Honduras and the Rule of Law
The “rule of law” is, when you stop to think about it, one of the most lofty, powerful concepts we have. Particularly in America, it embodies a meaning which goes beyond the generalized legal maxim that all decisions should be made by applying and respecting known, accepted principles from your body of laws. It’s really something more than that. It’s the idea that the body of laws itself is the final arbiter – that no person or group of people is equal to or above those laws and the concepts they embody.
With that in mind, particularly given the recent events in Honduras and Hillary Clinton’s upcoming meeting with their ousted president, I’ve found myself puzzled by some of the recent criticism of President Obama’s response to the situation, such at that found in my friend Ed Morrissey’s recent piece, Why is Obama administration supporting Zelaya instead of rule of law?
Why, then, has Obama blindly followed Chavez’ lead in Honduras? The removal of Manuel Zelaya got botched, but it didn’t result in a military junta replacing him. The Honduran legislature remains in place, as does its courts, both of which unanimously issued the arrest warrant that the military executed. While there is a legitimate criticism about Honduran due process in this case, that’s not Chavez’ interest. He just wants his leftist ally put back in charge so Zelaya can continue to dismantle the constitutional form of government in Honduras just as Chavez has done in Venezuela.
First, in the Credit Where Credit is Due department, let’s credit Ed for noting that the “removal” was “botched” and there are questions about “Honduran due process.” But I think those passing nods give short shrift to what may be the larger question here. Going back to the title of Ed’s article, where does the allegiance of the American president really belong? To Zelaya? To Roberto Micheletti? Or does he actually need to be paying heed to something higher? Yes, I’m sure it’s great fun to portray Obama as kowtowing to Hugo Chavez or bowing to leftist dictators if you’re only interested in finding more stones to hurl at this administration, but might he actually be doing the correct thing here?
I am, by no means, an authority on the Honduran constitution. Adopted in 1982, it has a preamble, 379 lengthy articles and 18 sizable amendments. It would be a vocational study to become an expert on it. But I am able to seek out others who have done the work for us, such as the analysis Tim Merrill supplies for us in the Library of Congress.
Their constitution and government are hardly a mirror image of ours, but enough similarities exist that most of you would recognize it. They have executive (president), legislative (known as the National Congress) and judicial (the Supreme Court of Justice) branches just like us. It differs quite a bit because the majority of legislation originates from the executive, fed to the legislative by deputies to the president, for consideration and action, though the legislature can introduce their own as well. The legislature has another power which many of you might recognize:
In addition to its legislative activities, the National Congress also has other extensive powers, particularly regarding other branches of the government and other institutions of the Honduran state…
The National Congress may declare that there are grounds for impeachment of certain high-ranking government officials, including the president and presidential designates, Supreme Court justices, cabinet ministers and deputy secretaries, and the commander in chief of the armed forces.
The Hondurans have a method for removing presidents, and it’s pretty much the same as ours. I’ve gone through Dr. Merrill’s summary of the powers of both the National Congress and their high courts, and nowhere does it mention the phrase “send the military to arrest the president and send him to Costa Rica.” If there is a newer version of the document or a better translation where that phrase, or something akin to it is included, please let me know and I’ll certainly stand down from this.
Failing that, however, I ask you to consider the following scenario for a moment. It’s early 2010 and President Obama’s economic policies and health care reform plans have sent the economy into a death spiral. Not only has his national popularity plummeted, but he’s lost the support of much of his own party in Congress. On April 15th, shortly after the 30th straight weekend of tea parties on the National Mall, Congress issues a strongly worded rebuke (but does not a call for impeachment) of Obama and his policies. The Supreme Court orders the Joint Chiefs to arrest Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts swears in Mitch McConnell as president.
Would anyone – even Obama’s most vocal critics among the Republicans – support that? Would it not, in effect, be the end of America? So what just happened in Honduras? Frankly, I don’t want the United States pushing their nose in to help decide who their president should be. That’s the business of the Hondurans, just as with the situation in Iran. But, of course, if Obama says nothing, he will be pilloried for that anyway.
So who or what should Obama support? It seems to me that he’s calling for Zelaya to be returned to his home country. Once there, the National Congress could readily impeach and remove him, given the broad base of support they seem to enjoy in that goal. But for our president to give a nod to the current situation, is he not saying that their constitution is really nothing more than 1,300 pages of toilet paper and the nation is, in reality, nothing more than a banana republic?
Yes, Obama most certainly should be supporting the rule of law in Honduras. And by calling for Zelaya’s return to office, that’s exactly what he’s doing.
UPDATE: See this article from ABC on Obama’s recent comments on the situation.
“America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies,” the president told graduate students at the commencement ceremony of Moscow’s New Economic School. “We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not. “
Exactly. The article also gives a brief thumbnail of the history leading up to this for those who haven’t been following the story. Here’s a key section:
After the Honduran Legislature refused to call a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution, Zelaya called for a referendum to do so, which the Honduran Supreme Court and Attorney General declared unconstitutional. Zelaya, allied with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez , fired top military commander Romeo Vásquez Velásquez for refusing to carry out the referendum. Every branch of government sided against Zelaya and Congress began discussing impeachment proceedings. Acting on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court, soldiers arrested Zelaya on June 28 and sent him into exile in Costa Rica.
Emphasis mine. Did you catch the key part there? They began considering impeachment hearings. All they had to do was finish, as I mentioned in comments this morning. Apparently the president had no support for his nefarious plans. He lacks popular support from the people, the other two branches of the government don’t support his ambitions and the military will not bow to his will. He has no bullets in his gun. So the option was there for Honduras to follow the rule of law and remove him in the normal order of things or simply allow the next election to happen at which point he is gone anyway. Instead, they chose to have a coup. You can go on all the live long day about what a horrible man he is, but those points are simply not germane to the discussion. You can be a constitutional democratic republic and respect the rule of law and your own constitution, or you can choose to act like a banana republic and stage a coup. Honduras chose the latter.
More commentary from both sides can be found at Memeorandum.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
81 Responses to “Honduras and the Rule of Law”
“Another related question GreenDreams. If the Supreme Court, AG, legislature and Supreme Elections Tribunal are not qualified to determine what is constitutional who is qualified?”
Only GreenDreams is, haven't you figured that out?
Honduras unida siempre, luchemos juntos por nuestro pais. That is all I have left to say…..
Austin Roth–
Not sure if you noticed it, but somewhere up there in this very thread, the commenter called Tegucigalpa is defending this whatever you want to call it against a leftist on the basis of “the will of the people”.
Tegucigalpa 0 minutes ago
“Another related question GreenDreams. If the Supreme Court, AG, legislature and Supreme Elections Tribunal are not qualified to determine what is constitutional who is qualified?”
Only GreenDreams is, haven't you figured that out?
=========================
Lol that's the impression that I”m getting.
Just so you and any Hondurans know many americans strongly disagree with our government's stance is on this once more and more facts become available. Many people simply parrot what the biased media is saying but many of us also have figured out you have to dig and dig to find the real answers.
Good luck I hope Honduras continues to hold its ground since it appears to me that there is a world agenda here and Honduras is trying to defend its republic. Americans are doing the same right now unfortunately. Good luck!
D.E.Rodriguez–
As the guy who cited the Wikipedia, thanks for your “admiration”.
George Sorwell I extend the invitation to answer either of my questions. It appears there is a grey area regarding removal of a president in Honduras's constitution. Since you seem to have a strong stance regarding legalities the following questions should be answerable.
If there is not an official documented process for removing Zelaya but it is shown he violated constitution clauses what should Honduras do?.
Another related question GreenDreams. If the Supreme Court, AG, legislature and Supreme Elections Tribunal are not qualified to determine what is constitutional who is qualified?
George:
Although I wasn't even aware that you specifically used Wikipedia, you are welcome.
As I said, I have done so myself.
GS -
I am not sure what to call it. It appears to me to be a typical example of a CALA region country that doesn't have a true, long-term history of 'rule of law' fighting over who violated their Constitution the least.
The thing I really do have trouble getting past is the unanimous Supreme Court and almost unanimous Legislative vote (only 3 dissenters??? the vast majority of his own party voting against him???). If this was the 'typical' coup, I would have expected the courts and legilative branches to be dissolved, or at a minimum his entire party (or vast majority) demanding his reinstatement.
That isn't happening, though. They themselves are almost to a man defending what was done as necessary, lawful, and constitutional under THEIR Constitution.
Overall, that makes me think that what they did was a lawful action by the Government of Honduras as a whole, whether I agree with it or not (and I do not know enough about Honduran politics to know that answer, frankly), and whether it would have been lawful under OUR Constitution.
It doesn't seem there are too many people in Honduras that want him to stay President.
There is also another constitutional question, or maybe even several.
There are references to impeachment in the constitution so an argument can be made that there should of been a more formal process. But even if he was shipped out the votes showed conclusively that the “impeachment” was overwhelming. why should that “impeachment”(as good a term as any if not quite exact) be overturned because Zelaya wasn't in a jail cell in Honduras? That really is a big issue because there really seems no doubt that the only way Zelaya would be in power now would be thru extra legal means.
In addition the Honduran Constitution article against attempting, advocating, ect, ect, a second presidential term may very well make impeachment a moot point if he violated that article. (That the legislature was meeting to discuss impeachment does not mean that they had to impeach him if he violated that article or even that that violation was the reason for the prospective impeachment. There were many and massive reasons for conflict with the legislature and they may well have wanted to proceed even without that constitution basis.) Without having such a device in our constitution it seems strange but there seems to be argument that the language could eliminate the need for impeachment. That for other reasons the legislature could impeach the Pres, but if the Supreme Court found that there was a violation of that article of the constitution then that finding automatically strips the Pres of office.
Now we have heard that the final ballot of the “survey” the Zelaya was giving (please read massive sarcasm into the word survey) had nothing of term limits and him serving another term as Pres. This of course pays no attention to the other versions of the ballot that he put forth, his previously stated intentions, and his steadfast refusal to pay any attention to the laws of Honduras which did not give him the authority to “survey”, that made it illegal to conduct his(or any) “survey' so close to an election, and the court orders preventing his actions. It is common sense that the Supreme Court would look at the issue in it's totality when making a decision and hard to ignore it without incredible condescension. As is those “people” are not qualified to make those type of decisions for themselves. They must be guided by those who know better.
Cayos–
I haven't claimed any expertise on this topic.
However, earlier you made the following accusation toward GreenDreams:
Calling him dishonest seemed both harsh and inaccurate. (And saying he just wanted to support a pre-determined conclusion seemed like the pot calling the kettle black.) So I spent about twenty seconds on Wikipedia to find some evidence of the existence of an impeachment process under the Honduran Constitution and when I found it I posted it for all to see.
Now, I recognize that Wikipedia-bashing is a popular sport on the internet. But the Wikipedia usually does provide sources for its information. I'm not sure anyone bothered to look for it, but the footnote for the portion I quoted went to this website.
Nobody has to love the Wikipedia. Nobody has to love the underlying source. But to call GreenDreams dishonest seemed objectively false. Evidence of impeachment procedures exists. I think you went too far when you did that, Cryos.
Again, I'm not an expert on this. But calling in the military to remove a democratically elected President is a very extreme action to undertake. I would guess that there were less draconian alternatives to his military expulsion from the country. It's hard to believe that a Constitution would make no judicial or quasi-judicial provision for the removal of its elected officials of the kind that we commonly call impeachment. I doubt that all the procedural alternatives were exhausted. I think they should have been exhausted before applying force.
Additionally, his expulsion has been called illegal by several external organizations, including the American State Department and the OAS. The objection against those judgments seems to be that they were just playing politics. But if the groups you've cited (the Supreme Court, AG, legislature and Supreme Elections Tribunal) did something illegal, why wouldn't try to cover themselves by claiming their actions were in fact constitutional–by, in short, playing some politics of their own?
I'm here defending the idea of the rule of law. I realize I'm not Jazz's favorite guy, but I think he got this right: “It’s the idea that the body of laws itself is the final arbiter – that no person or group of people is equal to or above those laws and the concepts they embody.” I quoted from “A Man for All Seasons” to the effect that while the law may not provide convenient answers to problems you feel passionate about, the application of legal procedure protects the innocent as much as it protects Satan himself. And without its protections, the innocent will be subject to Satan's will.
I'm also here defending GreenDreams against the charges of dishonesty and bad faith.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with citing a reasonably-sourced Wikipedia article.
Austin Roth–
I hear what you're saying. You may be right. And I'm not trying to defend Zelaya.
But the legality of the action doesn't seem completely obvious. Even though the extremity of the action does seem obvious.
apparently, not. They themselves violated the Constitution, articles 69,71, 78, 79, 81 and 102. This pretty much invalidates their credentials as arbiters of the law, does it not? The army's attorney thinks so,
So the army, knowing it is committing an illegal act, believes it will be acquitted “because of the circumstances.” Circumstances that justify violation of 6 articles of the country's constitution?
Cryos cites articles 237, 239 and 242 which I have shown his actions did not violate. Cryos has not ventured an opinion about how the poll Zelaya wanted violates any of them. I've read it and can't see any grounds for conviction there. As to what he may have said that was not in his ballot initiative (legal as noted above), civilized nations can't convict for crimes not committed. The law, despite the snarling, angry, insult peppered rants that apparently pass for debate in your corner of the playpen, is clear on these matters.
Agreed, but his term is not yet up.
but his term is not yet up
Not at all. He is not allowed to run again, is not a candidate in the November elections, and even if his ballot measure passed, would not–could not–possibly have a new Constitution by then (1-2 years is the estimate of experts).
Not illegal. In fact, a consitiuent assembly is the only legitimate way to rewrite the constitution. “President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures.” CS, his opponents ripped up that poor country to prevent a non-binding poll? I consider you pretty reasonable. Can't imagine you think this is a reasonable response to a president calling for a poll of the people.
Then a 5th grader could answer it. You cannot.
They could obey their laws that forbid expatriating Hondurans, forbid conviction without trial, etc.
So now I'm a liar too? That's uncalled for. I've had quite enough of you two. Believe what you want.
GD – what is it about this Honduras situation that has you spending so much time on it? I certainly haven't seen anywhere near as much effort from you on Iran, or anything (not even torture!)
You seem to want to become an overnight Honduras Constitutional expert, and to try and prove every branch of the Honduras government, and Zelaya's own party (except 3 people), were wrong in what they did.
I still say it goes back to the the fact that you cannot tolerate a Leftist being removed from power by the very government you now seem hell-bent on proving is illegitimate. Seems you want to overthrow the will of the entire government of Honduras because, well, what they did, believing themselves to be acting fully within the law, makes you unhappy.
Oh yeah, and because you now know Honduras Constitutional law better than any man or woman alive, Honduran or otherwise, Honduran Supreme Court member or otherwise, Honduran Congressman or otherwise.
In fact, from the sounds of it, the only person on the face of the earth remotely qualified to run that country is now…YOU!
At least in your somewhat overinflated opinion of yourself on this topic
GreenDreams, If you were wondering how long it would take for someone to change this thread into a blatant attack on you and your person, you need wait no longer. AR seems to think he's up to the task.
So, in your world Steve, pointing out the obsessive nature of someone on an issue is a 'blatant attack'? Using sarcasm on someone who is presenting his opinions as 'facts', and facts that disprove the combined opinions of all branches as the Honduran government, is somehow untoward?
My, what thin skin you have for GD. You also seem to think he needs your protection. I have not found GD needing others to speak for himself, myself.
Go back to stroking your putter. You are better at that.
Laying aside Consitutional arguments a minute lets review some undeniable facts:
Zelaya tried to hold a “consultation” (legally binding) for a November 2009 referendum on changes to the Honduran Constitution
Honduras' Supreme Court, attorney general, top electoral body, and human-rights ombudsman all ruled that the 28 June plebescite would be illegal.
Zelaya went ahead with it anyhow, had ballots printed in Venezuela, and announced that the vote would take place June 28,
Honduran Attorney General Luis Alberto Rubi took the case to court. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled the referendum to be illegal and ordered the ballots to be confiscated.
Zelaya ordered the Chief of the Army Romeo Vásquez Velásquez to distribute ballots per the military's role of assisting the Government of Honduras in conducting elections.
Vásquez refused to distribute the ballots after seeking legal opinions.
Zelaya fired him on 24 June 2009, the same day Minister of Defense, Edmundo Orellana resigned.
Zelaya and a group of supporters stormed an airforce base and seized the ballots and issue another executive decree, which directed government officials to set up 15,000 polling stations at schools and community buildings across the country.
In an attempt to counter the Supreme Court's argument that the proposed consultation was illegal, Zelaya reclassified the legally binding “consultation” as a non-legally binding “public opinion poll.”
In response to a request from Attorney General Rubi, the Honduran Congress controlled by Zelaya's own party, opened an investigation into the president's mental stability and fitness to govern.
The Supreme Court ruled the dismissal illegal and reinstated Vásquez on 25 June 2009.
A detention order, signed 26 June by a Supreme Court judge, ordered the armed forces to detain the president
The military removed Zelaya from his home early on the morning of 28 June, before the polls open for his plebiscite and sent him into exile in Costa Rica
The Honduran Congress affirmed Zelaya's departure (125-3) and, in accord with the constitution, named Roberto Micheletti, who had been president of the Congress, as interim president of the country.
Chavez, Ortega, Castro and Bolivia's Evo Morales immediately condemned the “coup” demanding Zelaya be restored to power.
Chavez threatened military action
——————–
Now given that course of events, who in their right mind would endorse putting Zelaya back in power? He disobeyed the Supreme Court, was kicked out by the Congress which his own party controlled and which all but 3 members voted in favor of the Supreme Courts removal of him, He stormed army bases with supporters taking away what the legal system had ordered to be held by the military, he tries to fire anyone disagreeing with him, the attorney general called for and the Congress was investigating his mental health,
That anyone would suggest this other than Chavez and his ilk is just mind boggling.
BTW more on that Congressional investigation:
Members of Congressional commission in charge of investigating Zelaya's actions have reportedly said that because the commission has concluded that Zelaya has broken the law, it would recommend to the entire Congress that Zelaya be removed from office. This was before his arrest.
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/06/27/intern…
Interesting debate exhibiting, imho, this issue should be left for the Hondurans to resolve. Either way, they will have to live with the consequences, not the United States.
Gotta chuckle however at M.V. bloggers posing as Honduran constitutional scholars. “The Honduran constitution is really long (more than 300 pages, oh my!!) and it's in ra eally difficult foreign language called “spanish”, so instead of actually reading and studying it myself, I read a blog (less than a page long!) by a guy who doesn't live in Honduras, nor is he a Honduran constitutional lawyer or anything, but he says he has read the Honduran constitution, and he says…” What a hoot!
After all, we just celebrated our own country's decision to use military power to overthrow what was considered an illegitimate government.
Oh, Christine, you sly fox, you! I know you're just trying to make sure we're all awake and paying attention, right? Of course you know the answer to your statement — it's too obvious for you not to know — but you want to see if we know it, too. Right?
Uh, sorry, Kathy, but you're too clever by half- I have no idea what you mean by an 'answer' to my statement (if it was meant to inspire an answer it would have had to have been a question instead of a statement, no?)
Perhaps you should just take my statement at face value- a reminder that none of us (I presume, at least) would say that there are no circumstances that would justify military intervention to overthrow an illegitimate government, or an elected government which is seen as illegally grabbing power beyond the mandate of the election. I think I was pretty clear also in stating that I don't know if that justification exists in the present case of Honduras or not, since unlike others here I don't feel that reliance on selective translations of portions of the Honduran Constitution would enable me to make that judgement.
IGD- I apologize, as I'd misread your previous statement to have said “suffering four more years” instead of “four more months” of Zelaya's rule.
Still though, I think you underestimate that if he truly was rhetorically threatening an illegal referendum which would have extended his term or permitted his running for another term, and ignoring court rulings against that, then even if he found a clever way (or perhaps, I'd conjecture, Chavez found a clever way) to look innocent by changing the format to one that would not have been illegal- then the legislative and judicial branches and the military may have overreacted but not without some reason for their belief that he had to be stopped quickly.
Another point about this 'debate' is that it is clearly spelling out the tendency for the Left to ignore the law when it does not provide the results it wants, or to claim the laws must be illegitimate because it 'feels wrong to them'. Failing that, they will then claim the law says the exact opposite of what it actually does.
Austin Roth–
Maybe the debate is really showing the tendency of the Right to support any military overthrow of any government they consider illegitimate?
What comments here would support that statement, George? I brought up the fact that most people (I believe) would admit that there are some circumstances that would justify that but I don't believe we in the US currently know enough to know if that's the case in this situation.
It seems to me that there's a lot more support for reinstatement of Zelaya being expressed by liberal commenters here than there is by conservative Americans saying that we should support his ousting. The few who are speaking out pretty forcefully for that are Honduran natives, not American conservatives.
CStanley–
My comment was addressed to Austin Roth, and contained an obvious, blocked quote, which was from Austin Roth.
GS –
Except for the 'inconvenient truth' that it was not a military overthrow, unless your definition extends to the Honduras Supreme Court issuing a legal arrest warrant, the Military (as per the Honduras Constitution) executing said warrant, and the Honduras Congress, of which the deposed of President's party had a majority, voting 123-3 to support the removal of Zelaya, and replacing him with the next civilian in line for succession as per that same inconvenient Constitution.
The only error that occurred was the Military's, which has admitted in hindsight they should have taken him to jail rather than removed him from the country.
Austin Roth–
In case you haven't read the rest of this thread, there is some controversy about just how legal/illegal this action was.
You don't have possession of the high moral ground.
Even you admit that mistakes were made.
If you want to claim the right is just correct and the left is just wrong, go ahead. But because the rule of law was not obeyed, you're open to the utterly obvious parallel criticism.
Utterly obvious.
GS -
Um, sorry, a mistake in whether he should have been sent to jail or removed from the country does not invalidate all the previous actions of their Supreme Court and Congress, as much as you might want it to. It was an 'after the fact' error.
And it is not 'my' high ground – it is the position of both their Supreme Court and Congress. It is you, GD, and others on the Left that want to usurp their decisions, not the Right.
Let's see what true lawyers and lawblogs think, along with some actual Hondurans, shall we?
http://zerosheep.com/2009/07/01/no-coup-in-hond…
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_05-2…
http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/preside…
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/07/h…
http://hondurascrisis.org/a-letter-to-the-inter…
http://www.tipte.com/2009/07/javier-corrales-is…
Somebody's being a little obsessive. ; )
Another thought for those that are so certain Zelaya should be allowed to return to Honduras. What is the most likely outcome? Every aspect of Govt is against this man and his actions and have taken action against him. Do you think he will quietly serve out his 4 months?
Personal I can't think of anything more likely to destroy democracy in Honduras than returning Zelaya to power. He already proved he will not respect the law or the constitution.
haha @GreenDreams
He said that Zelaya's wife was beaten and his family is in trouble, haha. This proves once again that GD knows nothing about what is going on. He is trying to seem informed on the sitution more than the others on here. You know, because he has a bunch of friends there. Her beating was never reported in Honduras and she looks fine leading the rally in the below noted story. Haha. And there was no tear gas! It is not a police state. One more thing you are wrong about. Would you like to make any other false statements?
(since you can't read Spanish, the picture at the top of the article is la esposa de depuesto presidente Zelaya)
http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=17176
I think it is time for everyone to not worry for a little bit. Presidente costarricense Oscar Arias will be a good mediator. Now that there is a way to tell both sides, things will get done and Zelaya will not be shown as a victim all the time.
Obama learn dignity from Honduras's people!!!!!