And the answer is all three. Prior to the coup he sent letters all over the free world asking for help in holding off the totalitarian schemings of Allende. During the coup he penned a letter of endorsement for the CDP. After the coup he defended its necessity and participated in the drafting of the new constitution.
If my history is mistaken about Chile's 1925 constitution, the one you seem to claim Pinochet was protecting, please tell me exactly when the 1925 constitution was observed after Pinochet's coup.
Your word games aside, he retained all of the main features of the 1925 constitution and incorporated them into the 1980 constitution that exists today. It was necessary to convene a constitutional convention because of the damage Allende had already done to the 1925 document well before Pinochet ever arrived.
He was the elected president of Chile.
In 1970 he was. By 1973 he had seized dictatorial powers into his office and was operating in criminal breach of the constitution, including directly contradicting the Chilean Supreme Court. Criminality in office forfeits electoral legitimacy.
He had not been removed from office under the powers outlined in the constitution.
Only because he committed suicide before they had the chance to bring him to trial.
He stood accused of abusing the power of the presidency
It was more than simple accusation. The Supreme Court ruled his were actions unconstitutional. They were the final authority and Allende was obliged to abide by their rulings. He didn't though.
Under the constitution, this would be considered in violation of article 3, which states that "Ninguna persona o reuinion de personas pueden tomar el título o representaticion del pueblo, arrogarse sus derechos, ni hacer peticiones en su nombre. La infraccion de este artículo es sedicion."
Your reading is a specious reading at best (although it is also one that's not uncommon to leftist pro-Allende bloggers, hence what I suspect to be your source for it). The clause in question actually damns Allende rather than Pinochet, which is among the reasons why it was among the charges made against him by the Chamber of Deputies. Given the rulings against him and record of his actions it is difficult to dispute that Allende had assumed rights and powers beyond those conferred to his office by law.
As arresting a criminal is not an assumption of unconferred power, Pinochet's attempt to apprehend Allende cannot be construed as a violation. Nor can it be construed as a usurpation of Allende's office, considering that Allende lost that office not by force or expulsion, but rather by his own hand when he chose to commit suicide rather than face trial for his crimes before the legislature and judiciary.
What does this have to do with Pinochet's
During the coup he penned a letter of endorsement for the CDP.
To establish his political bona fides with the new dictatorship?
After the coup he defended its necessity and participated in the drafting of the new constitution.
Which means that he recognized that Pinochet did not defend the old one.
Your word games aside, he retained all of the main features of the 1925 constitution and incorporated them into the 1980 constitution that exists today.
So seven years without a constitution? Some defense.
It was necessary to convene a constitutional convention because of the damage Allende had already done to the 1925 document well before Pinochet ever arrived.
What damage did Allende do to 1925 that required its complete abrogation?
Criminality in office forfeits electoral legitimacy.
And it was in the Senate's power to determine this.
The clause in question actually damns Allende rather than Pinochet,
It damns them both.
Nor can it be construed as a usurpation of Allende's office, considering that Allende lost that office not by force or expulsion, but rather by his own hand when he chose to commit suicide rather than face trial for his crimes before the legislature and judiciary.
And where did Pinochet stand in the line of succession?