What a shock - back to the word games. You asked "Did he [Frei] say that before, during, or after Pinochet's dictatorship?" The answer was all three.
To establish his political bona fides with the new dictatorship?
Why would he need to do that? Frei had already been calling for Allende's ouster for months. Pinochet knew where he stood.
So seven years without a constitution?
Actually three, which is not surprising considering the amount of damage Allende did to constitutional government. There was a lot of sweeping up to do after him. Pinochet restored a provisional government in 1976 though to draft the 1980 constitution.
What damage did Allende do to 1925 that required its complete abrogation?
Ask him. He's the one that completely abrogated it. I suspect the answer would reflect the fact that he trampled the legislative and judicial branches while unconstitutionally seizing power into his own.
And it was in the Senate's power to determine this.
Actually it was the judiciary's power to decide criminality. The Senate's power was to decide the legislative trial (sorta like Chile's equivalent of impeachment). But Allende chose to off himself before he could be brought to justice.
It damns them both.
Repeat that all you want, but it simply isn't in the clause. Only seizing unlawful powers is, as Allende did. Arresting a criminal is not a seizure of power though.
And where did Pinochet stand in the line of succession?
I don't know what the exact Chilean succession statutes were at the time, but he would've been somewhere near the top of it as commander of the military. Pretty much everybody who would've been ahead of him - the political officers in Allende's regime - fled the country though, or got taken into custody for their own criminal acts. The succession eventually came to Pinochet because he was the highest ranked of the non-Allendists.
Back to the question at hand is more like it.
And I'll remind you that you're in no position to accuse other people of playing "word games" after having defended (without evidence) your definition of a racial slur that is so divergent from accepted use that you have yet to produce a dictionary that even approximates the definition you gave.
Also, even though you correctly place the practice of "voodoo" in the Caribbean and West Africa, you insist on using it (in the place of more appropriate terms) to describe religions that not only cannot be described as "voodoo", Vodou, or Vodoun in a way that is "reliable by any academic standard" but also are not practiced in the Caribbean or West Africa.
You asked "Did he [Frei] say that before, during, or after Pinochet's dictatorship?"
In response to my statement in #211 that few informed observers "would say that Pinochet intended to preserve the Chilean constitution" you said (#218) "Eduardo Frei Montalva concluded as much." When I asked (#224) if that happened "before, during, or after Pinochet's dictatorship?" you said (#231) "all three." Your support for the claim that Frei believed that Pinochet intended to preserve the Chilean constitution before the coup is based on the fact that (and here I quote your #231 again) "Prior to the coup he sent letters all over the free world asking for help in holding off the totalitarian schemings of Allende."
So I ask you: Did these letters mention anything about Pinochet's alleged desire to protect the Constitution?
And I'll remind the reader that you neglected to mention the fact that Frei was a strident opponent of Pinochet and his government in the early 1980s.
Actually three
What constitution was in effect then? The one you claim that Pinochet was defending with his coup? The one he suspended after the coup, in violation of its article 4?
Ask him.
If you can't tell me yourself, why should I believe you? Salvador Allende's answer to any question asked of him today would be, at the very least, an "unreliable source".
Arresting a criminal is not a seizure of power though.
Pinochet did more than arrest a criminal. He seized executive power as well. That was the violation.
I don't know what the exact Chilean succession statutes were at the time, but he would've been somewhere near the top of it as commander of the military. Pretty much everybody who would've been ahead of him - the political officers in Allende's regime - fled the country though, or got taken into custody for their own criminal acts. The succession eventually came to Pinochet because he was the highest ranked of the non-Allendists.
As president of the Senate, Frei preceded Pinochet in the line of succession, according to article 66. You've already established Frei's "non-Allendist" credentials. Assuming that Frei was the highest-ranking official still in the country (or even the highest-ranking "non-Allendist"), it seems that Pinochet violated article 3 by refusing to ceded power to Frei.