I wonder why none of the people who are saying that Zelaya had to be overthrown and exiled because he was making a mockery of Honduras's Constitution by calling for a referendum appear to be at all interested in finding out what Honduras's Constitution has to say about the procedure for removing the president from office. Does Honduras's Constitution say that the military can break into the presidential palace, force the president, at gunpoint, out of his bed where he's sleeping (because it's 3 am), march him outside, force him into a car w/o even allowing him to get dressed, take him to the airport, put him on a plane, and exile him from the country he is the elected president of? I mean, I am struck by the total lack of concern for whether the Honduran military, Congress, Supreme Court, etc., etc., removed Zelaya from office in a manner and according to a procedure prescribed by that country's Constitution, as opposed to making a mockery of the Constitution by behaving in a totally illegal and unconstitutional fashion.

Why doesn't that bother anyone? It's only the president who must respect the Constitution?

after Bush won.

Bush did not win, he got selected by the Supreme Court

And after having stolen the election did such a crappy job that the Democrats now control the house of Representative, have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and control of the Presidency and are very likely to lock in four or five positions on the Supreme Court for the next twenty years.

A “Democratic coup” (of another kind) was attempted here in the USA, in 2000, after Bush won.

[grin]

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/sierra/soccer196…

Some are portraying this as the military unilaterally swooping in and tossing Zelaya out, similar to coups involving tinhorn generals, etc. To me the military appears to be an arm of the government acting properly at the government's direction. In that sense then, this appears to be a legal removal of Zelaya.

Anyhow, I welcome your thoughts on how the Honduran high court should've enforced it's decision, if not by working with the military.

All coups that overthrow leftist governments are legal…

See Chavez, 2002

The Bush administration distinguished itself internationally with its laudatory pronouncements on the abortive military coup in Venezuela. Nowhere, however, did the arrogance and hypocrisy of the US ruling elite find a more finished expression than on the editorial page of the New York Times.

“With yesterday’s resignation of President Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator,” the Times wrote in an editorial published Saturday and entitled “Hugo Chavez Departs.”

“Mr. Chavez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona,” the Times noted happily.

Can't wait to see all the dirt coming out on this coup, I wonder which branch of the Empire is involved.