor of Nicolás Maduro (Presidential elections of 2013). - These elections were made because of the recent death of Chávez, who knew he didn’t have much time left so he decided to brainwash all of his supporters to think Maduro was the best option for president. May I add, Nicolás Maduro doesn’t have any kind of educational degree, he literally was a bus driver before becoming president. Totally unqualified man. All his votes were bought or made up.
  • 5.599.025 votes in favor of the PSUV (Parliamentary elections of 2015) - PSUV stands for Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela and would roughly translate to “United Socialist Party of Venezuela“, I think. These elections were a big deal to the oposition (represented by the MUD aka “Democratic Unity Roundtable”), because we owned the National Assembly with 112 deputies (67%) and 7.707.422 votes (56,2% of the total votes)

I think I’ve made my point as to why yesterday’s result of 8.089.320 votes is nothing but blatant lies, except that’s not all! Turns out that, in these past days between the referendum (July 16) and yesterday (July 30), any person making a buy that required a fingerprint scan or using a “carnet de la patria” (an id recently made to “ease the access to social programs”) would count as a vote in favor of the Constituent. This government spends so much time looking for ways to stay in power because they know that the majority of the country is against them, and obviously they won’t acknowledge that they’re not as “loved” as they used to be, or else they wouldn’t ignore the protests that have been going on for the past 121 days with at least 128 confirmed deaths (17 of them happened only yesterday).

Now I’m going to explain why this Constituent being approved is literally confirming we’re living under a dictatorship.

  • Venezuela becomes a communal state.
  • Private enterprise will be eliminated.
  • All private sector employees become public employees.
  • The right to private education will be eliminated. From preschool to universitary sector, including adoctrinamiento político on all levels of education.
  • Means of social communication will be at the service of communist power.
  • University autonomy will be eliminated.
  • Municipalities will be eliminated.
  • The president of the republic is the only one able to choose governors and mayors, without taking into account the opinion of the people.
  • The presidential term will last between 20 and 30 years, with chance of indefinite reelection, applicable to the current president.
  • The movement of citizens inside of the country will be limited, meaning you’ll need an official permit to travel around Venezuela.
  • International departures will be limited, meaning you’ll need an official permit to get out of the country.
  • All powers, public and private, disappear.
  • The armed force disappears, becoming fighting bodies integrated into the government’s party.
  • All political parties will be eliminated.
  • The right to protest will be eliminated.
  • Opposing or thinking differently than the government will be a crime of betrayal to the motherland, meaning freedom of speech disappears.
  • Article 350 of the actual Constitution, that establishes you can disown the authority when the Constitution is violated, will be eliminated.
  • Authorities can break into your house without a warrant.
  • People’s houses can’t be sold or inherited, becoming propiety of the state.
  • Life guarantee will be restricted, the regime has now custody of people’s lives.

This is really serious, and I wish more people were talking about it because what I’m doing right now will be literally considered a crime as soon as the National Constituent Assembly enters in action. I know you guys may think that reblogging, retweeteting and regraming some posts is not gonna help us, but trust me, they will. The government is putting up an act of “everything’s fine, we’re the same 1st world country we were +20 years ago” and we’re not. We’re being killed, tortured, starved, lied to and so much more horrifying things are being done to and against us. Let the world know what’s really happening in Venezuela, and who’s the real villain in the story.

What is going on in Paraguay?

Reelection is trying to be made legal here in Paraguay, and while the idea of reelection isn’t a bad thing per se (not like we have people we want to reelect) this amend is not legal. We had 35 years of dictatorship that ended in 1989 so people don’t want to hear a thing about reelection.

The constitution says there’s only one way to modify anything stated in certain articles, one of them that states that reelection is not legal, and that is an Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (National Constituent Assembly). Senators reunited and proposed an amend for reelection… which is not the way of doing things.

People took the Congress (there was a fire reported inside too) and protesters have been repressed by the police. I’m worried about how this will end. Please keep Paraguay in your thoughts and or prayers for just a moment.

french history masterclass

hi guys! 

as someone who feels personally attacked by the decision of most universities to not share knowledge from all over the world but rather focusing it on several key periods (because money is and will always be more important than universal knowledge), i figured a long time ago that i’d have to hunt the rest all by myself (something i’m not the only one to do, which says the lot). Thus i decided to share with you one of the two main classes i attended this semester. This is a serious class, run by a very serious and really captivating teacher, and ironically, one of the most interesting classes i ever had and yet i always hated its subject from the bottom of my heart (i still do, but the class was super captivating nonetheless), the French Revolution

However, the class is a bit more tricky than just the whole ‘1789 = Bastille’ traditionnal class and is quite specific, so you’d need at least the basic knowledge of the events to fully understand everything. If you guys need to source it in an assignment, i’ll happily give you sources about it (sources that will not be 'my tumblr friend’s text post’), but the official sources given by our teacher the whole semester. Under the cut, you’ll find the summary of roughly 13 weeks of a class called “Freedom or Death: dying as a deputy (1792-1795)”. Three shorter chapters might be added if someone feels interested in it (one about the deportation of political opponents, another one dedicated to the guillotine itself, and a last one dedicated to the damnatio memoriae). No need to say that i’m not a professional and it might be an awful translation (it probably is) but \_(ツ)_/

Keep reading

ultra-acid-fairy  asked:

Wait so what is actually happening in Venezuela?


*Note: There’s a short list of acronyms explained at the bottom of the post.

*I would much appreciate if you (anyone reading this) could reblog this post to raise awareness on the matters without the bias of mainstream media. Also, comment me anything inaccurate I could have written, any further information you can contribute or any other questions about the topic.

What’s happening right now as in recent news?

Some (very few) soldiers (some of them weren’t even soldiers) declared themselves in rebellion against the government, to “restore the constitutional order” and claiming that “the peoples shall rebel against the “”tirany”” of President Nicolás Maduro”, following the «Operación David».

Basically, they called for the military, police and civilians to disobey the actual constitutional and democratic order to overthrow it even by violent means, because they consider everyone that supports or doesn’t directly oppose the government and structures of the state “military objectives” that should by fought with “every firepower available”(these are literal words).

These people (around a dozen or so) held a military base in Valencia, Carabobo have been arrested and the base has been taken back by the army loyal to the government, so everything is back to normality for now.

The “rebels” called for other battalions to join them taking up arms against the government, but no one supported the insurrectionists (even if the opposition is saying that they did in some places to spread a false believe that a notable part of the army supports their counter-revolution and try to facilitate a future coup d’état).

What’s happening in the grand scheme of things and why did these people do that?

Well, that’s a complicated question that I’m not able to answer in detail being that I’m not Venezuelan nor I’m well informed in the affairs of the legal system of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela or know their Constitution and recent history, but I’ll try my best.

To understand what’s happening right now, we must head back to the parliamentary elections of 2015.

The opposition (more specifically the MUD, Mesa de la Unidad Democrática) won 112 of the 167 seats of the National Assembly and the chavistas (the GPP coalition, Gran Polo Patriótico Simón Bolivar) won the other 55 seats. This granted MUD a two thirds majority, and even if the loss was democratically accepted by the GPP, the Supreme Court saw evidencies of fraud in the state of Amazonas, that conflicted with the election of three MUD members and a PSUV (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, major chavista party) member.

Because of that, the TS (Tribunal Superior, Supreme Court) declared as invalid the takeover of the seats mentioned before as a temporary measure, until further investigation would be made to solve the issue.

Despite of the TS’s decision, the AN ruled by the opposition didn’t obey the order and continued to take actions as a formed government with the inclusion of the suspended members by possible fraud, which led to any said action to be declared invalid by the TS.

Given that the AN was in contempt (en desacato, not following the law), the TS took over the legislative branch until they accept the court’s action, following the constitution and the laws of the State.

The opposition, whoever, said that this was a “move towards dictatorship” and considered illegitimate the takeover of the AN or any other mesurare by the official powers, which led them to disobeying the State order and so on.

With all this taken into account, having the opposition in constant violence against the State order, President Nicolás Maduro called for the Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (National Constituent Assembly, ANC for short) to reform the country and aiming for peace and stability. This is totally legal as the article 348 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela says that any of the following can call for the ANC: the President, the AN (not right now because it’s out of power by rule of the TS) with at least two thirds of the votes, at least two thirds of the Municipal Councils (more local-like governments), or at least 15% of the people that can vote.

The goal of the ANC, as the Constitution(articles 347 and 349) states, is the following: given that the people of Venezuela are the trusted with the original constituent power, they have the power to transform the State, create a new juridical order (legal system) and write a new Constitution.

What the citizens of Venezuela decide via the ANC is legitimate because the people have the power in Venezuela (a true factor in favor of the democracy in the country that few places in the world have, by the way), and so it can’t be taken down by the President or any other form of power.

Because the President himself made the call (which is totally legal and constitutional as mentioned before in the article 348) to the ANC, the opposition is nonsensically calling it a coup d’état and not taking it as legitimate, so they oppose any future ruling by it or in favour of making it possible. To show this opposition to the ANC, they (the MUD, the opposition themselves) called for a referendum with the following three questions:

1. Do you oppose and not know about the proposal for the Constituent (ANC) by Nicolás Maduro without the previous approval of the citizens of Venezuela?

2. Do you demand the National Armed Force and to every public worker to obey the Constitution and to back the decisions of the AN?

3. Do you want to elect new public powers and a new “national unity government” to return constitutional order through new elections?

First, let me show why these questions are not valid to begin with, and later I’ll explain why the voting itself was poorly made and not legitimate.

1. As the Constitution states, the President can make the proposal for the ANC, without the approval of any other members, as well as the AN could have made the call without the President, for example.

2. The Armed Force is obeying the constitution and its commander-in-Chief: the President Nicolás Maduro. The AN can’t be backed up by no one because it’s in  contempt and not following the law, so it’s powers are transferred to the TC following the Constitution.

3. The Constitutional order is in rule the entire time. The calling for new elections is made by the CNE, as the Constitution states. If the want to revoke any public office member or elect new ones, they could hold a legal and binding referendum, but they didn’t.

Let’s continue with what was done wrong in the referendum of the opposition:

This referendum was unconstitutionally called and so it didn’t have the backing of the Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE, National Electoral Council). Because of that, the opposition made up entirely the process of the referendum, without the complete and updated electoral census, without the means to validate the results (voting machines and other methods, which, by the way, are very transparent and reliable and few countries have) and without the means to detect electoral fraud at major scale.

Even that, the government let them do their “referendum” and major fraud was made: people were able to vote dozens of times, even with expired IDs or with the IDs of dead or other people (if it was made following the constitution and with the support of the CNE, the would scan the fingerprints and IDs), the voting records were literally burnt in the streets as soon as the voting was finished, which made it impossible to audit the liability of the results.

In summary: this voting lacks any legitimacy.

Following the calling for the ANC, the citizens of Venezuela were called to vote with all the means given by the CNE to verify the correct voting, to chose the 500 members of the assembly. Those 500 members consist of: 79 workers, 28 retired/pensionary people, 24 students, 24 representatives of the communes, 8 farmers and fishermen/fisherwomen, 5 disabled people, 5 businessmen/businesswomen, and 364 other citizens elected by each territory.

So, in June 30th, even if the opposition abstained from voting their representatives or postulating themselves, and despite the violent means, threats, roadblocks, and many other impediments that tried to make people not to vote, millions of Venezuelans took part in a democratic choosing to reconstitute the country’s organisation.

This showed the strength of the Bolivarian Revolution across the country and the overall support for peace and for the legitimate sovereignty of the peoples government, something that the opposition will never be capable of having and so the only mean they have is the coward and mercenary style of U.$. backed paramilitary uprising, which will also be crushed by the courageous revolutionary people of Venezuela.

  • AN: Asamblea Nacional, National Assembly, parliament of Venezuela.
  • ANC: Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, National Constituent Assembly, where the peoples power lies in, to reform the country’s structure and Constitution.
  • CNE: Consejo Nacional Electoral, National Electoral Council, agency that manages electoral affairs.
  • GPP: Gran Polo Patriótico Simón Bolivar, chavista/bolivarian/left wing party coalition.
  • ID: Identity document, Cédula de Identidad in the case of Venezuela.
  • MUD: Mesa de la Unidad Democrática, opposition/center and right wing party coalition.
  • PSUV: Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, major chavista party inside the GPP.
  • TS: Tribunal Supremo, Supreme Court.

VENEZUELA. Caracas. July 18, 2017. A truck set ablaze by opposition activists blocks an avenue during a protest. The Venezuelan opposition called for a 24-hour national civic strike to pressure President Nicolás Maduro to withdraw the call to a National Constituent Assembly after achieving a massive vote of rejection in a symbolic plebiscite.

Photograph: Juan Barreto/AFP/Getty

Currently reading (#19):

Robespierre (Mathieu Gabella, Roberto Meli, Hervé Leuwers)

Some time ago, I discovered this bande dessiné which appeared in June 2017. Usually, I am rather sceptical towards products of popular culture that include or are centred around Robespierre (consider, for instance, the children’s film Mr. Peabody & Sherman, the video game Assassin’s Creed Unity or Hilary Mantel’s novel A Place of Greater Safety), but as Hervé Leuwers was involved in this project, it seemed rather promising to me.

The narrative follows Robespierre from April 1789 onwards throughout the years of the Revolution, up to the events of 10 Thermidor. (The ending, it should be noted, constitutes an exception, as it reveals that the entire narrative is based on a conversation between Charlotte Robespierre and Albert Laponneraye that is set around 1830.) The BD’s story sets in shortly before Robespierre departs from Arras in order to attend the Estates-General in Versailles, showing him as a dedicated and hopeful young man, a champion of the people’s cause. One also gets a brief impression of Robespierre’s domestic life in Arras, his friendship with the Buissarts and the relationship with his siblings, Charlotte and Augustin Robespierre. Following him to the Estates-General, the National Assembly, the Constituent Assembly and the National Convention, the narrative gives a (sometimes rather simplified) outlook on Robespierre’s early political career, his ideological positions and the dynamics of the Revolution. Particular attention is paid to Robespierre’s involvement in the debates concerning certain topics (e.g. his advocacy of granting political rights to the libres de couleur, his championship of universal male suffrage, his support for the abolition of the death penalty, his opposition to the war) or certain events (e.g. the king’s flight, the Champ de Mars Massacre and the ensuing repression, the Storming of the Tuileries, the September Massacres), although, of course, due to the book’s brevity, the overall pacing is rather fast and the individual topics are not dealt with in a particularly detailed fashion. Furthermore, beyond the political sphere, the authors take care to give an impression of moments of Robespierre’s private life, e.g. his trip to Bapaume and Arras in October and November 1791, his daily life in the Duplay household, and his friendships and personal relations (with his family, the Buissarts, Pétion, Desmoulins, the Duplay family, Danton, etc). After following Robespierre throughout the political struggles of 1793 and 1794, the BD ends with the events of Thermidor and the “downfall” of Robespierre, Saint-Just, Couthon, Lebas et al. Throughout the book, one gets a sense of how Robespierre’s personality evolved over the years, as well as of how his personal relations developed, changed and, in some cases, deteriorated (e.g. his friendship with Pétion). Overall, the depiction of the events of the Revolution (e.g. the opposition between the Gironde and the Montagne, the September Massacres, the trial of Louis Capet, the outbreak of the war in the Vendée, the factional struggles of Year II) is rather simplistic and rarely departs from traditional historiography, but that is no surprise. The book is closed by a brief chapter written by Hervé Leuwers which is called “Robespierre, l’homme-révolution”, offering a biographical sketch and an outlook on the légende noire that has come to surround Robespierre.

On a side note, the visuals of the BD are very impressive ; the images are colourful and diverse, and the portraits of the historical persons, which are largely based on contemporary portraits, are – for the most part – accurate.

From left to right: Marat, Danton and Desmoulins, Saint-Just.

From left to right: Robespierre, Pétion, Brissot.

Ultimately, I am rather conflicted about this BD: the endeavour to rehabilitate Robespierre via a medium of popular culture is certainly admirable and may prove, to some extent, successful. One also has to give the authors credit for their effort to emphasise the “human side” of Robespierre, i.e. his friendships, his emotions and moments of his private life. Still, as many reviewers have noted, one may end up with the impression that the BD has “too much too say”, which is only natural considering its enormous ambition (to deliver an account of the complex events of the Revolution from 1789 to 1794 that is not only historically accurate, but also understandable and even enjoyable for a lay audience) combined with its brevity (merely 56 pages!) and the limitations of the medium. The end product is inevitably flawed: the pacing sometimes seems rushed or unnatural, and the introduction of new characters is mostly left unexplained, while the inner structure of the narrative is often inconsistent or incoherent (particularly at the end) ; apart from that, while there are no glaring inaccuracies in the depiction of the events of the Revolution, there are many points that I personally disagree with (e.g. some aspects of the depiction of the friendship between Robespierre and Pétion), and the treatment of certain controversial historical events frequently lacks nuance. (Overall, it seems to me that the narrative greatly relies on a number of contemporary mémoires, which may account for some of the inaccuracies.)

In the end, the BD is certainly worthwhile, and it constitutes an admirable effort to introduce a new image of Robespierre to popular culture. Yet, considering the flaws and shortcomings, I am not sure if someone who is unacquainted with the history of the Revolution would be able to fully grasp the narrative, as it introduces an immense variety of characters and groups without sufficient explanation. Thus, while I generally recommend this BD (with the aforementioned reservations), I would advise readers without prior knowledge on the Revolution to do independent research before reading it.

What do you think, citizens?

Cheers for the Death of Robespierre

Robespierre was one of the most radical leftists among the French Revolutionaries. And like any good revolutionary, his overthrown hinged on tyranny and violence.

> In early June 1792, Robespierre proposed an end to the monarchy and the subordination of the Assembly to the popular will.
> In September, Robespierre was elected first deputy for Paris to the National Convention.
> Robespierre would not settle for a moderate Revolution, arguing, “Citizens, do you want a revolution without a revolution? What is this spirit of persecution which has directed itself against those who freed us from chains?”
> Not content with ending the monarchy’s power, Robespierre was the fiercest advocate for the execution of Louis XVI, arguing, “…neither prison, nor exile can render his existence inconsequential to public happiness; this cruel exception to the ordinary laws avowed by justice can be imputed only to the nature of his crimes. With regret I pronounce this fatal truth: Louis must die so that the nation may live.

> Following the King’s death, with infighting among the Revolutionaries and insurrection from royalists, Robespierre’s tribe seized power and instituted the Reign of Terror.
> Terror was formally instituted as a legal policy by the Convention on 5 September 1793 in a proclamation that read, “It is time that equality bore its scythe above all heads. It is time to horrify all the conspirators. So legislators, place Terror on the order of the day! Let us be in revolution, because everywhere counter-revolution is being woven by our enemies. The blade of the law should hover over all the guilty.
> In Report on the Principles of Political Morality of 5 February 1794, Robespierre praised the revolutionary government and argued that terror and virtue were necessary: “If virtue be the spring of a popular government in times of peace, the spring of that government during a revolution is virtue combined with terror: virtue, without which terror is destructive; terror, without which virtue is impotent. Terror is only justice prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country … The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny.”
> This attitude led to the violence of the Reign of Terror, the victims of which totaled somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000 (over the span of one calendar year).

> The deChristianization of France which included (some of which Robespierre played a part in, see below):
> Declaring that all church property in France belonged to the nation, confiscations were ordered and church properties were sold at public auction.
> In July 1790, the National Constituent Assembly published the Civil Constitution of the Clergy that stripped clerics of their special rights — the clergy were to be made employees of the state, elected by their parish or bishopric, and the number of bishoprics was to be reduced — and required all priests and bishops to swear an oath of fidelity to the new order or face dismissal, deportation or death.
> In September 1792, the Legislative Assembly legalized divorce, contrary to Catholic doctrine. At the same time, the State took control of the birth, death, and marriage registers away from the Church
> In Paris, over a forty-eight-hour period beginning on 2 September 1792, as the Legislative Assembly (successor to the National Constituent Assembly) dissolved into chaos, three Church bishops and more than two hundred priests were massacred by angry mobs; this constituted part of what would become known as the September Massacres.
> Priests were among those drowned in mass executions (noyades) for treason under the direction of Jean-Baptiste Carrier; priests and nuns were among the mass executions at Lyons, for separatism, on the orders of Joseph Fouché and Collot d'Herbois. Hundreds more priests were imprisoned and made to suffer in abominable conditions in the port of Rochefort.
destruction of statues, plates and other iconography from places of worship, destruction of crosses, bells and other external signs of worship
> Many of the acts of dechristianization in 1793 were motivated by the seizure of church gold and silver to finance the war effort.
> In November 1793, the département council of Indre-et-Loire abolished the word dimanche (English: Sunday). The Gregorian calendar, an instrument decreed by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582, was replaced by the French Republican Calendar which abolished the sabbath, saints’ days and any references to the Church. The seven-day week became ten days instead.
> Anti-clerical parades were held, and the Archbishop of Paris, Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Gobel, was forced to resign his duties and made to replace his mitre with the red "Cap of Liberty.
> the institution of revolutionary and civic cults, including the Cult of Reason and subsequently the Cult of the Supreme Being (spring 1794)
> the enactment of a law on 21 October 1793 making all nonjuring priests and all persons who harbored them liable to death on sight.
> Accordingly, on 7 May 1794, Robespierre supported a decree passed by the Convention that established an official religion, known historically as the Cult of the Supreme Being (the notion of the Supreme Being was based on ideas that Jean-Jacques Rousseau had outlined in The Social Contract).
> The official nationwide Fête de la Raison, supervised by Hébert and Momoro on 20 Brumaire, Year II (10 November 1793) came to epitomize the new republican way of religion.
In ceremonies devised and organised by Chaumette, churches across France were transformed into modern Temples of Reason. The largest ceremony of all was at the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris.
The Christian altar was dismantled and an altar to Liberty was installed and the inscription "To Philosophy” was carved in stone over the cathedral’s doors.

> Festive girls in white Roman dress and tricolor sashes milled around a costumed Goddess of Reason who “impersonated Liberty”. A flame burned on the altar which was symbolic of truth. To avoid statuary and idolatry, the Goddess figures were portrayed by living women, and in Paris the role was played by Momoro’s own wife Sophie, who is said to have dressed “provocatively”. [They essentially paraded a whore around the cathedral and worshiped her].
> At Festival of the Supreme Being (which took place on the day of Pentecost), Robespierre gave a speech: “Is it not He whose immortal hand, engraving on the heart of man the code of justice and equality, has written there the death sentence of tyrants? Is it not He who, from the beginning of time, decreed for all the ages and for all peoples liberty, good faith, and justice? He did not create kings to devour the human race. He did not create priests to harness us, like vile animals...”

> Robespierre, like his modern Progressive descendants, had a Deity and a religion, and imposed his faith ruthlessly. At this festival, “he was able to speak of the things about which he was truly passionate, including Virtue and Nature, typical deist beliefs, and, of course, his disagreements with atheism… many other leaders involved in the festival agreed that Robespierre had taken things too far. Multiple sources state that Robespierre came down the mountain in a way that resembled Moses as the leader of the people…”

After more intrigue among the Revolutionaries, Robespierre fell out of favor and like the tens of thousands that he had guillotined under his Reign of Terror, Robespierre got the blade himself, on this day (July 28th) in the Year of our Lord 1794.

Behold, the wicked man conceives evil
   and is pregnant with mischief
   and gives birth to lies.
He makes a pit, digging it out,
   and falls into the hole that he has made.
His mischief returns upon his own head,
   and on his own skull his violence descends.
- Psalm 17

But you, O God, will cast them down
   into the pit of destruction;
men of blood and treachery
   shall not live out half their days.
But I will trust in you.

- Psalm 55

Countdown to Arno Dorian’s Birthday: 10 DAYS

Arno’s birthday falls on the same day as the The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, passed by France’s National Constituent Assembly in August 1789. It is an important document of the French Revolution and in the history of human and civil rights. The Declaration was a core statement of the values of the French Revolution, and had a major impact on the development of freedom and democracy in Europe & worldwide.

Arno Dorian, protagonist of ‘Assassin’s Creed Unity’, was born on August 26th, 1768. We count down the days to Arno’s birthday with a new piece of trivia about The Fearless Assassin every day! 
→  Follow @adorians-unite for more~!

This was President Maduro’s reaction after millions of Venezuelans took part in the National Constituent Assembly elections yesterday. He was referring to a communique sent by the White House in which the elections were denounced as an attempt to “weaken the right of the Venezuelan people to self-determination.”

Via teleSUR English

Today is a day of celebration. The adoption of the Provisional Constitution is an historic achievement as it completes one of the most important milestones towards ending the current transitional period and ushering in a new political future.

SRSG Mahiga welcomes today’s adoption of the Provisional Constitution of the Somalia Republic by the Constituent Assembly in Mogadishu.

Read full statement on UNPOS website.

What Could Venezuela’s Opposition Do With a Simple, 3/5, or 2/3 Majority?

Geoff Ramsey

While polls in recent weeks have led many analysts to expect Venezuela’s opposition to gain a majority of the 167 seats in the 2015-2020 National Assembly, the exact nature of this majority could vary widely. The Venezuelan Constitution requires different thresholds of votes in order for the National Assembly to pass certain measures. These thresholds can be grouped into three categories: those requiring a simple majority, those requiring a “qualified majority” of three-fifths of the Assembly, and those requiring an absolute two-thirds majority.

With a simple majority of more than 50 percent of the National Assembly (84 members), the opposition can: 

  • Issue a vote of no confidence in the Vice President and cabinet Ministers
  • Investigate and question public officials
  • Have a deciding role in the national budget and debt debates 
  • Approve an amnesty law 
  • Select the members of the Supreme Court of Justice 
  • Approve laws on health, justice and basic goods 
  • Name ambassadors 
  • Convene national referendums on matters of special importance and amendments to the Constitution (with National Assembly approval) 
  • Attribute to states or municipalities certain issues that currently fall under national competence 
  • Authorize the President to leave the country (for 5 days) 
  • Elect the President of the National Assembly, and its two Vice Presidents 
  • Indict congressmen 

With a qualified majority of 3/5 of the National Assembly (101 members), the opposition can:

  • Decide that a vote of no confidence in the Vice President or cabinet Ministers should lead to their dismissal, and subsequently dismiss them
  • Authorize presidential decrees allowing expanded executive authority (so-called “enabling laws” or “leyes habilitantes”
  • Appoint members of the National Electoral Council (CNE)
  • Remove members of the CNE, provided it is backed by a ruling by the Supreme Court

With an absolute majority of 2/3 the National Assembly (112 members), the opposition can:

  • Remove Supreme Court justices in cases of gross misconduct
  • Subject any bills under discussion in the National Assembly to approval by referendum
  • Convene a National Constituent Assembly, as well as a recall referendum for President Maduro
  • Submit international treaties, conventions or agreements to referendums
  • Pass and modify any draft organic law  (laws which determine the fundamental political principles of a government)