House, design, repair, decor. Yard and garden. Do it yourself

§ 20 autochetia

The state structure of the Russian Empire is determined by two articles of basic laws: the first and forty seventh. Art. 1 Determines the properties of the power owned by the monarch. "The Russian Emperor, says in it, there is a monarch self-adjustable and unlimited. "It's not only for fear to obey the supreme power, but also for the conscience itself commands." There are three properties: the ridness, autocracy, unlimitedness. The designation of the Power of the monarch Verkhovna shows that he owns the highest irresponsible power in the state as it is in every monarchy. Autocracy and unlimitedness show that the entire fullness of the authorities focuses in our hands in the hands of the monarch. Art. 47 Indicates that the implementation of the autocratic power of the Russian king is committed according to the beginning of the legality. "The Russian Empire is managed on solid foundations of positive laws, institutions and charters, from the autocratic power of the outgoing." By autocravement, the existing state structure differs from the monarchy of limited, legality - from despotia, where the place of the law will take care of anything without a personal arbitrary of the ruler.

A self-adjustment was established in Russia. Even seen in it, which is coming from the outside, from the East or from Byzantium, and not originally developed with us, refer to the establishment of it to the era of Tatar yoke or at least not later than the XVI century. But the settlers of Art. 1 OSN. Zack. Do not go bend further, as before the XVIII century. This is due, firstly, by those framework, which it was furnished with the preparation of the Code of Laws. Legislative material used by its compilers was limited to 1649. Legislative acts that have previously emerged by the Cathedral Caming of the Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, not at all were taken into consideration. Secondly, finding a general formulation of such an original start of Russian state life, like autocracy, in certain decions, a relatively late era was not easy. I had to look for a random expression for all indisputable starts. And those legal entities that are indicated by the writers of the arch, as sources of Art. 1 OSN. Zack., Not fully consistent with the importance of the beginning expressed in it. The source of the second part, which indicates the religious consecration of the autocratic power, served the spiritual regulation, namely, its place (Part I, paragraph 2), where, in the proof of the superiority of a collegial device for the church governance, it is indicated that the monarchs of autocratic do not cost without advisers. "The monarchs of the power are autocratic, which God himself command himself to obey; Obach the advisers have their own, not tokmo for the sake of the best truth of recovery, but in order not to slander the unfortunate people, that this or it will forcefully and for the most pleasures, they rather than the court and truth commands the monarch "(P. P. 3., № 3718, h . I, p. 2, p. 316). The first part of Art. 1, which establishes itself the beginning of the autoclase, has its sources of military articula of 1716, marine charter of 1720, Manifesta Anna John 1730 and the establishment of the imperial name of 1797. Of all these legislative acts, the general expression of the beginning of the autocracy contains only Anna Isannovna manifesto Therefore, of course, that one she had to oppose the autocracy attempt to limit him from the heads. "Further faithful to our subjects says in this manifesto, all unanimously asked us, so that we were autocracy in our Russian empire, as our progenitors had the progenitor, perceive deign" (P. S. Z., No. 5509, Feb. 28). In the military articula and maritime statutes that literally repeat each other, they actually say not about autocracy, but about self-leveling and, moreover, the death penalty is laid for insulting Majesty (P. S. Z., № 3006, art. 20 sense., P. 325 and No. 3435, h. V, Art. 2 sense., P. 59). "For His Majesty is a self-liberal monarch, who should not give anyone in the world about his answers, but the power and power has its own states and land, the Christian sovereign in its will and bondage to manage." This is unsuccessful and nowhere else in your legislation not occurring expression: "self-teles", as seen from the German text of the article, used there in the sense of "sovereign" (Ein Souveräner Monarch). Finally, in the establishment of the imperial surname, § 71, only about the attitude of the monarch to the members of the imperial family name. "With all these, the benefits of the undisturbed pledge comes to have each of our last name to the reign of perfect reverence, obedience and citizenship, uniform and peace-loving attitude in the preservation of family silence and consent. The reigning, Yako unlimited autocratic, in any other case, has the right from appointed by us. (P. S. Z., No. 17906, § 71, p. 585). If, nevertheless, the compilers of the arch on the first place put the link specifically for the establishment of the imperial name, then this is due to the fact that in one of this act, the combination of definitions is adopted in the architecture: autocracy and unlimited.

Mapping words: autocratic and unlimited as it may indicate that the legislator wanted them to identify two different properties of power. Expression § 71 uch. Imper. The names "Unlimited autocrats" as it should imply that there may be a self-container and limited. And indeed, Speransky in his leaders tried to give these words a different meaning. In two words, he says, very meaningful, is expressed in our laws of fullness of the supreme power: autocracy and unlimited. The word autocracy has two different meanings. Code it is attached to the state, it means the independence of the state from any outsider. In this sense, all states independent may be called states autocratic. When it is attached to the person of the sovereign, it means the combination of all elements of the present right in their entirety of them without any participation and separation. The word unlimited power means that no other power on Earth, the power is correct and legitimate, nor out, nor within the empire, can not put the limits of the supreme power of the Russian self-container. So, judging by the form of the presentation, Speransky distinguishes autocracy and unlimitedness. But in content, it determines them so that these concepts coincide. In fact, "the combination of all elements of the present right" is obviously nothing to mean, like the fact that there is no other authority that would limit the monarch's master. Following the example of Speransky, Gradovsky and Romanovich-Slavinsky also try to distinguish between autocracy and unlimitedness. Romanovich-Slavinsky repeats the essence of the word Speransky. Gradovsky conducts this difference somewhat differently. The name "unlimited", in his opinion, shows that the Will of the Emperor is not constrained by the well-known legal norms set up its power. The expression "autocracy" means that the Russian emperor does not share his supreme rights with any establishment or estate in the state, i.e., that every act of his will receive a binding force regardless of other establishment .¹ * however, and in such a definition of autocracy And unlimited merge together. The existence of "legal regulations set above the will of the monarch" may, of course, only under the condition "separation of the supreme rights between it and other establishments."

Comparison of articles of the first and second land. Zack. Indicates that the legislator itself did not attach the expression "unlimited" strictly defined value. Art. 2 Decides that when the inheritance of the throne comes to the face of female, the Empress belongs to the same power as the emperor, but this power, instead of "unlimited and autocratic", is called "supreme and autocratic". Since this is the same power, it is obviously "unlimited" and "supreme" in the language of the arch - synonyms. From this it should conclude that, determining the power of the monarch, as an autocratic, unlimited, the set of laws does not indicate these words of its various properties, and for greater clarity, the same property determines two unambiguous words.

The autocracy has, as Speransky himself rightly pointed out, two different meanings: they are also indicated by the external, international state sovereignty, and the inner fear of the power of the monarch. The first officially accepted the name, the self-container Ivan III, and then, as not without reason, Klyuchevsky notes * it indicated precisely to external, international sovereignty, for foreign independence. In this sense, the autocracy was used at the very end of the XVIII century, as can be seen from the above agreement Catherine II with the king of Irakli II. When this agreement states that the king of Irakli does not recognize on his other autocracy, the blood of power and the patronage of the empress, then, obviously, autocracy is not used here in the sense of absolutism, namely in the sense of sovereignty. But, on the other hand, John Grozny joining the autocracy precisely in the sense of the fearless concentration of all the completeness of state power in the hands of the monarch, when I noticed Kurbsky: "Why and the self-container will be settled when it does not build himself?" In such a sense, it is used by autocracy and in the manifest of Anna John on February 28, 1730, and in Ekaterininsky Ocasia, Art. 9: "The sovereign is autocratic, because no other, as the power connected in his particular, can act in akin to the world of the great state," and in Manifesto on April 29, 1881: "Glas God commands us to be cheerfully on the board of the board with faith in truth The autocratic power that we are called to assert and protect for the benefit of people from all sorts of excuses. " In this sense, this word is used now in everyday speech. Without a doubt, in the arrangement of laws, autocracy means not the external independence of power, but its inner fearlessness.

So, it should be recognized that the concept of autocracy is the concept of unlimited, in the sense of focusing in the hands of the monarch of all the completeness of state power in the hands of the monarch. If the OSN. Zack. Along with the autocracy, it also mentions the unlimited power, then only for greater clarity. Otherwise, unlimitedness could not be omitted in determining the power of the Empress, in all equal to the authority of the emperor.

Addition . Article 4 of the current basic laws (Code of laws, t. I, part I, ed. 1906) decides: "The Emperor of the All-Russian authorities belongs to the Supreme Auditorous Power. It is not only for fear to obey the power of him, but also for conscience God commands. " From the comparison of this text with the text of the Former Art. 1 of the main laws is that in the new characteristic of the power of the Emperor of the All-Russian, a sign of unlimitedness is omitted and signs of autocracy and supractions are preserved. As for the ridness, from the point of view taken by N. M. Korkunov, it is not a decisive moment to conclude on cash in Russia of a particular form of the monarchical system. This crucial moment should, on the contrary, consider disappearance from the characteristics of the imperial power of the epithet "Unlimited", which follows from the comparison of Articles 4, 7, 10, 11 and 86 of the main laws.

In meaning, their sovereign emperor exercises legislative power in unity with the State Council and the State Duma; No new law can resolve without approval of the State Council and the State Duma and perceive the power without approving the emperor's sovereign; Decrees and commands in the order of supreme management are published by the state ship by the emperor in accordance with the laws, in the cases of the department of the subordinate, a certain degree of power entrusts to the emperor to be places and persons from the Emperor's state order according to the law. Thus, the management of management, carried out or independently to the state truck, or by authorization from it and according to the law by other bodies of the state, turns out to be subordinate other, the highest form of manifestation of state power, called the authority of the legislative; And this latter cannot already be implemented by the sovereign and suggests the joint actions of the monarch, the State Council and the State Duma. Therefore, the beginning of unlimited, or, on the interpretation of N. M. Korshunova, the concentration of all the completeness of the authorities in the hands of the monarch, and could not be preserved in the decisions of the basic laws on the being of the Supreme Auditorous Power. And if the Emperor of All-Russian and is currently referred to as an unlimited self-container in the institution about the imperial family in Art. 222 sq. Zak., T. I, Part I, ed. 1906, then from the content of this article and from the site occupied by it in the system of basic laws, it is clear that it means the power of the royal emperor over the members of the Imperial House.

Under these conditions, although the power of the emperor's sovereign is still called autocratic, autocracy in the modern state strict Russia cannot be understood as the beginning of equivalent unlimitedness. The sovereign of the emperor under the action of new basic laws is the monarch limited or, according to the established and consistent expression - the constitutional, and the state system of Russia there is a system of limited or constitutional monarchy. The beginning of the autocracy should, thus given a different interpretation. It is most often interpreted as the external international state sovereignty, that is, as it, according to N. M. Korkunova, was understood sometimes until the end of xVIII century.

Notes:

¹* Gradovsky. Start I, p. 1 and 2, (Collected Works, vol. 7).

²* Klyuchevsky. Boyarskaya Duma, 2 ed. 1883, p. 258.

84. The Russian Empire is managed on solid grounds for laws published in the prescribed manner. 85. The power of laws is equal to all without the withdrawal of Russian subjects and for foreigners, in the Russian state of staying. 86. No new law can follow without the approval of the State Council and the State Duma and perceive the power without approving the emperor's sovereign. 87. During the cessation of the occupations of the State Duma, if the emergency circumstances will cause a need for such an extent that requires discussion in the legislative procedure, the Council of Ministers presents about it the Emperor's state directly. This measure cannot, however, make changes to neither the main state laws, nor in the establishment of the State Council and the State Duma, nor in the decree on elections to the Council or in the Duma. The effect of such a measure is terminated if the minister or the main-right part of the individual part will not be submitted to the State Duma during the first two months after the renewal of the Duma's classes, the currently adopted bill or the State Duma or State Council will not be accepted. 88. Laws, especially published for any terrain or part of the population, are not canceled by the new general law, if it is precisely such a cancellation. 89. Each law is valid for the future, except when the law itself resolved that its strength applies and for a while preceding or that it is only a confirmation and to express the meaning of the law of the former. 90. The general storage of laws is relying in the Governing Senate. Therefore, all laws should be introduced in the script or in the certified lists in the Government Senate. 91. The laws are issued to universal reducing the Governing Senate in the prescribed manner and before the publication is not given. 92. Legislative decisions are not subject to publication, if the procedure for their publication does not comply with the provisions of these major laws. 93. According to the publication, the law receives the mandatory force of the SS\u003e of the draft appointed in the law of the period, with an unidentification of such a term - from the date of receipt on the site of the sector of the Senate publication, in which the law is printed. In the most published law, it may be indicated for its appeal before promulgation to the execution by the telegraph or by means of narrative. 94. The law cannot be canceled otherwise as soon as the law of the law. Therefore, the report of the new law is not positively canceled by the law existing, it retains its full strength. 95. No one can discharge with the ignition of the law when he was published by the established procedure. 96. Resolutions on the construction, technical and economic parts, as well as the provisions and applications to the institutions and officials of military and naval departments for the consideration of military and admiralty councils on affiliation directly seem to the state of the Emperor, unless these decisions, positions and punishes are actually One mentioned departments do not concern the objects of general laws and do not cause a new consumption from the treasury or the new consumption caused by them are covered by the expected savings on the financial estimate of the military or the Maritime Ministry of belonging. In the same case, when the new consumption cannot be covered by the specified savings, the presentation of the alleged decisions, provisions and orders for the highest statement is allowed only for the appropriation of appropriate loan in the prescribed manner. 97. Resolutions on the military and naval lawsuits are published in the manner prescribed in the arms of military and naval regulations.

Even on the topic, the head of ninth about the laws:

1. Chapter Second on the procedure for publication of the Code of Laws and Local Councils and the Complete Assembly of the Laws of the Russian Empire

Why this article will be interesting to you:

Reveal the names of the conspiracy participants against the king. How did the conspirators deceived Nicholas the second and the whole Russian people?

Lawyer A.Yu. Sorokin: "The Holy Tsar-Martyrs remained a legal sovereign of the Russian Empire to the martyrdom of July 17, 1918."

What exactly were the conspirators in the arch of the main state laws of April 23, 1906?

According to Art. 58 OGZ, "Emperor Nicholas II, with holy coronation and world-building, took an autocracy from God as a" great ministry ", and not in his royal power was abandoned."

The emperor was openly threatened by the murder of the Son and the death of the whole dynasty.

Was the lawful government or Russia seized ordinary bandits?

One of the amazing features of Russian history is that the least we know about the events of the closest to our days. However, on mature reflection, we can conclude that there is nothing surprising in this. Just truthful information about what happened in the eyes of still living eyewitnesses is more relevant in modern political life, and, therefore, more dangerous for today's liberal-democratic equilibrists trying to hide the truth for the sake of momentary, self-support interests.

This fully applies to the so-called. "Refinition" of Emperor Nicholas II. From the first March days of 1917, only 90 years have passed (The article was written in 2009 - Ed.)But "the fact of renunciation" is almost all recognized by the obvious and not worthy of any time and the cost of time. "Reference" has already become an axiom of Russian history.

But we still allow yourself an attempt to evaluate the actions of the sovereign ... And the estimate of the legal, as the most impartial.

As you know, until March 1, 1917, the "progressive public", with the highest army general, demanded from the self-container of the "responsible ministry" or, in another interpretation, "ministries of public confidence". As one of the most active conspirators, the leader of the Cadet faction in the State Duma of PNMilukov did not have a fundamental difference between these revolutionary "formulas", as it was all the same as the same circle of "responsible ministers". Just the first formula, supported, in particular, the Chairman of the State Duma M.V. Urzianko, demanded the Government responsible to legislative institutions - the State Duma and the State Council. The formula of the "Ministry of Public Trust", cultivated by Milyukov, expanded the circle of institutions, before which they should have been "responsible", including the General Union, headed by Prince G. Lvov, the military-industrial committees, headed by the former Chairman of the III of the Duma , Moscow "unfortunate merchant" A.I.Guchkov and other self-pricing organizations, whose representatives failed by 1917 to obtain legal right to be called "representatives of the people." In any case, the requirement was to create a government not responsible for the emperor.

The Holy Tsar-Martyrs remained legal sovereign of the Russian Empire right up to the martyrdom of July 17, 1918

Amazingly, but all these professors, private associates, jury attorneys and other representatives of the "educated society", did not bother to begin to ask at least a matter of the legality of the presentation of such a claim and the possibility, from the point of view of legal, its satisfaction. The breakdown by the charms of Western Democracy was so great that the question of legality, legitimacy of such a kind of statements, for rare, and that is not enough, as if to softening, persistent exceptions, did not even get up. And the point was so that not responsible for the supreme power of the government in the Russian Empire to be simply could not. In accordance with Art. 10 of the main state laws (OGZ), which are the main source (if you want the autocratic constitution) of Russian imperial law, "The power of management in all its volume belongs to the state of the emperor; ... In the same deposit management, a certain degree of power is awarded from it ". This provision eliminates the possibility of the existence of any civil servants not responsible, including the dismissal, in front of the monarch. That is why Art. 17 laws establishes the provision that "The sovereign of the emperor appoints and dismisses the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Ministers and Master-Governing Separate Parties". Article 123 Directly reads: "Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Ministers and Master-Governing Separate Parties are responsible for the state ship by the emperor", "each of them is individually responsive for their actions and orders".

"What is the problem? "You ask," it was necessary to change state laws, and everything would be fine. " By no means. It is these laws to change, in those conditions, it was impossible.

In accordance with Art. 84 OGZ "The Russian Empire is managed on the solid grounds of the laws published in the prescribed manner." According to Art. 92 "Legislative decisions are not subject to publication if the procedure for their publication (not publication, of course, and adoption - A.S.) does not comply with the provisions of this major laws". Article 91 says the laws "First promulgation", and such to universal minimization was carried out by the Governing Senate, "Act is not given". This is the procedure for the adoption of new basic laws or making changes and additions and could not be, and was not actually observed.

According to Art. 8 OGSs were subject to revision "SINICAL POWER" Emperor's sovereign. However, the initiative of the change of an existing structure, no doubt, did not proceed. Moreover, according to Art. 86 OGZ Russian Empire "No new law can follow without approval of the State Council and the State Duma". The latter classes, as you know, from February 27, 1917 were suspended, without starting. Thus, the preliminary approval of the chambers participating in the legislation could not be. But there was also a subsequent statement by the law by the monarch.

During the termination of the State Duma's classes, changes in OGZ, according to Art. 87, they could not even be made in extreme order, including the sovereign themselves.

But the main thing is that the "public figures" could never understand. The emperor of the All-Russian owner is the supreme autocratic power. And this means that the Russian monarchy in principle cannot become "constitutional". Constitutional "monarchy", so expensive to the heart of many "progressive" monarchists, there is no longer a monarchy at all, but a beautiful screen for the backstage republican political geacheraft. Limit its power, convey the right to legislation, to form and control the activities of the government, the Russian monarch did not have the right. As I wrote to the emperor Alexander I, the famous Russian historian N.Karamzin: "You can all, but you can not legally limit your power."

Yes, yes, the emperor is the greatest in the twentieth century. The empire could not do everything that wishes. His power was limited, but not human will, and the Orthodox faith, whose overseitor was the sovereign in accordance with Art. 64 basic laws. The self-adjustable monarchical form of the board is one of the main principles of Christian teachings about the state. Here's what he writes about this St. Filaret of Moscow (Drozdov): "As the sky is undoubtedly better than the earth and heaven is better than the earthly, then the fact that it is arranged in the image of heaven, as was said to be a borney Moses: W Wrach , Yes, the coat is all in the image shown to you on the mountain (Ex., 25, 40), that is, at the height of the award. According to this, God, in the image of his heavenly unity, established the king on earth; In the image of his heavenly surviving, he arranged on the land of the king of the autocratic; In the image of his kingdom of incredible, who continues from the century from the century, put the king of the hereditary in the land. "

The Church-State Cathedral of 1613 as a tool for the restoration of the gloomy power during the period of obliqueness reflected the deep folk conviction that the hereditary autocracy is the Great Shrine, the subject of our political faith, the Russian Dogmat, the only reliable protection against external and domestic disasters in the future. Our holy fathers taught that the people's husband's leadership in the choice of the form of the Board and the content of Russian statehood is breeding.

Emperor Nicholas II, with holy coronation and worldware, took autocracy from God as a "great ministry" (Note 2 to Art. 58 OGZ), and not in his royal power it was abandoned.

Could this understand the measured Russian-speaking "dandy", who have impaired themselves by the Willow of the Russian People? Could they realize that the Christian wandering commandments, including the "God be afraid, the king honor" (1 Peter. 2, 17), "Do not touch the anointed my" (1 pairs 16, 22), there is an integral and indispensable part of Russian State law?

But Russian imperial legislation, not ignoring, in contrast to the Republican, the Being of God, but, on the contrary, it is from the fact of this being that withdrawing the principle of power in Art. 4 OGZ initially enshrines the principle that stars that obey the royal power "For the conscience, God himself commands" (See also Rome. 13, 5). But the words "God" and "conscience" were for these "advanced" figures, allegedly represented the will of the Orthodox Russian people, an empty sound.

All this suggests that the telegram sent on behalf of the sovereign (although there are doubts that she was sent on his instructions), in which Nicholas II allegedly agrees to the requirement of the "responsible ministry" and instructs the chairman of the closed State Duma Rodzianko to draw up the Cabinet " Of those who enjoy the trust of all Russia, "has no legal significance. So it was useless to be the works of the nameless compilers of the project of this "Manifesta", directed from the random of the Supreme Commander in the headquarters of the Northern Front.

Similarly, they do not have the legal significance preserving, however, the historical value of documents called acts or manifestos about renunciation.

As you know, after talking about the commander of the North Front of General Ruzsky with Rodzianko on the night of March 1 to March 2, 1917, the conspirators have already discrepanted the demand of the sovereign. In the morning of March 2, General Alekseyev and General A.S. Lukukovsky organized a presentation of the Sovereign "loyal" requirements for the renunciation of all the commander-in-chief fronts: Generals Brusilov, Evert, Sakharov and Grand Duke Nikolay Nikolayevich. Having enjoyed a circular lie, General Ruzsky on March 2 for two hours "persuaded" the emperor to renounce, allowing himself even phrase like: "Well, solve." As a result, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon on March 2, 1917, the sovereign signed a telegram about the agreement to renounce his son Cesarevich Alexei.

It is noteworthy that General Ruzsky did not send this telegram, and when the sovereign, changed, demanded to return the unsent telegram, the order of the emperor refused to fulfill. It is clear, because it was the only "document" about renunciation. To return his Ruzian sovereign, conspirators could not be any written certificate of the sovereign to renunciation in general.

There are two versions of this document.

According to most sources, the text of the telegram was as follows:

"Chairman of the state. Duma. Peter. There is no victim, which I would not bring in the name of the actual good and to save the mother-in-law of Mother Russia. Therefore, I am ready to renounce the throne in favor of my son, so that it remains with us until the age of adulthood, with the regent of the brother of my grand prince Mikhail Alexandrovich. Nikolai. "

However, a number of historians believe that this telegram was transferred to the emperor General Alekseev on March 3, 1917 in Mogilev, when the sovereign learned that the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich the throne did not accept. This telegram, according to this version, General Alekseev did not send to "not embarrassing the minds."

"In a serious godine, the serious trials for Russia, we, without having the strength to bring the empire from the gravity of the Trouble, experienced by the country in the face of the external enemy, were considered for the benefit, going to meet the desires of the Russian people, folded the burden of the power given to us from God.

In the name of the grandeur of the beloved Russian people and the victory over a lighter enemy, we call on the blessing of God on our son, in favor of which we renounce our throne. He is before the advent of the regent of the brother of our Mikhail Alexandrovich. "

Let's try to evaluate these documents.

The fact is that Russian basic state laws are not aware of the concept of renunciation from the throne. This is what the home-grown robbacks did not take into account, "mutual" with the question: "Does Nicholas have the right to replace for the Son in favor of the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich?"

The only article in the OGZ, mentioning the right to renunciation is Art. 37. But she talks about the right to renuncate not the reigning monarch, but only heirs. It speaks directly about freedom "renounce" from the right, "Under the action of the rules, the above-mentioned heritage of the throne. Yes, and this freedom is limited only by those cases, "When there is no difficulty in the further inheritance of the throne". In other words, even the inheritance of the throne in certain cases is understood as a duty, the refusal of which is not allowed.

It may be argued that even if the right to renuncate from the throne and was not provided for by law, then, guided by the principle "All that is not prohibited," the emperor could still be renounced. However, this principle is the beginning of the regulatory property of civil, and not state law. With regard to the supreme power, the relationship of the "subordination" it is not applicable.

Considering that the huge rights are given by God by the sovereign in an inextricable connection with his duty, the duty of the royal ministry, as well as the fact of world conjunction, it should be recognized that the refusal of the obligation, and the obligations before God, absolutely not allowed from the point of view of secular, including and civil, rights, nor from the point of view of the right of canonical, at least without the appropriate preliminary permission, if not the church cathedral, then, in any case, the Holy Synod. The same permission, as you know, was not.

First, when renounce the emperor Peter III written laws on the throne, except for the "Charter" of Emperor Peter I, allowing, by the way, not to renounce the throne, but it did not exist. The norms about the prestrolls, who were the II head of the first section of the OGZ Code were accepted only by Emperor Paul I.

Secondly, the possibility of taking into account the renunciation of non-uninforceed monarchs during the examination of the Russian autocracy is very doubtful if not to say more.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the quoted laws establish the only basis for the throne to the heir - according to Art. 53 Heir joins the throne "On the death of the emperor". There are no other grounds for classes of the Russian imperial throne.

This is also said by Art. 43, 44 and 52, providing for the appointment of the ruler and guardian, as well as the appointment of the Government Council, in the case when it is at the end of the emperor that the throne moves to the young heir.

More renunciation of the throne on Russian imperial legislation, nobody, as already mentioned, not changed, it is impossible in principle.

There is, in addition, a number of private comments on these "renunciation documents".

So, in both telegrams the regency states. But the concept of "regent" laws are not known. The third "On the majority of the Emperor's Sovereign, about the government and care" provides for the appointment before reaching the emperor of the 16-year-old age of the ruler and guardian (Art. 41). And its appointment is carried out, according to Art. 43, the reign emperor and "In case of his death". Moreover, st. 44 provides that "The government of the state and guardianship over the emperor's face in the childhood belongs to the Father and Mother". Thus, the fact that in telegrams is called "Regency", if under it, still understand the "government and custody" could be established only in the case of the death of Nicholas II. The commissioning of the "governments" is a great prince Mikhail Alexandrovich, since the parents of the Tsearevich's heir were alive, in general illegally.

We now turn to the analysis of the most famous text of the "renunciation". Here is the full text:

"Rate. Headquarters headquarters In the days of the Great Fighting with an external enemy, seeking for almost three years to enslave our homeland, the Lord God has pleased to send Russia a new grievous test. The beginning of the internal folk unrest threaten poorly reflected in the further conduct of a stubborn war. The fate of Russia, the honor of the heroic of our army, the benefit of the people, the whole future of the expensive of our fatherland requires the privileges of the war by all means to the victorious end. The cruel enemy strains the last strength, and an hour is already close when the valiant army is us together with glorious allies will be able to finally break the enemy. In these decisive days, in Russia's life, we have so much duty of conscience to facilitate our close unity and cohesion of all the forces of folk for the early achievement of victory, and, in harmony with the gocyDaptweic spirit, we recognized for the benefit to renounce the head of the Russian state and add up the supreme power. Not wanting to part with our beloved Son, we convey our God's legacy to our great prince Mikhail Alexandrovich and bless him for the entry into the throne of the Russian state. We are moving to our brother to rule the affairs of government in full and non-unauthorized unity with representatives of the people in legislative institutions, on the principles that will be established by them, bringing in that haired oath. In the name of the hot beloved Motherland, we call on all the faithful sons of the Fatherland to the fulfillment of his holy debt before him, the obedience of the king in a difficult moment of nationwide tests and help him, together with the representatives of the people, to bring the Russian state to the path of victory, prosperity and glory. May the Lord of Russia will help.

With regard to the appearance of this document there are some ambiguities. V.V. Shulgin in his memoirs argues that the text was fully written by the sovereign itself before the arrival of V.V. Shulgin and A.I.Guchkova in Pskov in the evening on March 2, 1917. However, it is unlikely that the thought is unlikely to renounce the throne in favor of the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich arose from Nicholas II to the arrival of this delegates. The fact is that Tsearevich's right Alexei Nikolaevich inherit the throne "before all" was completely obvious. Could not serve as the only reason for such a decision and hemophilia, which was sickly Cesarevich.

It was most likely another circumstance.

As we have seen, the emperor Nicholas II wanted Alexey Nikolaevich to remain with him until the age of majority, as they provide for the main state laws. However, this situation was completely unacceptable for conspirators. According to the memoirs of General A.S. Mlukovsky on March 2, 1917, after a conversation with A.I.Guchkov and V.V. Shaulgin, the sovereign wanted to sign a renunciation in favor of the heir. But the question can be possible to live in Crimea, A.I.Guccov replied that the sovereign would have to immediately go abroad. "Can I take a heir with me?" - asked the emperor. Huchkov replied that "the new state with regent must remain in Russia."

Thus, the conspirators actually demanded a renunciation in favor of Mikhail Alexandrovich. What such a requirement is, as well as renunciation, as such, illegal and legal significance do not have, we have already spoken. The conspirators themselves recognized the illegality of the subfolding "bye" Alexey Nikolayevich. But the minor emperor cannot renounce the throne or "swear constitution." Consequently, the creation already planned by the traitors, as it seemed to them, "Legal Vacuum" as a result of the "renunciation" of Mikhail Alexandrovich, it would be impossible. Hence the conclusion - the only possibility of establishing the constitutional "monarchy" or the early proclamation of Russia by the republic was, in the event of a renunciation in favor of Alexey Nikolayevich, Tsarubiyism. This, completely understandable, deprived of "persons covering the country's trust" of any visibility of the legal succession. Therefore, revolutionaries went to complete ignoring the law. But Dura Lex Est Lex, the Surov law, but this is the law. "Reference" in favor of the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich was, of course, absolutely illegal.

According to Art. 39 major state laws "Emperor or Empress, the throne inherring, when joining it and worldware, they undertake to observe ... Laws on the heritage of the throne."

Article 25 states that "The imperial Russian throne is hereditary", and in Article 28 it says that "The heritage of the throne belongs before all the senior son of the reigning emperor". In compliance with this right of inheritance, all members of the Imperial House also sworn (Art. 206 of the core of the main state laws). To the oath "To the loyalty of citizenship to the recently to the emperor and his legal heir, at least he was not named in the manifesto" about the weighing on the throne, are given "In general, all the men's subjects who have reached the twenty-year-old age, every rank and title" (Note 2 to Art. 55).

Therefore, the heir to Alexei Nikolayevich Alexey, the throne, in any case, was alive, and I could not go to the great prince Mikhail Alexandrovich. The Grand Duke, having switched to the heir to Nicholas II and the laws on the inheritance of the throne, was not entitled to officially speak out on the issue of the clamping of the throne, except, without saying, about the forecastelessness due to the violation of the law. The whole Russian people was obliged to be likely to be faithful.

As much legally, the sovereign words about the renunciation "in harmony with the Government Duma" themselves are hardly incredible and the principles of legislative institutions that Mikhail Alexandrovich should be guided in the management of "state-owned" to be guided by Mikhail Alexandrovich. They, like the "responsible ministry", contradict the principle of unquesting autocracy. On the attachment of the impartial oath, it is generally incomprehensible who should bring it: Mikhail Alexandrovich or "representatives of the people."

Reversely, also, attention to the form of this document. This, as we can see, addressed on March 2, 1917, not "all our faithful subjects", as it should be, and at the rate, head of the headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Traitor General Alexeyev Telegram, signed, by the way, pencil.

The main state laws provide that even the renunciation of a person who has the right to inherit the throne becomes irrevocable only when it will be made public, as already mentioned, according to Art. 91 Governing Senate, and addressed to the law.

Consequently, this, with the permission to say, "State Document", which was submitted later by the "manifesto" of renunciation, the forces of the law did not acquire, and, as it was considered earlier, could not purchase.

In conclusion, we note another very important, if not the main thing, along with violation of the law enforcement established by the legislation, the rules of adoption, promulgation and registration of the considered "documents", the circumstance.

The emperor was almost openly threatened by the murder of the Son and the death of the whole dynasty. Truly, the circle reigned "treason, cowardice and deception."

The main condition for the recognition of a particular act as having a legal significance is "freedom of will".

V. V. Shulgin, in revolutionary blinding believed that "in the event of a renunciation ... the revolution would not be (here, it was," as if "). The sovereign will donate from the throne at his own request, the government will go to the regent, which will appoint a new government. The State Duma, submitted to the decree on the dissolution and picked up the power (like this "subordinate") ... "" will give the power to this new government. "

And it is the lack of this very "own" desire finally convinces the legal insignificance of all these "acts" and "manifestos".

If the action, and this is true not only for civil-legal relations, is performed under the influence of violence, threats, deception, delusion or progress of severe circumstances, then there is no place of the will of the acting person on the commission of the appropriate action, which has the same place will reflect the will of another person - with violence or threat, or the will of the acting person in other cases is formed under the influence of circumstances distorting his true will.

All these circumstances with the "renunciation" of Emperor Nicholas II, as well as the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, took place.

The emperor was misleading relatively proclaimed in the appeal of the temporary committee of the commitment of the "Dumsev" "inviolability of the monarchical principle." Military Minister General Belyaev, without taking any measures to restore order, irresponsiblely telegraphed "On Soothe". The commander of the Petrograd Military District General Habalov offered as a way of pacifying the rebellion of spare parts to dilute bridges - this is when trams went on the ice of the Neva. Marine Minister Grigorovich, with the aim of "conservation of valuable shipbuilding cards," demanded a leaving of the admiralty of the faithful sovereign. The imperial train was not missed in Petrograd. The emperor did not let me up to the telegraph and telephone - the North Front headquarters had a direct telephone and telegraph connection with Petrograd. The orders of the supreme commander-in-chief sabotaged and even without his knowledge were canceled. And Rodzianko, and Alekseev - everyone shamelessly lied the sovereign about the true situation in the capital, and after all, on the recognition of the bublikov who seized the Ministry of Railways, there was a single division to suppress the riot; In the Tauride Palace, when a message about the movement of troops on Petrograd, a panic was raised several times; With random shots on the street "Revolutionary soldiers" popped up in the windows.

The king was in meanly deceived and with respect to the actual mood of the Petrograd population, which allegedly opposed the sovereign personally, and in relation to troops, among which were allegedly not reliable parts. The August family, without having the opportunity due to the illness of children to leave the royal village, was subjected to the greatest danger. Well, of course, the threat of the inner riots during the tental struggle with the external enemy, on the eve of the victory, testified to the proposal of difficult circumstances, which are expressly stated in the telegram dated March 2, 1917, the emperor was almost openly threatened by the murder of the Son and the death of the entire dynasty. Truly, the circle reigned "treason, cowardice and deception."

Interesting circumstances of adoption by Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich the considered decision. March 3, 1917 in the house number 12 in a million street in Petrograd, where the Grand Duke was located, the prince of Lviv, Guccov, Rodzianko, Milyukov, Kerensky, Nekrasov, Efremov, Rzhevsky, Bagelov, Schidlovsky, Shulgin, Profit , Nabokov, Nolde and other faces and convinced him to abandon the throne in favor of the people, who later chooses him or someone else. At the same time, Kerensky stated: "I am not entitled to hide here, what dangers are you personally subjected in case of a solution to occupy the throne ... Anyway ... I do not pass for the life of your Highness! .."

All this completely definitely suggests that the renunciation did not take place. The Holy Tsar-Martyrs remained legal sovereign of the Russian Empire right up to the martyrdom of July 17, 1918

The power of the temporary government, as well as the power of His "heirs" - the power is usurped, the government is illegal. From March 2, 1917, no moment on the entire territory of the Russian Empire did not exist and there were no kind or species ("branches") of state power, which could claim for any kind of genus or the type of legal continuity. All available documentary acts of the transition of power from legitimate carriers, refusal from it, and so on. - All this from a legal point of view does not withstand the most indulgent criticism. Russia to this day is an autocratic Orthodox monarchy. Any "voter" or his "chosen one" is just a link in the relay of criminals, the continuation of which is the key to reached 85 years ago a destructive success.

In 1613, the people of Russian jumped up the house of the Romanovs to the Location of the Century, "firmly and indestructible in the prevention of summer, childbirth and childbirth." "And who does not boost to obey this Cathedral, ... According to the sacred rules of the Holy Apostle and the Ecumenical Sedmi Cathedrals of St. Father and the Local ... will be erupted, and from the Church of God, the Skolnik of the Church of God and all Orthodox Christianity ...".

The text of the speech at the conference "Discretion was not? (Studying the circumstances of the February coup 1917) ", Moscow, November 7, 2009. The text is reduced.

Member of the Russian Imperial Union-Order since 2001 Senior Head Comanor. In 2005 he was elected a member of the Supreme Council Ri-O. Since 2006, the Secretary General Ris-O.

Test number 10.

Option 2.

Part A.

Part B.

Part S.

Article No. 47 of the main state laws of the Russian Empire (1906) read: "The Russian Empire is managed on a solid basis of laws, charters and institutions, from the autocratic power of the outgoing". What form of government is fixed in the fragment of laws? Give two characteristic features of this form of government.

Test number 11.

Option number 1.

Part A.

Part B.

During the campaign for the election of the head of the regional administration, one of the candidates registered by the election commission was removed from the election race. The court left the decision of the election in force. What legislative grounds could the election commission be guided during the removal of the candidate? Specify three bases

Test number 11.

Option 2.

Part A.

Part B.

Part S.

On the election day of the deputies of the State Duma, polling stations were distributed by leaflets in favor of one of the candidates. How do you evaluate the example given from the point of view of Russian election legislation? According to what rules (specify three), there should be a pre-election campaign of candidates for deputies?

Test number 12.

Option number 1.

Part A.

Part B.

Part S.

Specify the three main objectives of the legal responsibility provided for by Russian legislation.

Holyguish martyrs became victims of a ritual murder organized and conducted by the Jews. A murder was committed not just the family of Romanovs, the Christ movements sought to destroy the symbol of the Orthodox monarchy established by God. However, if today, a single sensible person does not occur to challenge the fact of the martyrdom of the sovereign and his family, the political activities of Nicholas II are still given the most controversial assessments.

For decades, the media and official historians have collapsed by Nicholas II streams of lies and slanders. Perhaps for this reason today, many sincere patriots of Russia are perplexed - why did the king spent a tougher policy? Why did not apply decisive measures towards the revolutionaries and to the Russian Society of the Intelligentsia, did not dismiss all the Masonic lodges and did not deporte to the regions of the Far North of all Jews?

Answers to these difficult questions can give a health estimate of the events of Russian history. Obviously, the revolution of 1917 was only the culmination of the processes of destruction of Russian statehood, inextricably linked with the increasing retreat of the people from faith in God. It is known, for example, that the famous temporary Speransky, accused by Russian patriots in treason in favor of Napoleon and in the plans for the destruction of the Russian monarchy, before the Patriotic War of 1812, was sent to the link. At the same time, Speransky did not hide their plans and prepared a project for the transition to constitutional rule. After many years, after the uprising of the Decembrists, this Mason mysteriously surfaced again, when Nikola Pavlovich instructed him to draw up a set of laws of the Russian Empire. For the successful fulfillment of the task, Speransky received the Order of Andrei the First-Called - the highest order of the Empire. In the Russian Empire XIX century. The Speransky Commission began to fulfill the role of the legislative authority independent of the emperor. Then this function moved to the Senate. The set of laws compiled by Speransky is a colossal multi-volume meeting, to deal with which and conclude how to apply it in practice, the emperor in each particular case lacked time. After all, the sovereign carried out an extraordinary burden, solely carrying out executive and military power. Perhaps, so Nikolai Pavlovich did not pay attention to Article 84: "The Russian Empire is managed on the solid grounds for the laws published in the prescribed manner."

Obviously, this article is addressed only to one person, who is managed by the Russian Empire. Upon the will of Mason, the Speransky emperor fell into a very hard frame. Very soon, any action within this framework began to lead to the results opposite to the conceived. The will of the Emperor was carried out in the manner prescribed by the click of Masons and Trainkers, despite that the transfer of all the levers of real power was provided for by the Code of Law of the Russian Empire. Composing the "established order" of the management of the empire, the lawmakers focused on the most advanced foreign experience, uniting the Prussian bureaucracy with French liberalism and the competitiveness of the parties and the British cult "inalienable rights". The consequences of such a "legitimate" procedure for the management of the empire were tragic and, in the end, led to the collapse of the Russian monarchy.