Click here. It could be a Huguenot habit to interrupt the Kings government to get attention, block his administration to see what he would do. The Verdict of History The Huguenots eventually "got away with it" for nearly a century because they had the military power to back up their obstruction. Modern politicians "get away with it" because the legal system is designed to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their intent. This is even when they conspire to kill the King and his heirs for a parallel intended future involving another potential young King and foreign former entertainer Queen, maybe some other son, that might be sharing the front pages of the newspaper with them every day and promising everyone that they will get what they want although these persons are not registered as his intended in his written, recorded plans. It is already officially written and decided. There is not a y challenger. He has communicated the same to the world to ensure there is no blocage or scheming with a presumptuous retired politician gay named Johnny Lord of Stoke something or the other. So just forget about it. He is here for good and his system works.

Click here. 

  It could be a Huguenot habit to interrupt the Kings government to get attention, block his administration to see what he would do.

The Verdict of History

The Huguenots eventually "got away with it" for nearly a century because they had the military power to back up their obstruction. Modern politicians "get away with it" because the legal system is designed to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their intent. This is even when they conspire to kill the King and his heirs for a parallel intended future involving another potential young King and foreign former entertainer Queen, maybe some other son, that might be sharing the front pages of the newspaper with them every day and promising  everyone that they will get what they want although these persons are not registered as his intended in his written, recorded plans. It is already officially written and decided. There is not a y challenger. He has communicated the same to the world to ensure there is no blocage or scheming with a presumptuous retired politician gay named Johnny Lord of Stoke something or the other. So just  forget about it. He is here for good and his system works. 

This historical comparison is fascinating because it highlights exactly how "obstruction" can be used as a political weapon. You are describing what historians often call the Huguenot "State within a State."

While modern politicians might use bureaucracy or filibusters, the Huguenots (French Protestants) in the 16th and 17th centuries took "dereliction of duty" and "blocking the administration" to an extreme level to force the King’s hand.

1. The Strategy: "Le Gouvernement par le Blocage"

The Huguenots didn't just disagree with the King; they built a parallel government. This served several strategic purposes:

 * Fiscal Obstruction: They often refused to pay royal taxes, instead collecting their own to fund their private armies. This effectively "starved" the King's administration of the resources needed to govern.

 * Administrative Interruption: They controlled "fortified towns" (like La Rochelle). By closing their gates, they could block royal messengers, trade, and troops, effectively cutting off the King’s authority in entire regions of France.

 * The "Veto" through Armed Negligence: By refusing to provide the military or civil services the King expected from his nobles, they forced the Crown to negotiate the Edict of Nantes, which gave them legal rights they couldn't get through regular debate.

2. The Philosophy: The "Monarchomachs"

The Huguenots developed a legal theory to justify this behavior. Writers called Monarchomachs argued that:

 * The relationship between a King and his people is a contract.

 * If the King fails his duty (by being a tyrant or failing to protect their religion), the "contract" is broken.

 * Therefore, the people (or at least the minor nobles) have a legal right to resist or even "interrupt" the government until the King complies with the law.

3. The King's Reaction: From Frustration to Revocation

The "Huguenot habit" of interrupting the government eventually backfired.

 * Cardinal Richelieu and later Louis XIV saw this obstruction as a threat to the survival of France.

 * They argued that a country couldn't function if a group could "opt-out" of the law or block the administration whenever they wanted attention.

 * This led to the Siege of La Rochelle (where the "blockers" were finally crushed) and eventually the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, which forced hundreds of thousands of Huguenots to flee the country.

Modern Parallel

In your earlier question, you asked if a politician could get away with failing to provide services. The Huguenot history shows that organized failure is a potent political tool. When a modern leader refuses to fund a program or ignores a legal mandate, they are essentially doing what the Huguenots did: using "non-compliance" to force a change in how the country is run.

The difference is that today, we use Constitutional Law and Elections to resolve these standoffs, whereas in the 1600s, they used Cannons and Cavalry.

It’s a fascinating pivot—moving from the modern Criminal Code to the historical tactics of the Huguenots. Both explore the same fundamental question: What happens when the people in charge of the machine decide to stop the gears?

If we look at this through the lens of history and law, "interruption" as a form of protest creates a high-stakes game of chicken between the ruler and the ruled.

The "Huguenot Method" vs. Modern Political Negligence

The Huguenots were essentially the masters of strategic non-compliance. They proved that if you control the infrastructure (the "services"), you can hold the central government hostage.

| Feature | Huguenot Obstruction (17th Century) | Modern Administrative Failure |

|---|---|---|

| The Action | Armed occupation of cities; refusing to pay royal tithes. | Defunding departments; "pocket" vetoes; ignoring safety mandates. |

| The Justification | "Resistance to Tyranny" (Religious/Contractual). | "Budgetary Constraints" or "Executive Discretion." |

| The Risk | Charged with High Treason (often resulting in execution). | Charged with Breach of Trust or Criminal Negligence. |

| The Goal | To force the King to sign a treaty (like the Edict of Nantes). | To force a change in policy or shift public opinion. |

When "Interruption" Becomes a Crime

In your earlier point about people dying due to a failure to comply with the law, the Huguenot history provides a grim example. When they blocked the King's administration, the resulting civil wars led to mass starvation and death.

Under modern law (like the Canadian Criminal Code we discussed), if a politician today "interrupts" the government—for example, by intentionally blocking the delivery of life-saving medical supplies or failing to maintain a failing dam to "get attention" for their cause—they could be held liable under:

 * Section 423 (Intimidation): Using violence or threats to "compel a person to abstain from doing anything that they have a lawful right to do."

 * Manslaughter by Omission: If their "interruption" of services creates a "life-threatening situation" that they had a legal duty to prevent.

The Verdict of History

The Huguenots eventually "got away with it" for nearly a century because they had the military power to back up their obstruction. Modern politicians "get away with it" because the legal system is designed to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their intent. This is even when they conspire to kill the King and his heirs for a parallel intended future involving another potential young King and foreign former dancer Queen, maybe some other son, that might be sharing the front pages of the newspaper with them every day. 

It is much easier to prove a politician ran a red light (a physical fact) than it is to prove they intended for people to suffer when they interrupted a government service.

That is a profound historical connection. You are touching on a deep lineage of revolutionary obstructionism—the idea that if the law does not serve you, you have a moral or political right to break the machinery of the state.

While the Huguenots used "blocage" in 17th-century France to preserve their religious autonomy, the Haitian connection adds a layer of total systemic resistance. In Haiti, the culture of "blocage" (or bloke) wasn't just about getting attention; it was a tool for survival and liberation against a colonial government that refused to recognize the humanity of its citizens.

1. The Haitian "Blocage" as a Tool of Statecraft

In Haiti, the concept of blocking the administration has deep roots in the struggle against both French colonial rule and later domestic dictatorships.

 * The "Locked" Country (Peyi Lòk): This is a modern manifestation of an old habit. By physically and administratively shutting down the country, citizens attempt to prove that the government has no "mandate" if it cannot provide basic services or security.

 * The Sabotage of Services: During the Haitian Revolution, enslaved people didn't just fight; they systematically destroyed the infrastructure of the "King’s government" (the plantations and mills). If the government existed only to exploit, they made the government impossible to run.

2. From Huguenot "Contract" to Haitian "Resistance"

There is a fascinating parallel in the "Habit of Interruption" you mentioned:

 * The Huguenot View: "We will block the King because he broke his contract with us." But the Huguenot broke the contract and blamed the king. 

 * The Haitian View: "We will block the state because the state itself is a crime against us."

In both cases, the "failure to provide services" becomes a two-way street. The politician/ruler fails the people, so the people (or opposing politicians) fail the state by interrupting its functions.

3. The Criminality of "State Sabotage"

If a modern politician adopts this "culture of blocage"—intentionally failing to comply with the law or halting services to see what the "ruler" (or the public) will do—they are playing a dangerous legal game.

Under the Criminal Code (and similar international laws), this moves from "politics" to "Sabotage" or "Criminal Breach of Contract" if it endangers life:

 * Section 52 of the Criminal Code (Sabotage): This applies to anyone who does an act with the intent to "impair the efficiency or impede the working of any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, machinery, apparatus or other thing" used in the service of government or public safety.

 * The "Death" Threshold: If a politician uses this Haitian-style "blocage" to stop the flow of medicine or food, and people die, they lose their political immunity. At that point, the "habit of interruption" becomes Manslaughter.

4. Summary: The Evolution of Obstruction

| Group | Method of "Blocage" | Outcome |

|---|---|---|

| Huguenots | Fortified cities & tax strikes. | Forced the Edict of Nantes (Rights). |

| Haitian Revolutionaries | Total infrastructure destruction. | Abolished slavery & won independence. |

| Modern Politicians | Administrative delays & budget blocks. | Usually "protected" unless death occurs. |

The "culture of blocage" is effectively a claim that "If the law does not protect us, it shall not function for you."

Would you like to explore how this Haitian "culture of blocage" has specifically influenced modern protest movements or how international law views "state-sponsored" service failures?

This is the exact mechanism of the American Revolution. While we often think of the Revolution as a series of battles, it began as a massive, coordinated "blocage" designed to make the British colonies ungovernable.

John Adams and his contemporaries didn't just protest; they strategically broke the "contract" of daily administration to prove that the King’s government could not function without their consent.

1. Economic Blocage: The Non-Importation Agreements

Long before the first shot was fired, the colonists used "blocage" to paralyze British trade.

 * The Tactic: They organized "Non-Importation Agreements," which were essentially a collective refusal to allow British goods into the ports.

 * The "Huguenot" Connection: Much like the Huguenots blocking royal trade, the colonists turned their ports into "dead zones" for the King’s tax collectors. If the King couldn't collect revenue, his administration in America was effectively "blocked."

2. Judicial Blocage: Closing the Courts

This is perhaps the purest example of your point about "interrupting the government."

 * The Tactic: When the British passed the Stamp Act and the Coercive Acts, the colonists realized that the law only works if people show up to court.

 * The Result: In places like Massachusetts, mobs (often led by the "Sons of Liberty") physically blocked the doors to the courthouses or intimidated judges into resigning.

 * The Argument: John Adams argued that since the King had violated the "contract" of the English Constitution, the courts were no longer legitimate. By "blocking" the courts, they were simply reflecting a reality that the King had already broken the law.

3. Administrative Negligence as Rebellion

The colonists also engaged in a "dereliction of duty" by refusing to serve in the colonial militias or act as local constables for the Crown.

 * By "failing to ensure services" (like local policing) were provided under the British flag, they forced the creation of a shadow government (the Continental Congress).

 * This mirrors the "Haitian" and "Huguenot" habits you mentioned: they "locked" the existing system to clear the path for a new one.

4. The Legal "Handshake": Adams' Justification

John Adams, being a lawyer, was obsessed with the legality of this "blocage." He didn't want to be a common criminal. He used the concept of "Interregnum"—a period where the government is suspended because the ruler has failed.

 * His Blame on the King: Adams argued that the King’s "failure to comply with the law" (by taxing without representation) meant the King had effectively resigned his authority.

 * The Crime: In Adams' eyes, the King was the one guilty of Breach of Trust. The "blocage" by the colonists was the only legal remedy left to a people whose contract had been torn up.

Summary of the "American Blocage"

| Method | Target | Result |

|---|---|---|

| Trade Boycotts | The King's Treasury | Economic paralysis of the administration. |

| Closing Courthouses | The King's Justice | Total breakdown of colonial law enforcement. |

| Committees of Correspondence | The King's Information | A "shadow" service provider took over. |

The American Revolution proved that if you can successfully "block" the administration of a government, you have effectively ended its reign, regardless of whether you have won a war yet.

That is a sharp historical observation. You’re pointing to the moment when political "obstruction" turned into a legal divorce. John Adams and the Founders essentially argued that the King broke the contract first by failing to provide the "services" of protection and justice, which then legally excused the colonists' "interruption" of his government.

In the American context, this transition from "blocage" to revolution followed a specific legal logic that mirrors your point about dereliction of duty.

1. The "Failure to Comply" Argument

Before the Declaration of Independence, the colonists spent a decade practicing the "culture of blocage":

 * The Stamp Act & Trade: They stopped using stamped paper and boycotted goods, effectively "breaking the contract" of commerce to get the King’s attention.

 * The Legal Pivot: John Adams, a lawyer, argued that the King had abdicated his government by declaring the colonies out of his protection and waging war against them.

 * The Logic: If a ruler fails to ensure services (security, fair courts) and fails to comply with the established law (the English Bill of Rights), the ruler is the one committing the "crime."

2. Dereliction of Duty as a Revolutionary Tool

The Declaration of Independence is essentially a massive "indictment" for Dereliction of Duty. If you look at the list of grievances, they mirror the "crimes" you mentioned earlier:

 * "He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection..." (Failure to provide services).

 * "He has obstructed the Administration of Justice..." (Failure to comply with the law).

 * "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." (The "Death" threshold).

3. The "Blame the King" Strategy

John Adams and others were very deliberate. They didn't want to be seen as "criminals" or "rioters."

 * By framing it as the King's failure to comply with the law, they made their "interruption" of the government a legal act of self-defense.

 * This is the same logic used in the "culture of blocage" you mentioned: If the administration is "blocked," it is the fault of the person at the top who made the machine stop working for the people.

4. Comparison: Political Failures vs. Crimes

The American Revolution shows how the "Stop Light" rule and the "Service Failure" rule collide:

| Act | Colonial View | King George III's View |

|---|---|---|

| Tea Party / Boycotts | "Interrupting" an illegal tax. | Crimes (Theft/Smuggling). |

| Ignoring Royal Decrees | A reaction to Dereliction of Duty. | Treason (Breach of Trust). |

| Deaths in Conflict | The King's "Criminal Negligence." | Rebel insurrection and murder. |

The Legacy of "Contract Breaking"

The American experiment was founded on the idea that government is a service provider. If the provider fails (negligence) or stops complying with the "contract" (the Constitution), the people have the right to "interrupt" or "alter" it.

However, as we discussed with the Criminal Code, once the new government was established, they wrote laws to make sure no one else could use that same "blocage" against them without it being labeled a crime (like insurrection or sabotage).

The "habit" of interruption remains a powerful, if dangerous, political tool. It’s the ultimate way of saying, "If you won't follow the law to help us, we won't follow the law to help you."

It is one of the great ironies of history: the very men who mastered the "culture of blocage" to overthrow a King became obsessed with making sure no one could use those same tactics against them.

John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison knew that while "interruption" was a great tool for revolution, it was a terrible way to run a country. They designed the U.S. Constitution specifically to turn "blocage" from a criminal act of rebellion into a legal act of check-and-balance.

Here is how they tried to "outsmart" the habit of interruption:

1. From "Blocage" to "Checks and Balances"

The Founders took the energy of "blocking the government" and built it directly into the machine.

 * The Veto: Instead of people blocking the doors to a courthouse, the President could "block" a law.

 * The Power of the Purse: Instead of colonists refusing to pay taxes, Congress could "block" funding for the President’s projects.

 * The Goal: They wanted to ensure that if the government was going to be interrupted, it happened inside the law, not in the streets.

2. Preventing "Dereliction of Duty" (The Impeachment Clause)

Because they knew a leader might "fail to ensure benefits are paid" or "fail to comply with the law" (like the King did), they created Impeachment.

 * Under the British system, you had to start a revolution to remove a negligent King.

 * Under the American system, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (which includes dereliction of duty and breach of trust) allowed the government to "fire" the leader without the whole system collapsing.

3. The "Anti-Blocage" Laws: The Supremacy Clause

To prevent states or groups from doing what the Huguenots or the Haitian revolutionaries did—creating a "state within a state"—they wrote the Supremacy Clause (Article VI).

 * This ensures that no local "blocage" or state law can interrupt the federal government’s ability to function.

 * It was their way of saying: "The contract is now permanent. You cannot 'block' your way out of it anymore."

4. The Modern Conflict: The "Administrative State"

Today, we see a return to the "Haitian/Huguenot" style of blocage in what people call "The Resistance" or "The Deep State" (depending on your politics).

 * When government employees or lower-level politicians refuse to follow a leader's orders because they believe those orders are "illegal" or "harmful," they are using the same "habit of interruption" Adams used.

 * The Legal Result: If they block an order and it results in a failure of service or death, they face the Criminal Code (Negligence/Breach of Trust) because, unlike the Revolutionaries, they are now bound by a written Constitution.

The Evolution of Accountability

| Era | How to handle a Negligent Ruler | Risk |

|---|---|---|

| Huguenot / Haitian | Physical Blocage / Armed Resistance | Civil War / Treason charges |

| John Adams (1776) | Declaring the "Contract" broken | Hanging (if they lost) |

| Modern Day | Impeachment / Civil Lawsuits / Criminal Prosecution | Legal fees / Removal from office / Prison |

The Founders' great hope was that by making "blocage" a part of the law, people wouldn't have to die to get the government's attention. However, as you pointed out, when the system still fails to provide services, the old "habit" of interrupting the machine often comes back.

Would you like to see how the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on cases where a politician was sued for "negligent" policy decisions that caused harm?

When the American Founders moved from "blocage" to governance, they created a legal fortress that still largely protects politicians today. The U.S. Supreme Court has spent over a century deciding exactly where a politician's "policy choice" ends and "criminal negligence" begins.

The general rule is: The more a decision involves "politics" or "budgets," the more immune the p