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.
81 Responses to “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:
Here's the translated text of the referendum
If you want to check the translation, the original in Spanish is HERE.
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:
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
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”:
@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:
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?
The Wikipedia entry on the Honduran Supreme Court describes its Constitutional functions as follows:
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 Constution, government and laws of Honduras.
I would like 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 admire, however, 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.
@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?