Honduras' non-coup

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
190
Location
Sanger CA
Honduras' non-coup

Los Angeles Times Opinion

By Miguel A. Estrada
EXCERPT:

<<<SNIP>>> Emphasis added throughout by ME <<<SNIP>>>
Under the country's Constitution, the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya was legal.


July 10, 2009

Honduras, the tiny Central American nation, had a change of leaders on June 28. The country's military arrested President Manuel Zelaya -- in his pajamas, he says -- and put him on a plane bound for Costa Rica. A new president, Roberto Micheletti, was appointed. Led by Cuba and Venezuela (Sudan and North Korea were not immediately available), the international community swiftly condemned this "coup."

Something clearly has gone awry with the rule of law in Honduras -- but it is not necessarily what you think. Begin with Zelaya's arrest. The Supreme Court of Honduras, as it turns out, had ordered the military to arrest Zelaya two days earlier. A second order (issued on the same day) authorized the military to enter Zelaya's home to execute the arrest. These orders were issued at the urgent request of the country's attorney general. All the relevant legal documents can be accessed (in Spanish) on the Supreme Court's website. They make for interesting reading.

What you'll learn is that the Honduran Constitution may be amended in any way except three. No amendment can ever change (1) the country's borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must "succeed one another" in a "republican form of government."

In addition, Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection "shall cease forthwith" in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any "infraction" of the succession rules constitutes treason. The rules are so tight because these are terribly serious issues for Honduras, which lived under decades of military rule.

As detailed in the attorney general's complaint, Zelaya is the type of leader who could cause a country to wish for a Richard Nixon. Earlier this year, with only a few months left in his term, he ordered a referendum on whether a new constitutional convention should convene to write a wholly new constitution. Because the only conceivable motive for such a convention would be to amend the un-amendable parts of the existing constitution, it was easy to conclude -- as virtually everyone in Honduras did -- that this was nothing but a backdoor effort to change the rules governing presidential succession. Not unlike what Zelaya's close ally, Hugo Chavez, had done in Venezuela.

It is also worth noting that only referendums approved by a two-thirds vote of the Honduran Congress may be put to the voters. Far from approving Zelaya's proposal, Congress voted that it was illegal.

<<<SNIP>>>



If there were any doubt on that score, the Congress removed it by convening immediately after Zelaya's arrest, condemning his illegal conduct and overwhelmingly voting (122 to 6) to remove him from office. The Congress is led by Zelaya's own Liberal Party
<<<SNIP>>>

It cannot be right to call this a "coup." Micheletti was lawfully made president by the country's elected Congress. The president is a civilian. The Honduran Congress and courts continue to function as before. The armed forces are under civilian control. The elections scheduled for November are still scheduled for November.
<<<SNIP>>>True, Zelaya should not have been arbitrarily exiled from his homeland. That, however, does not mean he must be reinstalled as president of Honduras. It merely makes him an indicted private citizen with a meritorious immigration beef against his country.
END EXCERPT

National Review's Andy McCarthy had this nice little summation:
Bottom line: Hugo Chavez wants Zelaya in, the law of Honduras says Zelaya must be out; Obama sided with Chavez.
 
Is that the reason Conservatives are lining up for the ouster? He's an ally of Chavez? A leftist maybe? I should have known it was something like that.
 
Is that the reason Conservatives are lining up for the ouster? He's an ally of Chavez? A leftist maybe? I should have known it was something like that.

As far as I know Conservatives are lining up in support of the "ouster" because it's a clear violation of the country's Constitution and Zelaya was basically trying to make himself yet another "President for Life." The so-called coup actually seems to be an example of the country following it's own laws in order to remain a Democratic nation.

Tell me again why someone would have a problem with that.

Pax,

Chris
 
At which point are we supposed to actually care? Far better to let the country decide it's own future rather than interfere. It's hardly a threat if the country has a government to which some American citizens object is it? It's really none of our business.
 
At which point are we supposed to actually care? Far better to let the country decide it's own future rather than interfere. It's hardly a threat if the country has a government to which some American citizens object is it? It's really none of our business.

Good point Tez. Your country has finally sorted that out. The US still has as ways to go on that one.

BTW, Don why did you start a second thread on this? What did you have to ad that wasn't dealt with in more depth in the previous thread. Wouldn't it make more sense to combine these two, or continue our discussion on the first thread??? For the rest of you, I suggest checking that one out. I'll bump it up.
 
Is that the reason Conservatives are lining up for the ouster? He's an ally of Chavez? A leftist maybe? I should have known it was something like that.
Well, that and a respect for the rule of law...
 
At which point are we supposed to actually care? Far better to let the country decide it's own future rather than interfere. It's hardly a threat if the country has a government to which some American citizens object is it? It's really none of our business.
We shouldn't care when someone try's to make himself President for LIFE? After all, its worked out so well for the Cubans...
 
Good point Tez. Your country has finally sorted that out. The US still has as ways to go on that one.
The rule of law isn't important then?
BTW, Don why did you start a second thread on this? What did you have to ad that wasn't dealt with in more depth in the previous thread. Wouldn't it make more sense to combine these two, or continue our discussion on the first thread??? For the rest of you, I suggest checking that one out. I'll bump it up.
Estrada had a little different take and a whole lot more info than the author of the first piece.
 
The rule of law isn't important then?
Estrada had a little different take and a whole lot more info than the author of the first piece.

A. The "rule of law" is precisely what this is about. The way Zelaya was taken at gunpoint and summarily ejected from his country without a trial hardly exemplifies a "rule of law". The fact that there is no clear, legal procedure to address this situation outlined in the 1982 Honduran Constitution (their 16th Constitution, so far) simply shows up the fundamental problem. Namely that the "rule of law" isn't very well established in Honduras. But it's a complex historical problem, and like Tez, I think it's best that the Hondurans work this out for themselves.

BTW I an not a supporter of Zelaya. In fact, everything I've seen so far would suggest to me that Micheletti is far more qualified to be running his country. But that's not my call. I'm just decrying the manner in which this whole affair was handled. And, YES, I understand that it began with Zelaya's attempt to hold an apparently illegal referendum, conceived as a first step towards an unconstitutional attempt to stay in power. I get that Don. And like you, I disapprove. So, you don't have to repeat your arguments on that score. Really.
 
It's not exactly a coup, but it wasn't handle exactly legally either. I will repost what I said in the other thread:

From what I have read the confusion come from multiple fronts.

1) Many interpret what Zelaya did as not violating the constitution because he called for a poll/referendum/(a bunch of other terms) to ask the population if they would be interesting in voting on the issue, not an actual vote on the issue. Others say it still violates the constitution.

2) Many say the bigger problem is that he tried to use public money and man power to accomplish this poll, which is not allowed.

3) The Supreme Court said what he was doing was illegal, and the military went to arrest him, but instead of bringing him to a court for trial they shipped him out of the country, which is not within it's legal jurisdiction to do.

4) There is no article in the constitution for impeachment. If he is found guilty of trying to change the article on term limits, he can be removed immediately from office. If he is found guilty of anything else, there is no precedent, he could conceivably retain the office of the president while still in jail.

5) The congress elected a temporary president based on an evidently false letter of resignation from Zelaya, and without any court ruling as to him being removed from office. So, they have not gone through legal channels to replace him, and the current president, Micheletti, does not hold the office legally.

Basically, it's a complete cluster**** all around by everybody.
 
They should have just shot Zelaya on the spot. That would have ended that.

They could have blamed the Chinese. For two wongs do equal a right.

Deaf
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top