Honduras and the Rule of Law

"The Supreme Court orders the Joint Chiefs to arrest Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts swears in Mitch McConnell as president."

You know Jazz, there are some in Punditville that would be ecstatic at your above statement and cheer it as "America Being Strong" (yeah, strongly stupid). But your right, that would be the end of America as we know it. The Supreme Court getting rid of a U.S. President by force??? I would have a mini-heart atttack.

Your analogy has one very fatal flaw. It does not mention Pres. Obama intentionally violating a Supreme Court ruling and violating the constitution itself (the Honduran Consititution requires that constitutional reform be authorized by the congress not president). A more realistic analogy would be that Obama is near the end of his second term and wants to run for re-election in violation of the constitutional ban on a U.S. president serving a maximum of two terms. Obama threatens to dissolve parliment and insists on a national referendum on the subject (even though the US constitution requires that constititutional amendments be passed by 2/3's majority of state legislatures). The U.S. Supreme court rules that his plans for the referendum are illegal, but Obama persists...

Your objections bring us back to the question of whether or not Honduras is a true, democratic republic or a banana republic. Yes, Zalaya can "call for" a referendum to change the constitution. He can also "call for" everyone in the country to bring him a chicken. Without the support of the legislature, the courts or the military, will it happen? Obama also could "call for" a third term. Nobody would support him in any official capacity and a new president would be elected. So which is it? Could Zelaya force a change to the constitution in violation of the law and take a third term? If the answer is yes, then the place is a banana republic and there was no hope for it to begin with. If no, then there is no harm in returning him to office and impeaching him.

Honduras is spot on. The media and the state department in the US are not getting the story right. The US and the OAS is not concerned with the will of Honduran people, they just don't want any members of their country club to be shipped out of his own country in PJs. The referendum was only the straw that broke the camels back. Zelaya has not submitted a budget to congress since 2007. The man has been spending money off the books with no one keeping track. He was going to dissolve congress and fired all the military leaders that would not back his crazy power grab. Yesterday the Catholic Church in Honduras came out in support for the new government which proves that the new government has the backing of the major pillars in Honduras. The only people that back Zelaya are a minority of Hondurans who think that Zelaya will be like Chavez (socialist) and want a Chavez like leader and the leaders from other countries who believe that leaders are more important than the people. The people in Honduras know that he is a puppet of Chaves and is suspected of helping in the drug trade, they wanted him out before he changed the rules to keep power.

You left out a few key steps in your hypothetical timeline.

First, you need to add in the step that the ENTIRE Congress of the United States, both House and Senate, voted UNANIMOUSLY to remove the President.

Since our Constitution allows the House to IMPEACH a President and the Senate to vote to remove him if the charges are founded. Therefore the actions of the Honduras Congress amounts to an instant one day impeachment.

Nextg, this step is also incorrect. "The Supreme Court orders the Joint Chiefs to arrest Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts swears in Mitch McConnell as president."

What is wrong with your hypothetical here is "Mitch McConnell" is a Republican. He is not next in line per the Constitution of the United States.

You would need to insert 'Nancy Pelosi' in here as she is currently third in line. The reason it would not be 'Joe Biden' the second in line, is because to keep the hypothetical true to their situation, Joe Biden has resigned his office of Vice President so that he could run for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency has not yet been filled.

The Honduran Congress put in charge the person who was next in line per their Constitution!

Further to my comment above, also please imagine Obama had increasingly alligned the U.S. with Iran and N. Korea, and imported the ballots for the 'referendum' from Iran (with much speculation that the ballots were rigged) instead of printing them in the USA. Or, since the US tends to use electornic voting, the software for the election was written and imported from Iran immediately (three days) prior to the illegal referendum without any impartial supervision as to the content.

From this AP report on Obama's most recent comments, a good thumbnail of the history and what you are all either missing or refusing to admit:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07...

"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. "

Did you catch the key part there? "began discussing impeachment proceededings."

All they had to do was finish. And no, you can't do a "defacto one day impeachment" when your constitution has procedures in place for an actual impeachment. Defending the current situation is not defending the rule of law. It's the opposite. With everything you've been pointing out, even you should be able to see that it would be no problem whatsoever to drum up the support to impeach him and most certainly prevent him from holding up the due electoral process. What happened there was a coup even if the military didn't "take over" afterward. That distinction is not germane to this discussion.

Jazz if what the Honduran government was illegal under Honduran law then I agree with you. The problem is I still can't tell what Honduran law is. Most of the Hondurans (or people claiming to be Hondurans) that have posted here seem to think the law was followed. The Merrill link really is not adequate to answer the question.

Discussion of US law is not relevant. Discussion of the use of the military also is irrelevant to the issue of whether the Congress and Court were acting within Honduran law in deciding to remove Zalaya. I agree the use of the military to enforce a warrant seems excessive, although whether that is legal or not in Honduras is less clear.

"And no, you can't do a "defacto one day impeachment" when your constitution has procedures in place for an actual impeachment."

So what is your defense for the actions of Zelaya? If he is going to clearly violate the Constitution AND change it permanently, what is wrong with taking him from power so that the Constitution can stay intact and not be changed without going through the proper channels? He fired many top military leaders so that he could use the military to his advantage to enforce the changes that he wanted. I'm glad that the military remembered that they are to defend their country and not just the president.

Thank you for letting the people of Honduras know how to run their country. Both sides were in violation of their Constitution but one was a power grab and one was to make sure the Constitution was not changed illegally. I'm sure there could have been a better way to get rid of mini-Chavez, but shipping him out in his PJs was how they did it. They didn’t want him to complete his one sided referendum with no oversight that he was going to do the next day because they know that Chavez was a puppet master of all of this.

Here is my analogy from the other thread for comparison (with a bit of snark)

125-3 hmmm (that was the Hoduran Congress vote to remove Zelaya, including 59 of 62 memebers of his own party)

Lets play make believe for a minute.


Democratic Congressmen Charles Rangel, Dennis Kucinich, and Edward Kennedy (who was roused from his hospital bed to cast his vote) went against the impeachment proceedings of President Barack Obama which enjoyed overwhelming bilateral support after President Obama attempted to force through an executive order allowing him a third term which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Rep Maxine Waters (D-CA) remarked "This is a sad day, but the Constitution must be upheld. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added, "Although this situation was caused by the Republican Party and their reasonless opposition to everything President Obama tried to do, he still has to go. Vice President Joe Biden will be confirmed as President as per the Constitional sucession. Biden made a brief comment, "We must move forward, and I will uphold the duties of the office to the best of my ability. Its all about that 10 letter word the C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N." Biden, when asked by a reporter if he was happy to be the next President responded ""Give me a f**king break."" It was uncertain if Biden realized there was an open microphone nearby.

Here is something else:

"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..

Note the words "immediately cease" Zalaya was warned and continued and the Supreme Court made a ruling and called in the army to enforce that constitutional requirement for immediate removal.

The Obama administration needs to clearly state why they are in support of Zeyala so that all this questioning can be put to rest. If we know his true beliefs on the subject, it will be easier to analyze his perspective. According to France 24, "Weary of appearing too close to U.S. adversary Chavez, conservative leaders don’t want to rock the boat and upset Washington.” http://www.newsy.com/videos/welcome_anywhere_bu... Ironic how we now side with Zeyala.

Good discussion and good points on both sides.

I do see the Honduran nationals point.

When it comes to the survival of your homeland, you not as prone to be academic as you can be from a palatial retreat high up in the Catskills.

But, Hondurans also need to realize Obama is going to be prone to the same academics because he too is not feeling the heat.

I have been unable to find any articles of impeachment. My understanding is their constitution does not have a good way to remove the president and that's the problem.

If someone can point out where they even CAN formally impeach please do. The MSM isn't proving any relevant facts so minor sites and blogs are the only places with real facts.

Good post Jazz. Of course your detractors here, they are the true arbiters of fact and justice of the world. They are so much smarter than Obama, Clinton, the UN, the OAS, European leaders or legal scholars. They are, after all, BLOG COMMENTERS. /sarcasm.

Once again, HERE are the facts. If you want to argue them, cite sections of the Constitution and translations of the factual basis of your diatribes. I call BS on talking points. The Honduran Constitution is a public document, as is the precise wording of Zelaya's proposed ballot measure. Legality is very precise in these matters. It is pointless to argue what Zelaya's intent was. The TEXT of what he proposed does not appear to violate the Constitution. The military removal of a sitting president DOES violate the Constitution.

For those asserting that Zelaya violated the Honduran constitution, but more for those who want an accurate analysis of the situation, here are the facts, with citations to the Honduran 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. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006.  That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions.

Furthermore, the Honduran Constitution says nothing against the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, with the mandate to draw up a completely new constitution, which the Honduran public would need to approve. Such a popular participatory process would bypass the current liberal democratic one specified in article 373 of the current constitution, in which the National Congress has to approve with 2/3 of the votes, any reform to the 1982 Constitution, excluding reforms to articles 239 and 374. This means that a perfectly legal National Constituent Assembly would have a greater mandate and fewer limitations than the National Congress, because such a National Constituent Assembly would not be reforming the Constitution, but re-writing it. The National Constituent Assembly’s mandate would come directly from the Honduran people, who would have to approve the new draft for a constitution, unlike constitutional amendments that only need 2/3 of the votes in Congress. This popular constitution would be more democratic and it would contrast with the current 1982 Constitution, which was the product of a context characterized by counter-insurgency policies supported by the US-government, civil façade military governments and undemocratic policies. In opposition to other legal systems in the Central American region that (directly or indirectly) participated in the civil wars of the 1980s, the Honduran one has not been deeply affected by peace agreements and a subsequent reformation of the role played by the Armed Forces.

Recalling these observations, we can once again take a look at the widespread assumption that Zelaya was ousted as president after he tried to carry out a non-binding referendum to extend his term in office. 

The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to prohibition.  However it was not a referendum, as such public consultations are generally understood. Even if it had been, the objective was not to extend Zelaya’s term in office. In this sense, it is important to point out that Zelaya’s term concludes in January 2010.  In line with article 239 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982, Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November 2009, meaning that he could have not been reelected. Moreover, it is completely uncertain what the probable National Constituent Assembly would have suggested concerning matters of presidential periods and re-elections. These suggestions would have to be approved by all Hondurans and this would have happened at a time when Zelaya would have concluded his term. Likewise, even if the Honduran public had decided that earlier presidents could become presidential candidates again, this disposition would form a part of a completely new constitution. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an amendment to the 1982 Constitution and it would not be in violation of articles 5, 239 and 374. The National Constituent Assembly, with a mandate from the people, would derogate the previous constitution before approving the new one. The people, not president Zelaya, who by that time would be ex-president Zelaya, would decide.

It is evident that the opposition had no legal case against President Zelaya. All they had was speculation about perfectly legal scenarios which they strongly disliked. Otherwise, they could have followed a legal procedure sheltered in article 205 nr. 22 of the 1982 Constitution, which states that public officials that are suspected to violate the law are subject to impeachment by the National Congress.

Here's the translated text of the referendum

Do you agree with the installation of a fourth ballot box during the 2009 general elections so that the people can decide on the calling of a national constituent assembly? Yes or no.

If you want to check the translation, the original in Spanish is HERE.

In other words: do you want there to be a ballot and a ballot box (Latin American elections often have one ballot per office and one ballot box per ballot) for the purpose of a referendum in November (alongside the presidential and congressional elections) to decide whether or not to call a constituent assembly to reform the constitution.

Now, what about those who took over? How are they doing as "white hat" good guys?

And so today, Honduras said goodbye to the following articles of its Constitution:

Article 69: "A persons liberty is inviolable and can only be restricted or suspended temporarily through process of law."

Article 71: "No person can be arrested nor kept incommunicado for more than 24 hours without being placed before a competent authority to be judged. Judicial detention during an investigation must not exceed six consecutive days from the moment that the same is ordered."

Article 78: "Freedoms of association and meeting are always guaranteed when they are not contrary to public order and good customs.

Article 79: "All persons have the right to meet with others, peacefully and without weapons, in public demonstration or transitory assembly, in relation to their common interests of any type, without necessity of notice or special permission."

Article 81: "All persons have the right to circulate freely, leave, enter, and remain in national territory. No one can be obligated to change home or residence except in special cases and with those requirements that the Law establishes."

Jazz is exactly right. Despite what some commenters on TMV have asserted, the Honduran Constitution does have an impeachment clause, just like our Constitution, and it is and should be the process for removing the president, should that be legally justified under Honduran law. It appears that Zelaya crafted a "referendum" that was not illegal, did not call for amending the current Constitution and did not call for allowing a second presidential term, nor allowing a former president to stand for future electionl

@Leonidas haha I like it. Don't forget to include in your story that Obama would have to been using the treasury to fund programs without submitting a budget to Congress for a full year at that point. And the media coverage around the world after the fact would only be focusing on the Obama supporters who care less about the Constitution and love the man. Then, all the leaders around the world side with Obama and have no regard for the will of the people.

GreenDreams 0 minutes ago ====
Despite what some commenters on TMV have asserted, the Honduran Constitution does have an impeachment clause, just like our Constitution, and it is and should be the process for removing the president, should that be legally justified under Honduran law.
===================================
Could you post that impeachment clause? I've heard several people SAY there is a clause but no one can manage to paste it in. You pasted in other articles not the impeachment clause.

Also you should reference articles 237, 239 and 242, Zelaya WAS acting unconstitutionally and only agreed to make the referendum non-binding at the last minute after multiple rebukes by the Supreme Courrt.

update, both Honduran military and Attorney General admit it was done illegally:
From At Largely

In an interview with The Miami Herald and El Salvador’s elfaro digital news site, army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza acknowledged that top military brass made the call to forcibly remove Zelaya — and they broke laws when they did it.

It was the first time any participant in Sunday’s overthrow admitted committing an offense and the first time a Honduran authority revealed who made the decision that has been denounced worldwide.

`THERE WAS A CRIME’

”We know there was a crime there,” said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. “In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.”<

This week, Deputy Attorney General Roy David Urtecho told reporters that he launched an investigation into why Zelaya was removed by force instead of taken to court.</span>

Also green dreams pasting in someone else's analysis doesn't really count as your own.

Pasting information directly from sites like commondreams.org and obamaers.com is fine but it also reveals the viewpoint you are taking. It is your right to do so but pasting information from articles named like "Totalitarian Rightists Put Orwellian Spin on Honduras Coup" is not exactly factually based information.

Once again simply put in the impeachment process.

Oops Green Dreams I didn't follow that link and see rebelreports had a lot in the original story. My fault. Please paste in the impeachment process since it should be easy to find it sounds like.

It doesn't make a viewpoint invalid but when I want to learn about something I would suggest looking at a ton of different news sources not merely finding one that justifies a desired viewpoint and repeating it.

Quote from "A Man for All Seasons":

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

@GreenDreams I don't have the time to read you 30 page post but I will respond to the below noted boneheaded comment:

"They are so much smarter than Obama, Clinton, the UN, the OAS, European leaders or legal scholars."

ha ha ha. You got it all wrong. I'm not saying, and I know the others on here are not saying, that we are SMARTER than the above noted people. The above noted have to play ploitics with this deal, and supporting the will of the people is not how they are playing it, they are playing to the leader. The msdia for the most part except a few (I hope you watched the New Hour on PBS last night to hear some coverage of the other side). We don't have a strategic interest in the debate as all the above noted people do. If the OAS and the US were to back the new Honduran government, it would be a slap in the face of Chavez. Nether the OAS or the US is trying to piss of Chavez. I don't care if he gets mad so I speak freely. At the end of the day the Honduran people are in support of this change including the Catholic Church, so why does the rest of the world get to tell the people of Honduras how to run their government?

Looking for a translation of the impeachment clause. I have not found it yet. Meanwhile, having the complete text of the ballot measure Zelaya was implementing for the NOVEMBER election, in which he is not a candidate, explain to me where he proposed 1) amending the current constitution, 2) extending his current term, 3) allowing a second term for presidents, or 4) that an ex-president can run again.

Sure glad you guys aren't MY lawyers. There is a picture of the ballot box at my link above. There is no hidden text in what Zelaya proposed, and whether you like him or not, whether I like him or not (I don't), you have to DO something illegal to be unlawful.

@GreenDreams

"Sure glad you guys aren't MY lawyers."

I'm glad you are just a random blogger who thinks other countries have the right to tell other countries how to run their government. The will of the people has been fulfilled, deal with it. The man was trying to pull a Chavez power grab and the leaders stood up for the country. A country is defined not by its leaders but by its people. Americans can have trouble understanding that because you worship pop icons like Michael Jackson and presidents like Obama. You think resolutions have to be passed through governments instead of the will of the people being listened to. The will of the people and maintaining the Constitution is more important.

How is "the will of the people" being measured?

Tegucigalpa, you struck out. You can't assert with evidence that would be allowed in any court, that Zelaya did anything illegal. You failed to answer any of the 4 points in my post above. However, here's what the SC and military did that is unconstitutional:

Chapter 2, on individual rights, declares in Article 82 says the right of defense is inviolable. Unlike some other guarantees that many argue were violated (such as article 99, that holds that the residence is inviolable, but allows entry without permission if authorized) this one does not have an exception. Zelaya was not charged nor allowed his defense.

Article 90 guarantees a trial. Again, it allows no exceptions other than military courts-martial. It specifically excludes military courts from extending their power to civilians.

Article 102 says, in its entirety,

"Ningún hondureño podrá ser expatriado ni entregado por las autoridades a un Estado extranjero."

(No Honduran can be expatriated nor sent to the authorities of a foreign State)

This one clearly does not permit what was done to Zelaya. You can dislike his policies, you can even propose to read his mind, but you cannot make a series of unconstitutional actions constitutional by liking the effect they produce.

GreenDreams 11 minutes ago
==========================
Without an impeachment clause how is Honduras supposed to carry out its constitutional duty to immediately remove the president since he refused to remove himself?

Granted this was a bad move on their part and hopefully that part of their constitution can be altered to allow future impeachment proceedings but the law is murky in that area.

I don't think there is an impeachment clause and unless you prove otherwise it makes your initial post moot. The MSM doesn't have anything on impeachment whatsoever and I am unable to find one anywhere so I think the impeachment issue is an empty dishonest talking point to support pre-determined conclusions.

Maybe you are fine with socialist dictators breaking the constitutional law and not being held accountable due to technicalities but fortunately for Hondurans their government decided otherwise.

Score in Honduras.

Continued subjucation to leftist dictators whose goal is absolute power and control: 0

Republic saved from latin america dictatorship takeovers and checks and balances: 1

Correction:

Continued subjucation to leftist dictators whose goal is absolute power and control: 0

Republic saved from latin america dictatorship takeovers and *good use of government checks and balances*: 1

My initial comment cited the clause: "a legal procedure sheltered in article 205 nr. 22 of the 1982 Constitution, which states that public officials that are suspected to violate the law are subject to impeachment by the National Congress." I said I can't find a direct translation, not that there is no process. Nonetheless, I have posted the exact sections of the constitution violated by the SC and Congress. You have not yet come up with a single fact supporting the allegation of illegal activity by Zelaya, which presumably is why the UN, EU, OAS and USA all oppose what was done. Whose arguments are moot?

You are not helping your case by ranting about "dictators." WHAT DID ZELAYA DO? He didn't call for extension of his term, nor for amendment of the current constitution, nor for any powers whatsoever. Come on, man. Trying to have a discussion here. What do you have?

Oh, by the way, I failed to mention that in Honduras, as here, the president is the commander in chief of the military. The SC had no right to reinstate a general who had committed subordination.

The Wikipedia entry on the Honduran Supreme Court describes its Constitutional functions as follows:

It has fourteen constitutional powers and duties, including the appointment of judges and justices of the lower courts and public prosecutors; the power of declaring laws unconstitutional; the power of trying high-ranking government officials, following a declaration by the National Congress of Honduras of grounds for impeachment; and the publication of the court's official record, the Gaceta Judicial.

I added a little emphasis to point out the part about impeachment.

Tegucigalpa, you struck out. You can't assert with evidence that would be allowed in any court, that Zelaya did anything illegal.

Illegal activity is not necessary to impeach someone, it merely has to be activity that is unacceptable to a majority of the Congress. I think the only way for this argument to be solved is to see the applicable impeachment clauses of the Honduran Constitution.

I do think the use of the military was excessive and probably unconstitutional, but that is a separate question from whether his removal from office was appropriate.

GreenDreams

IE you can't find the impeachment process. Perfect example why blinding believing leftist agenda sites (or right agenda sites) is a bad idea. Articles 237, 239 and 242 are relevant to the situation. To Sorwell a wikipedia reference with no backup means absolutely nothing.

""You are not helping your case by ranting about "dictators." WHAT DID ZELAYA DO? He didn't call for extension of his term, nor for amendment of the current constitution, nor for any powers whatsoever. Come on, man. Trying to have a discussion here. What do you have?""

You are wrong from my understanding. He called for EXACTLY THAT and only made the resolution proposal non-binding at the last minute. Also forcibly removing the ballots to distribute against the order of the court I believe was illegal

So you danced around the issue. Are you fine with socialist dictators breaking the constitutional law and not being held accountable due to technicalities? IE if a president breaks the law and there is not a clearly defined process in place to remove him do you believe leaving him in office is the only solution even if the constitution calls for otherwise?

And GreenDreams you are merely parroting others viewpoints that is not trying to have a dicussion. I at least can formulate my own thoughts and am not relying on pathetic partisan sites to make my argument for me. Anyone can be a tape recorder and merely regurgitate partisan op-ed material. I prefer a thinking brain.

To add to my post maybe there is a formal impeachment process. However due to the lack of documentation of it ANYWHERE and the size of the situation I find it very unlikely.

Until someone can point it out I have to assume it is purposely not being investigated because it defies the leftist talking points.

Kind of like how people love to discuss the economic/housing situation and try to act like Freddie/Fannie don't exist, aren't costing $400 billion in bailouts and aren't paying out bigger bonuses than AIG. Yet Fannie/Freddie magically receives no notice.

Great post, Jazz. We agree again. And I'll admit it feels good to have another TMV writer making these points. Thank you.

red herrings. What Zelaya actually did does not violate any of the sections you cite. He did not call for extension of his term, did not call for amending the current constitution, and his ballot measure did not even hint at inclusion of any such measure in a new constitution, if and when one was drafted, which new constitution would have to be approved by the citizens of Honduras. None of this is in any way unconstitutional. Face it, he cleverly avoided all of these things. Read the ballot measure. Even the most partisan writers have not found a way to interpret the actual language of his proposed ballot measure as stating or implying any of these. You can't challenge a contract based on what you believe the contract is intended to accomplish, only what it actually says. And remember, as I said, I don't like Zelaya. I do like the rule of law.

Was that the same president that lost the vote but got into office after his brother certified he'd won and the judges his dad appointed confirmed it? Or was that some other banana republic?

GreenDreams the Supreme Court, AG and legislature of Honduras decided the move was unconstitutional. I think they are most qualified to interpret their constitution so you merely saying it doesn't means nothing. Liberals "world view" doesn't qualify them to legally interpret other countries' constitutions as far as I know.

Once again danced around the issue. If there is not an official documented process for removing Zelaya but it is shown he violated constitution clauses what should Honduras do? It's a simple question.

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?

Checks and balances.

I'm afraid there may be a big error in this post, which is seemingly based on outdated law.

It relies on a 1995 Merrill analysis of the Honduras Constitution.

But the article it cites was apparently amended (repealed in part) as to impeachment subsequently, a few years later.

Thus, some scholars, like Juan Carlos Hidalgo, say there isn't a viable impeachment mechanism in the Honduran Constitution now.

That buttresses the argument that Honduras acted legally and democratically in removing its ruler (the use of the military doesn't change that, since Article 272 of the Constitution gives the military the power to enforce term limits, i.e., the alternation of succession, and since the military is used to enforce the law in other countries as well -- think of federal troops enforcing court desegregation orders in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, against the state's governor).

It is a strange Constitution, but we have no right to disregard it -- they've held democratic elections for far longer than most of their neighboring countries, who now are hypocritically attacking them for booting out their scofflaw ex-president.

It's easy enough to read their constitution and infere that there wasn't anything to wrong with Zelaya's "poll". Now please find in ours where there is a right to privacy that includes abortions, Miranda rights, the ability to prevent one from owning a firearm, ect. Zelaya did do something illegal and, according to the Honduran Supreme Court, something unconstitutional.

GD said"Of course your detractors here, they are the true arbiters of fact and justice of the world. They are so much smarter than Obama, Clinton, the UN, the OAS, European leaders or legal scholars. They are, after all, BLOG COMMENTERS. /sarcasm"


Of course you know you can turn this right around and say the the Honduran Supreme Court should be the defining voice in the argument. We certainly believe that here in the US (about our court and the constitution). Right now you have that they should of kept him in country while the Congress voted him out, which they did 120 something to 3. Ok they violated his rights because they got scared there might be riots or an actual takeover of govt if they F. U. the deal. So? Why would that make his being voted out invalid?

Personally I'll withhold judgement until more information is known, because certainly the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the Honduran military hinges on what the Constitution- in full- says. If, as some Honduran nationals are asserting, there is no viable process for impeachment which would proceed without military enforcement, then that's something which should be remedied in their Constitution in the future but it would give some legitimacy to the coup. After all, we just celebrated our own country's decision to use military power to overthrow what was considered an illegitimate government.

If, on the other hand, the Constitution contained a well defined means of impeaching Zelaya for the alleged infractions and those procedures were completely ignored, then the actions of the courts and military are more suspect.

It is interesting that some bloggers and commenters feel so sure that they know which is the case even before they've seen the evidence, and interesting too that some authors being cited here have apparently taken the time to selectively translate certain articles of the Honduran Constitution which show violations by the military in this case (violations which are not even being denied, although the accused apparently feel that there was justification for the infractions), while there hasn't been a similar effort to address the other pertinent question of whether or not there was a more legitimate process encoded in the Constitution for Zelaya's removal from office after he ignored the country's Supreme Court rulling and fired military leaders who were attempting to enforce the court's ruling rather than obey his orders.

At least the Obama administration has said that it is investigating the circumstances before judging whether or not the removal of Zelaya was legal or extralegal. Maybe others ought to similarly reserve judgement.

@GreenDreams

Sorry for the delay, I had lunch and meetings. If you are not aware of the laws he broke, I don't blame you because your media has not covered it. I didn't address it because I assume that with all the dribble you wrote (which I didn't not have time to read all of it) that you know about him breaking in to the military facility where the ballots were being kept (not to mention his evolvement in the drug trade). I think the way they sent him out of the country was ill-advised, but at the end of the day, the result was the will of the people and good for the country. Please read the following article if you would like to know what is really going on. If you can't read Spanish like I can, you really haven't been able to read or hear of the things this man was doing. The English speaking media is not covering this other than making Zelaya look like a victim. If you are not aware of the steps that Chavez took to become the tyrannical leader that he is today, you may not understand that he was using the Chavez playbook on how retain power and oppress your people. Honduras did not want to be the next land of Chavez. If you think that Chavez is a good guy than you are either ill-informed or you are a strict leftist. If you are a leftist than more power to you but that makes your opinion as about as fair as Chavez himself.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp...

Suddenly we appear to have so many American experts of the Constitution, government and laws of Honduras.

I would love to jump into the discussion, but I am afraid it would take me a couple of weeks, at least, to get up to speed on Honduras Supreme Court, Legislature, AG, documents,decisions, amendments, legislation, court cases, precedents, etc., etc., to be able to intelligently debate these issues, even though I am fluent in Spanish--but I'll resist.

I do, however, "admire" those who are debating this based on information from Wikipedia

(I have to admit, I have done so myself)

So, give up yet? None of you can show a shred of evidence that Zelaya 1) attempted to extend his term, 2) attempted to allow re-election of a former president, 3) attempted to amend the current 1982 Constitution. Period. You can't prove it. At all. So you insult me and Obama and the OAS and Chavez and everyone who disagrees with you. By the way, I have not defended Chavez in any way, and have made it clear that I'm not a fan of Zelaya. Let me say that again. I DON'T LIKE ZELAYA !!!! Damn. can I make it any clearer. Cmon, folks.

The clause cited as an impeachment clause is vague. It says basically that the government can investigate any public official. However, as Jazz wrote a half mile up this thread, Congress had begun discussing impeachment, so presumably they think there's a way to do that. But there is nothing in their constitution that shields any Honduran from prosecution for breaking Honduran law. That includes the Courts, the Congress and the Military, all of whom have CLEARLY violated the law, as I have cited.

Now, time for you to defend YOUR heroes, the military and the new government. They broke into the presidential residence, beat Zelaya (according to his wife), fired rifles in the residence, though none in Zelaya's family were armed, threatened to kill Zelaya and his family. Tanks in the streets, firing tear gas, electricity and phone service cut, press freedom suspended, right to peaceful assembly suspended. You know what? If it looks like a coup, sounds like a coup and reads like a coup, it's probably a coup.

I have friends in Honduras. At no time in Zelaya's rule did they fear for their homes, their businesses, their investments. Now they are VERY concerned. Tourism, once among the brightest spots in the economy (say, a week ago), has crashed. This is NOT a good thing for Honduras. Suffering four more months of Zelaya's rule sure seems like the better option to me, not to mention, it IS the legal option.

Zelaya's ouster was entirely legal and proper. Moreover, the above blog post is based on an obsolete 1995 analysis of Honduras's constitution.

But Honduras's constitution has changed since then, as to the relevant provisions like impeachment.

As a result, scholars have argued that there isn't a viable impeachment mechanism in the constitution.

By contrast, the military was expressly authorized to do what it did both by the country's supreme court and by Article 272 of the Honduran Constitution.

(The U.S. has used the military to enforce court orders too, as in Cooper v. Aaron, where federal troops were called out to desegregate the Little Rock Public Schools in response to a governor's defiance of a court order).

Whoa, GD- now you are actually claiming that legally Zelaya should not only serve the remainder of his term but should be given a second term? Surely you didn't mean that the way you wrote it.

Also, it seems that the charges that led to his arrest had to do with him illegally ordering the referendum question on the ballots- not the substance of what the ballot question was but the fact that he was trying to circumvent the Constitution to do this at all. Apparently only the Congress can put a referendum on the ballot, and the Congress opposed this move. He ordered the military to put it on the ballot anyway, and that was where the crisis began. So even if you are absolutely correct that his detractors are overstating what he tried to do in that referendum, that's besides the point when it comes to the legality questions. If Obama tried to tell election commissions in all the states to put a referendum on the ballot, no matter how innocuous the issue for vote actually was, it would still be illegal and he would be told that that's not the correct procedure. If he then defied those rulings, there would be a crisis that would have to be resolved in some fashion.

@GreenDreams

"None of you can show a shred of evidence that Zelaya 1) attempted to extend his term, 2) attempted to allow re-election of a former president, 3) attempted to amend the current 1982 Constitution."

This is a 5th grade argument. I guess the many months of him saying that the above noted points are exactly what he was going to do is not evidence enough for you??? And I'm sorry, but I could care less what your American friends in my country think. They are welcome to leave; international flights are still running in and out of Honduras, just not as many as usual.

Zelaya's family is still in Honduras and are not being threatened or beaten. I don't think the way they removed him from power was the best way to do it, but I doesn't mean that he deserves to be back in power. It is too late now for him to return, it will only cause violence. Real violence, not shipping people out in PJs or a kid getting shot off the airport fence he was trying to jump after being told he was going to be shot several times.

"press freedom suspended, right to peaceful assembly suspended" This statement is nothing more than false. The papers are running the tvs are playing and on American PBS Nightly News I saw an American reporter that was reporting from Tegucigalpa and was very free to do so. The right to peaceful assembly is still allowed and there are plenty of rallies that start and end peacefully. The reason some people have tear gas fired at them is because they throw rocks at the officers. If it was really "peaceful" they would not have tear gas shot at them.

I really doubt you even have friends in Honduras, sounds like a blogger soap box to me.

Everyone is making this way too complicated. The 'rule of the law' is quite simple:

If a Leftist is thrown out of office by force for corruption and scandal with the backing of the courts and the legislative branches, it is a coup.

If a Rightist is thrown out of office for corruption and scandal with the backing of the courts and the legislative branches, it is the Will of the People.

See? Like I said, it is easy.

Zelaya's ouster was entirely legal and proper. Moreover, the above blog post is based on an obsolete 1995 analysis of Honduras's constitution.

But Honduras's constitution has changed since then, as to the relevant provisions like impeachment.

As a result, scholars have argued that there isn't a viable impeachment mechanism in the constitution.

By contrast, the military was expressly authorized to do what it did both by the country's supreme court and by Article 272 of the Honduran Constitution.

(The U.S. has used the military to enforce court orders too, as in Cooper v. Aaron, where federal troops were called out to desegregate the Little Rock Public Schools in response to a governor's defiance of a court order)

Well Green Dreams you continue to scapegoat my very simple questions and refuse to answer the points. It is your right to just act like facts you don't agree with don't exist however I don't consider that to be a very reputable stance.

I'm sorry that Honduras's interpretation of their constitution conflicts with your "world view" that you feel should be imposed on everyone. I did not insult you and simply re-asked a couple simple questions which you refuse to answer. I'll repeat the questions so you can ignore them again.

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?

"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.

I was just an observation

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.

Cryos--

I haven't claimed any expertise on this topic.

However, earlier you made the following accusation toward GreenDreams:

I don't think there is an impeachment clause and unless you prove otherwise it makes your initial post moot. The MSM doesn't have anything on impeachment whatsoever and I am unable to find one anywhere so I think the impeachment issue is an empty dishonest talking point to support pre-determined conclusions.

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.

GreenDreams the Supreme Court, AG and legislature of Honduras decided the move was unconstitutional. I think they are most qualified to interpret their constitution so you merely saying it doesn't means nothing.

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,

”We know there was a crime there,” said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. “In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.”

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.

"Article 272 of the Constitution gives the military the power to enforce term limits"

Agreed, but his term is not yet up.

By contrast, the military was expressly authorized to do what it did both by the country's supreme court and by Article 272 of the Honduran Constitution.

but his term is not yet up

Whoa, GD- now you are actually claiming that legally Zelaya should not only serve the remainder of his term but should be given a second term? Surely you didn't mean that the way you wrote it.

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).

Also, it seems that the charges that led to his arrest had to do with him illegally ordering the referendum question on the ballots

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.

This is a 5th grade argument.

Then a 5th grader could answer it. You cannot.

If there is not an official documented process for removing Zelaya but it is shown he violated constitution clauses what should Honduras do?.

They could obey their laws that forbid expatriating Hondurans, forbid conviction without trial, etc.

I really doubt you even have friends in Honduras, sounds like a blogger soap box to me.

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 of 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 on his behalf, 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, that this issue should be left for the Hondurans to resolve. Either way, they will have to live with the consequences.

I especially enjoyed the Obama analogy. I thought of a very similar analogy last night, but mine was premised on Bush 43 refusing to leave office and ordering a referendum for a third term. Although my analogy becomes pretty far fetched when the Roberts Supreme Court rules against W, I still found the story more rousing with W as the villain bucking our presidential term limits . (The analogy gets truly scary when the Hon. John Roberts installs Dick Cheney as President!)

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 a really difficult foreign language called "spanish", so instead of actually spending an evening reading and studying it myself, I read a blog (less than a page long!) by a guy who isn't a Honduran constitutional lawyer or anything (nor is he even Honduran for that matter), 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.

GD- 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--

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'.

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!!!!!