Blogs haitianos

As alterações são muito ainda em vigor e não pode ser anulada por Martelly

Durante anos, a diáspora tem vindo a exigir a dupla cidadania e dos direitos de voto. Então, depois de uma série de muito trabalho, que começou com uma comissão sobre emenda constitucional em 2006, a Constituição de 1987 foi oficialmente alterado em 4 de setembro de 2009.

E em 9 de maio de 2011, em uma batalha que envolveu Martelly vão solicitar a inclusão de um artigo que lhe permitiria concorrer a mandatos consecutivos, em 2015 e expandir o seu poder, e Preval querendo conceder a diáspora dos direitos políticos mais irrestrito, o legislador 49 ratificou as alterações de admitir oficialmente a dupla cidadania com a Diáspora ter direitos políticos limitados e total direito a voto. Direitos de voto, como todos sabemos, é a maior arma em qualquer democracia do mundo. Se os eleitores não estão satisfeitos com o desempenho de um líder, um grupo de representantes eleitos, ou de um partido político, eles se retraem até as próximas eleições, em seguida, usar o seu poder de voto para desalojá-los. Tendo percebido o perigo poder recém-descoberto da diáspora para controlar o destino do Haiti representa para sua agenda, eo fato de que ele não será capaz de beneficiar os votos da diáspora em 2015, duas semanas depois, Martelly teve esse poder através da publicação de um mal redigida, decreto presidencial ambígua e confusa declarando o vazio alterações. Em que artigo da Constituição que ele exercer esse poder, escapa de todos nós. Quanto a este motivo politcal pessoal, há um crioulo haitiano apropriado dizer para descrever ato egoísta de Martelly "gen moun se ravet yo vós, si yo pa ka pwofite nan yon bagay, yo fe tout dizer o können pou yo gate'l." Vamos não se esqueça há muito tempo foram alguns dos comitiva de Martelly, Nancy Roc e George Michel entre eles, estavam por toda a mídia e, em telefonemas particulares e reuniões aconselhando-o "fe kout ke kout pou pa pipa amandman SA rantre uma vige." Nancy Roc mesmo jurou parar de fumar, se Martelly deixou a alteração sobreviver. Os motivos para matar as alterações são muito claras para a Diáspora para não pegar em armas contra abusivo, arbitrário e inconstitucional a tentativa de Martelly.

A desculpa para a tentativa de Martelly para anular as alterações pró-diáspora, fui informado, é isso e cito: "O presidente Martelly não poderia ter em um bom suporte consciência (sic) ou impor (sic) a alteração claramente fraudulento para nossa constituição ". É como o banco nacional dizendo porque uma nota falsa encontrou o seu caminho em circulação antes de colocar para fora a nota autêntica, não podemos, em boa consciência colocar o real fora em circulação. A questão torna-se então "que mal se colocando para fora a autêntica causa de notas além de anular o falsificado?" Boa consciência é um problema pessoal, e não um mandato legal. É simplesmente um argumento fraco para esconder um ato feito por calculado conveniência política. A existência de um falso não pode ser a base para eliminar o autêntico quando a autêntica por seus próprios vazios existência falsos. Mas eu acho que no mundo de Martelly, tudo funciona ao contrário e minha expectativa era nada mais nada menos. O homem cria poder, onde não há nenhum. Em breve, ele vai usar essa capacidade de eletrificar todo o Haiti.

The Legislature did not vote the alleged fraudulent amendments that found their way into Le Moniteur before the ones they voted on. The existence of the fake text in Le Moniteur is simply of no consequence to the authentic text voted on on May 9. The questions we could ask however are these: is publishing the authentic text that Martelly acknowledged in his decree that the published one did not conform to, a matter of personal "good conscience"? personal Choice? or constitutional mandate? Can Martelly by decree nullify a constitution that took effect at the same time he was installed in power? The answer to all the questions is simply no and it does not take a genius to answer that and to see Martelly's act for what it really is: The constitution in its amended form does not work for Martelly's camp in 2015. Since he did not get the article he wanted included in the amended constitution, he will try to pass power like a soccer ball to one of his acolytes just like Aristide did with Preval on two occasions. Eliminating the amendments essentially preserves the Martelly's status quo and guarantees his handpicked successor will face no serious qualified candidate from the Diaspora in 2015, prevents the Diaspora from voting one of its own thus killing Martelly’s new reign. By postponing the Diaspora's participation until 2020, if ever, Martelly essentially guarantees his camp stay in power for the next 20 years. The past 20 years of Aristide-Preval-Aristide-Preval has brought the country to its knees, why would we want them to use Haiti’s power as a soccer ball again for the next 20 years? Byen konte, mal kalkule is that it all amounts to legally. The amendments are very much in effect as voted on May 9, 2011 and Martelly poorly drafted decree is not even worth the paper he wrote it on go void them. It belongs to the Cour de Cassation to pronounce on this issue, not Martelly to arbitrarily dictate what constitution is in effect and which is not. Haiti is not Iran.

Martelly has the authentic version of the amendments as voted on May 9 and signed by the National Assembly. Yet, he said because a fake was published in Le Moniteur with Preval's signature on it, it would be unconstitutional for him to publish the authentic version without Preval's signature or to predate it to reflect Preval's signature. A simple question makes this contention simply absurd: If someone had copied Psaulm 23 in its entirety, pasted it into a word document, created a cover page mimicking the authentic amendments, tricked Preval into signing it and then proceeded to have it published in Le Moniteur, would that alone have invalidated the authentic version which Preval did not sign? No. It would not because whatever was published was not what was voted on to start with. But Martelly's so called legal advisors raised two weak arguments in support of why Martelly had no choice but to trash the work that has taken years and millions of dollars to accomplish with one stroke of the pen. But these so called legal advisors are themselves ill-advised when it comes to legal matters and matters pertaining to constitutional construction. Have they ever read the constitution? If so, do they comprehend it? It does not appear so. Does the Constitution require Preval’s signature for publication in Le Moniteur? Is Publication a requirement for the amendments to take effect? No to both.

Neither under the 1987 Constitution nor the 2011 version is the SIGNATURE of President Preval a condition precedent for the publication of the Amendments in Le Moniteur. The word signature itself appears nowhere in either document. Moreover, both Article 284-2 of the 1987 Constitution and Article 298 of the amended Constitution make "L'INSTALLATION du future President" the ONLY condition precedent for any amendment to take effect. Neither Publication in Le Moniteur as it was required for the 1987 Constitution to become effective under its Article 298, nor the Signature of the President is a condition that must be first satisfied for the Amended Constitution to take effect. These arguments advanced by Martelly’s camp simply are not supported by the constitution they purport to protect.

1987 Constution.
CH. III. Sec B: Des attributions du President de La Republique
Article 144: Il fait sceller les lois du sceau de la République et les promulgue dans les délais prescrits par la constitution. Il peut avant l’expiration de ce délai, user de son droit d’objection.
TITRE XII – Amendments A La Constitution
Article 284-2: L’amendement obtenu ne peut entrer en vigueur qu’après l’installation du prochain Président élu.
Article 298: La présente constitution doit être publiée dans la quinzaine de sa ratification par voie référendaire. Elle entre en vigueur dès sa publication au Moniteur, Journal Officiel de la République
2011 Constitution
L’article 298 se lit désormais comme suit :
La Présente Constitution entre en vigueur à l’installation du futur Président de la république, le 14 Mai 2011.

In conclusion, since neither constitution requires the signature of President or the Publication in Le Moniteur for the amended constitution to become effective, Preval's signature is not necessary for Martelly to publish the authentic text as the Legislature advised him to do in a letter dated May 17, 2011. The fact that a fake made its way into Le Moniteur before the authentic text is inconsequential as the very publication of the authentic in Le Moniteur would void the fake one. Moreover, since publication in Le Moniteur is not a condition precedent, the amendments do not have to be published in Le Moniteur to take effect. Under both Articles 284-2 of the 1987 Constitution and 298 of the amended Constitution, the very instant Martelly swore in on May 14, the amendments became effective immediately whether they have been published in Le Moniteur or not. Therefore, since the amendments that were voted on have never been published, and were not required to be published to take effect, they’re still in effect and cannot be voided by any unconstitutional presidential decree. The only thing Martelly would hurt by publishing them is his own personal political agenda for 2015 and beyond, but not one article in the constitution as he contends. If publishing the authentic text would offend the constitution, I would love to know which article.

It should also be noted that even the 1987 Constitution itself did not have the Signature of A President on it when it became effective in March 1987. This is because Signature of the President does not appear anywhere in the constitution, not even the word signature itself. For a bill coming from the legislature to become law, the president can either have the Seal of the Republic affixed to it or veto it before the deadline under Art. 144, his signature is not required under the constitution. Moreover, the Amendments are not bills that need the President to have the Seal of the Republic affixed to them to become law. The president’s task under the constitution as it pertains to amendments ends as soon as he proposes the amendments and same are adopted by the legislature. Where does Preval’s signature become such a big issue evades me.

Sir Monestime