For the same reason it would not be a legal process if the U.S. Supreme Court “issued a finding” that Pres. Bush violated the U.S. Constitution by torturing people and spying on Americans without probable cause or a search warrant.

I think you hit the nail on the head. For the past day I've been asking to see the portion of the Honduran Constitution pertaining to impeachment, now tonight it looks like there ISN'T a relevant portion of the constitution. It is not clear what the law is in this instance, so all the clamoring for the rule of law to be followed is kind of futile.

What IS pretty clear is what the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court thought the rule of law was in their own country. To me they are in the best position to make that judgment.

You must have asked a good question EEllis since Kathy has unleashed the legendary “you are so ignorant there's no possible way I can explain this to you” defense. Few have felt it's wrath and lived to tell the tale.

Ellis, I am not adequate to the task of teaching you about the last 800 years of legal and political history that you obviously don't know.

Seriously. I don't know what else I can say. I explained what I meant by legal proceedings and you obviously don't understand what I wrote because you asked the question again.

Truly, Ellis, there is nothing more I can say to explain to you what legal proceedings are. I'm sorry.

Can I make it any clearer?”

Yes, what are those proceedings.

After PROVING, via the use of legally prescribed proceedings, that those conditions have been met.

Can I make it any clearer?

But they did not follow any legal process for PROVING that Zelaya had committed the constitutional violations they say he committed.

It does not get any clearer than this, folks.

Usually, a legally prescribed process (”a” is the word I used, not “the,” which actually makes a meaningful difference to what I wrote) involves arrest and/or formal notification of charges filed against one; after which there is a trial or some kind of court proceeding in which both sides are represented by attorneys, evidence is presented, and the defendent is given an opportunity to confront witnesses, present evidence, etc.; after which there is a verdict, either by jury or by a judge or panel of judges; and, if the verdict is guilty, a sentencing. A legally prescribed process includes guidelines for sentencing, so that the court cannot simply impose any sentence it wishes — and I am not aware of any legal, democratic process in the world by which a government official who was fairly and legitimately elected to office can be summarily removed from office, at gunpoint, with none of the legal proceedings I just enumerated, and exiled from his or her country, permanently, just on the say-so of the country's legislature, court, and/or military.

“No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”

– Article 239 of Honduras's Constitution

http://www.honduras.net/honduras_constitution2….

The left is focusing on the use of the military implying that any use of the military automatically means there was a coup. As the Honduran Supreme Court has said though the military was used mainly to serve the warrant, and was not unilaterally removing Zelaya from office. I will add I think the actions of the military and placing Zalaya in exile were excessive but those are secondary issues.

Whether Zelaya is a leftist also is not relevant to whether his removal was legal under Honduran law. This is where I disagree with AustinRoth – the comparisons to Castro and others are interesting but not relevant.

Of course the “fact” that it was the Honduran Supreme Court's “opinions, accusations, charges, allegations” is always ignored. That in any legal system the finding of such a court becomes legal “FACT” is never noticed. References to the military removing Zelaya proliferate without any hint of the warrant they were serving. The unbridled arrogance of some liberals that they believe they understand the Honduran Constitution better than the Honduran Supreme Court and obviously must be more qualified to interpret it as they cavalierly toss aside their opinion without any mention of them by name.

All right Kathy you keep saying that crap so back it up. What is the “legally prescribed process” in Honduras for doing so?

– Article 239 of Honduras's Constitution

I don't see how I've done that, but I do agree with your second sentence.

Not that there is anything to be read into that, and the company Obama keeps, mind you.

`We believe that the coup was not legal, and that president Zelaya remains the president of Honduras.''

Because coups are *not* legal, and because Zelaya *is* the president of Honduras. He was violently overthrown and exiled from his own country! Honduras's own people elected him to his office. How can it possibly be “legal” for the Honduran military to void the results of a legitimate, legal, democratic election? And how does the collusion of two branches of the Honduran government in this illegality make it legal?

Let me put this another way. Zelaya's opponents say he was trying to abolish presidential term limits and make himself president for life. They also say that even just calling for a referendum so Hondurans can say if they want to discuss changing the constitutional ban on re-election is a violation of the Constitution. But these things are not *facts,* DaGoat; they are *opinions.* They are accusations, charges, allegations — whatever word you want to use. But they cannot be called “facts” when they have not been submitted to a legal process and shown, via that legal process, to be true, and to be applicable to the actions of Pres. Zelaya.

If, in response to Ahmadinejad's reelection (which may actually have been real, but just the massiveness of the win was fraudulent) Mousavi and his supporters had forced their way into the presidential palace, forced Ahmadinejad out of bed and into a car and then taken to the airport and flown out of the country, would it be taking sides for Obama to condemn that?