President Dilma to resign and become less difficult way to the democratic constitutional State.

The initial difficulty in the way of the democratic law state of progress in Brazil today requires in order to justify any expedients that will attain an end, in which President Dilma and its allies in dealing with public affairs.

 The obligation it fled the rules governing the relations of a public official as the assets and made their advantage, she was an active subject and answers by the public right of subordinates and the failure already characterizes crime perhaps otherwise unattainable and despotism that using is an illegitimate mode of government in dealing with the public patrimony.

Enough to be barbarous as not to meet an end parra improve the country's situation, and not the means justified by actually effecting such end.Thus freedom, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when the Brazilian entered and occupied by the free and equal discussion on the streets.

Until then, motivated by historical corruption in the country, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to constitutional principles ..

The impeachment action reached the ability to be guided by people who lined the streets and brings improvement by conviction or persuasion that the government Dilma there is a compulsion, either in direct form or in that of pains and penalties for non-compliance with standards constitutional.

It is not permissible as a means for their own good, and justifiable for the safety of others surrendered because only if you do not give up there will be advantages not for her and not for the country.

Now is the turn of the oligarchic and showed their faces, many trained in Public Administration at Harvard and we will see its uses previously not shown and is now their turn in ethics; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of the people and not of a minority and only in relation to those actions of each of them still seek their interests and others and will be painful for Brazilians over this step democratic, but again the people must go out to the street to general disapproval.

But many positive acts that are benefiting and legitimately doctors and judges are required to perform the competence to a draft by corruption in the courts; to have its share in the common defense, or any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving the democratic freedom.

Now let's see the Government houses, Deputies and Senators make the interposition to protect the defenseless against "distinguished" personas answer and legitimately be held responsible to society for not doing the established standards.

A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case it is precisely responsible for them for the injury. The latter case is true, is required to stop and beware of compulsion to stay in power for power.

Or with Mr LULA to make the omission of facts that society and justice already more than typed and do harm to others is the rule, so she and her companions will be responsible for not preventing evil is, of subject jure of those whose interests are concerned, and, if necessary, protect society and not looking good reasons not to hold it to liability; using "expedients" special case: either because it is a kind of case in which it is generally likely to do better when left to its own criterion of justice clinging to a social contract he made in his re-election when control society He has in his power to control it, so do not give the action of this control will produce other evils, greater than his absence.

Seeking reasons such as these impede democracy and escapes execution responsibility, own consciousness vague agent and protect their interests and others who have no external protection; judging even more rigidly, because the case does not admit his being liable to the judgment of their peers. It would be unfair to the 54 million who trusted her.