Evilcoleslaw @ Evilcoleslaw @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

583

Joined

2 yr. ago

Aristide called for reparations from France. Then a bunch of paramilitary units came across the border from the Dominican Republic and staged a coup, at the climax of which the US offered him a plane trip into exile in Africa.

It also leaves out one of the huge factors in why Haiti is how it is. In 1825, after the revolution (and the subsequent genocide of Europeans in the country), Haiti made various proposals to the French for recognition of its independence. Eventually France rolled up to Port-au-Prince with over a dozen warships informing the Haitian government that it owed France 150 million francs over the next 5 years and in return would be recognized as independent.

Haiti obviously could not repay that sum in five years, so they obtained loans from French banks and eventually American banks, principally the bank that eventually became Citibank. Even after a reduction to 90 million francs they still didn't finish making payments until 1947.

In 2004 the UN sent peacekeepers to solidify the US and French-backed coup d'état. It's a mess, and the terrible series of natural disasters also hasn't helped.

Meh, there are a few decent apps on there I use where the distribution is easier or solely through the MS Store. EarTrumpet for better audio management from the taskbar, PaintDotNet, Custom Context Menu for Win11 to add context menu entries. Maybe a few others. It's not something I open often but it's not entirely without use. It would probably be better if it wasn't full of garbage apps/books/etc

I'm leaning more on nobody using it. Didn't help that they partnered with Amazon for it.

No, it's more that every time the US intervenes it results in an even worse clusterfuck.

Was Kenya still going to intervene with police forces? There needs to be some effort to stabilize Haiti, but the last thing it needs is another direct US intervention.

Call me when it's at $69,420.

If he were already convicted of insurrection under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or Insurrection he would be disqualified already.

18 U.S. Code § 2383

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Unfortunately Trump was never charged with this by Jack Smith. He's charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy against rights, conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding, and obstruction/attempted obstruction of an official proceeding.

I have a very strong feeling that they're going to find that the President has immunity for his official acts. That's the only question before the court in that case. However, what he was accused of doing clearly was not an official act as President but an act as a candidate in his capacity as a private citizen.

So it'll get kicked down to the district court and they'll decide that, and it will proceed. The terrible part is the timing which is partly on the Supreme Court but also largely on Merrick Garland for slow rolling everything for the first two years of the Biden administration.

Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning?

Only those thrown off the ballot using section 3 of the 14th amendment. Ballot access requirements in general have been before the court many times before and upheld generally, while some have been struck down when excessive or discriminatory.

It's legal to say something like all candidates must get signatures equal to 3% of the number of voters for the office in the last election in order to be on the ballot. It's illegal to say something like black candidates must get signatures of 15% of voters.

They can't really sue to disqualify him in federal court because Congress hasn't defined any process to do so. They absolutely could if they wanted though. As of right now if I'm correct the only way to disqualify someone is if they're convicted of rebellion or insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 as it specifically lists it as part of the punishment. Or Congress could potentially disqualify someone directly by name -- it wouldn't necessarily be an illegal bill of attainder because it carries no criminal penalty.

As of right now the only way he'd be disqualified is if he were charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection -- which explicitly lists disqualification from holding office as part of the punishment. Even in his DC criminal case he has not been charged with this.

This ruling means Congress needs to either specifically pass a bill disqualifying him or laying out other circumstances for disqualification which would apply to him.

Basically, to be disqualified now Congress must pass some sort of legislation either explicitly disqualifying someone or devising some other method/process for disqualification.

Edit: forgot there's already one in the books: 18 U.S.C. § 2383, Rebellion or insurrection, with which Trump is not charged.

as those candidates would first need to engage in an insurrection before action could be taken.

Yes but it would allow the states to define what constitutes insurrection. You already had some state officials saying they'd apply it to Biden using their rhetoric about federal border policy failures as constituting an insurrection.

I think their logic about taking it out of the states' hands is probably sound. But I tend to agree with the liberal justices in their opinion that the majority went a little far by saying it rests solely with Congress instead of allowing the federal courts to potentially be an avenue as well.

Eh. There are way more obvious examples of illegitimacy. The fact that it's unanimous speaks volumes for that. There's sound logic here in this ruling. Read the concurring opinion by the three liberal justices and you can see why I think this is mostly the correct answer.

The real illegitimate thing here were all the articles by legal experts saying this was all self-executing and that the status of "having engaged in insurrection or rebellion" is as self-evident as a candidate's age.

Unfortunately the ruling here means the only method through which he can be disqualified is by Congress. A conviction, even of insurrection, will do nothing to prevent someone taking office.

Edit: actually I'm slightly wrong. If he were charged with insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 and convicted he would be disqualified because the statute specifies it. He hasn't been charged with that, however.

They actually did make such a law. But then there was an amnesty for many under President Grant and an expansion of the amnesty at the onset of the Spanish-American War. And then that law was largely repealed in 1948. And then in the 1970s Congress posthumously removed the disqualification from Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis for some reason.

Edit: Oh and they still have one, 18 U.S.C. § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection. Trump hasn't been charged with it though.

It does not clearly say only Congress has the power to disqualify. It does clearly state that Congress can remove a disqualification of this type with a 2/3 vote.

The court here has ruled that because of that Congress must act in order to disqualify someone in the first place. Which makes sense to me, I suppose. It's certainly better than the alternative argument that the presidency is not an officer of the United States. The court seems mostly concerned with the balance of power between the states and federal government in the ruling.

But most importantly, it's making it clear that this is not self-executing or self-evident in the same way the constitutional qualifications for the office are (eg age).

The bigger thing here is no class arbitration or other representative proceeding. A lot of law firms do arbitration now against companies either with class arbitration or just thousands of individual arbitrations filed en masse. I wonder if this protects them from even the latter approach? It would be shitty if it forced you to do all the legwork on the arbitration yourself.

In any case I get this is happening now and why it's such a huge ultimatum is they know they're about to get hit with a ton of Video Privacy Protection Act suits. Turns out in the late 80s the US made video service providers that share video watching/rental/purchase history open to actual damages of $2500. So in the last year or two a ton of law firms have started filing class actions and arbitrations against all the streaming services and platforms.