Thanks to a helpful reader, I’ve now located a copy of the CRS report on recent events in Honduras I mentioned here. The report, which was actually prepared by a different part of the Library of Congress and not CRS, the Law Library of Congress, the division of the Library of Congress responsible for reports on foreign law, is available here.
-
Contact
-
Search
Stuff From Us
Categories
Archives
Blogroll
- 3 Jews, 4 Opinions
- Agoraphilia
- Althouse
- Andrew Sullivan
- Bainbridge
- Balkinization
- Becker-Posner
- Best of the Web
- Betsy's Page
- Blue Mass. Group
- Cal. App. Report
- Cal. Punitives
- CalPundit
- Cathy Young
- Chequer-Board
- Chicago Faculty Blog
- Concurring Opinions
- Conglomerate
- Copyrights & Campaigns
- CrimLaw
- Dan Drezner
- Dave Kopel
- David Frum
- Day by Day
- Deep Glamour
- Discourse.Net
- ecitsuJ
- Election Law
- Emmanuelle Richard
- Empirical Legal Studies
- Eric Muller
- Fed Soc Debates
- Former Chef
- GeekPress
- Gideon's Trumpet
- Gil Milbauer
- Hit & Run
- How Appealing
- InstaPundit
- Joanne Jacobs
- Jotwell
- KausFiles
- Knowledge Problem
- Language Log
- LawCulture
- Lawrence Solum
- Legal Planet
- Liberty & Power
- Lileks
- Marginal Revolution
- Marquette Faculty Blog
- Matt Welch
- Matt Yglesias
- Michael Barone
- Michael Dorf
- Neuroethics & Law Blog
- NoodleFood
- Opinio Juris
- OpinionJournal Federation
- Overlawyered
- OxBlog
- Point of Law
- PrawfsBlawg
- Reality-Based Community
- Reason
- Religion Clause
- Right Coast
- Room for Debate
- Rosenbergs
- ScrappleFace
- Secular Right
- Sentencing Law & Policy
- Sonia Arrison
- Stuart Buck
- Technology Liberation Front
- The Opening Brief
- The Torch
- Tom Palmer
- Truth on the Market
- U Chicago Law Faculty Blog
- Virginia Postrel
- Wonkette
- WSJ Law Blog
Meta
-
Hans Bader says:
The Obama Administration is extremely hostile to non-communist Honduras and its democratically-elected legislature, demanding that they allow the return to power of Honduras’s bullying ex-president and would-be dictator. The ex-president’s removal was perfectly constitutional, say many experts, such as attorneys Octavio Sanchez, Miguel Estrada, and Dan Miller, former Assistant Secretary of State Kim Holmes, Stanford’s William Ratliff, and “even left-liberal analysts.”
The Obama Administration cites the UN’s support for the bullying ex-president to justify demanding that Honduras allow him to return. But the UN is openly biased in favor of left-wing dictators.
The UN has just declared Fidel Castro, the longtime Communist dictator of Cuba, the “World Hero of Solidarity.” Castro killed thousands and thousands of people during his rule, torturing some to death (including a few American citizens), and Cuba remains an oppressive dictatorship even today.
So it’s not surprising that the UN backs Honduras’s bullying ex-president Manuel Zelaya, given his fondness for left-wing rhetoric. (Two months ago, soldiers acting on orders of Honduras’s Supreme Court arrested Zelaya after he systematically abused his powers. After the Court quite legally declared that Zelaya was no longer president, he was duly replaced by Honduras’s Congress with a civilian, the Congressional Speaker).
The Obama Administration recently decided to impose sanctions on Honduras, and indicated it will not recognize future democratic elections in Honduras unless Honduras first lets ex-president Zelaya return to power.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:01 pmSandyW says:
“The Directorate for Legal Research”
How’s that for a snazzy name.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:08 pmfrankcross says:
Plenty make the case that the removal was legal. The problem is that the military blatantly violated the Constitution by exiling him (as noted in the report). And then shutting down media in the wake of the removal. Had they carried out the removal constitutionally, I don’t think it would be such a big deal. But they made it “smell” like a coup, even if it was not.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:33 pmRPT says:
HB, do you get permission to reproduce your article here? This sounds like Randy Schueneman (sp) talking about Georgia for the McCain campaign.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:37 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Why was Zelaya sent to another country? The military acted with the approval of the authorities that removed him from office. Did they not trust him not to try to overturn their decisions?
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:39 pmdrunkdriver says:
I hope now, since Zelaya’s apparently legal removal and involvement with drug lords was not enough, his insane delusions of toxic gas and torture at the hands of Israeli assassins will finally convince the US government to stop going to the mat for him to the extent of supporting sanctions.
Of course, with the Chavezes and other members of the “international community,” I have no such hope. These people really seem to believe the world is run from a salt dome by “international bankers,” the Federal Reserve, and the hierarchy of the Catholic church.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:44 pmone of many says:
troll_dc2,
there is some dispute about how the arrest happened. Zelaya either asked or was asked if he w/could go into exile instead of being put in jail and possibly causing civil disorder.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:44 pmDilan Esper says:
The Obama Administration is extremely hostile to non-communist Honduras and its democratically-elected legislature, demanding that they allow the return to power of Honduras’s bullying ex-president and would-be dictator.
Hans, the cold war is over. Whether a government is “non-communist” is, or should be, irrelevant to American foreign policy.
And while I understand that there is a debate over the LEGALITY of the action, dragging the President out of bed in pajamas using the military in the middle of the night and kicking him out of the country is, in fact, a coup.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:45 pmMalvolio says:
Can somebody explain WTF is going on here? There seems to be constitutional dispute in another country, and a (with all respect to our many Honduran friends) not-very-important country at that. While the total issue is fairly complex, one side has 90+% support inside the country.
I can see why the US administration would be supporting the popular side. I can see why the administration might be uncomfortable with judicial/military removal of an elected official, however popular or apparently lawful the action might be, and decide to remain neutral.
But what on Earth is Obama getting from siding with Zelaya? I can think of a lot of bad things to say about Obama, starting with his probably-not-capable-of-sustaining-flight ears and working in, but he isn’t stupid. Why is he pissing off a bunch of Hondurans? Just to cozy up to a bunch of Venezuelans and Cubans who hate any American president regardless? Why is there an American dog in this fight?
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:46 pmtherut says:
Are you sure the cold war is over? I am not. It has just changed it stripes. And as usual the leftists in this country support the new new new new left. Sick.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:49 pmDilan Esper says:
But what on Earth is Obama getting from siding with Zelaya?
Well, one thing is that the era was not long past where golpes de estado were a rather common occurrence in Latin America, and there’s plenty of support among elected leaders of the hemisphere for not going back to the bad old days where America supported governments installed by the military purely because they were right wing (hence the OAS condemnation of the coup).
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:49 pmeinhverfr says:
What I don’t understand is why Zalaya didn’t put to referendum whether the restriction on changing the Constitution should be revised first. The referendums offered were blatantly Unconstitutional. Why didn’t he ask for permission to seek the reform first?
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:50 pmDilan Esper says:
Are you sure the cold war is over? I am not. It has just changed it stripes. And as usual the leftists in this country support the new new new new left. Sick.
Well, without a hostile, expansionist power pointing nuclear weapons at us, there’s no particular reason to get exercised just because a particular government is somewhat left-wing.
So yeah, the cold war is over.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:51 pmtroll_dc2 says:
But at that point he no longer was the president. He already had been removed from office.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:54 pmDilan Esper says:
But at that point he no longer was the president. He already had been removed from office.
That’s overly-formalistic reasoning.
If it looks like a coup, smells like a coup, and quacks like a coup, it’s a coup.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:56 pmtroll_dc2 says:
I think that you just don’t like what happened.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 5:59 pmDilan Esper says:
I think that you just don’t like what happened.
Well, I don’t really have an opinion on Honduran law, as that is not my expertise. (Nor is it yours– and I might as well add, it isn’t Miguel Estrada’s either.)
But what I do have an opinion on is the military dragging the President out of the palace in his pajamas and putting him on a plane in the middle of the night. And anyone who knows the first thing about Latin American history can see that for what it is.
Coups can be legal, or legally justified, but they are still coups.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 6:06 pmtroll_dc2 says:
This is a power struggle among the different elements of Honduras’ government. Why is it a proper concern of any other country?
Quote
September 25, 2009, 6:35 pmeinhverfr says:
Dilan Esper:
Sure, but at least it’s a civilian coup enacted using executive force of the military only (but still responding to civilian government).
Quote
September 25, 2009, 6:42 pmeinhverfr says:
It occurs to me that when most folks think of a “military coup” particularly in Latin America, we think of the military coming in and taking over leadership roles in the government.
In fact, this is what happened in Ecuador in 1999.
However in this case, the civilian government was never commandeered by the military. So it may look walk like a duck, but it looks and honks like a goose.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 6:49 pmDan Simon says:
But what on Earth is Obama getting from siding with Zelaya? I can think of a lot of bad things to say about Obama, starting with his probably-not-capable-of-sustaining-flight ears and working in, but he isn’t stupid. Why is he pissing off a bunch of Hondurans? Just to cozy up to a bunch of Venezuelans and Cubans who hate any American president regardless? Why is there an American dog in this fight?
Back in 1993, at the beginning of the Clinton administration, there was a great deal of discussion among liberals regarding the proper role of American power in a unipolar, post-Cold War world. The two main schools of thought, as I recall, were isolationism–that the US should withdraw and allow Fukuyama’s “end of history” to unfold unimpeded–and humanitarian internationalism–that the US should use its power for humanitarian ends. The latter suffered a severe setback in Somalia, but Rwanda and Bosnia gave the former a black eye, and the apparent success of the Kosovo intervention ultimately rejuvenated support for humanitarian internationalism.
However, both schools of thought shared one ironclad principle: that American power should never, ever be used to advance America’s national interests. On the contrary, foreign involvement could only be legitimate if completely untainted by the tiniest shred of the appearance of America defending itself, its interests or its influence. Somalia passed that test, for example, but Serbia’s alliance with Russia made intervention in Bosnia too reminiscent of Cold-War power politics. The horrors of Bosnia, on the other hand–coupled with the plausibly non-Western orientation of Albanian Kosovar Muslims–legitimized the Kosovo intervention in the eyes of the left, as a purely humanitarian act, rather than a geopolitical one.
It’s rarely made explicit these days, in the aftermath of 9/11, but left-of-center thinking about international affairs continues to this day in the same vein: American exercises of power are only justified if they are at best neutral towards–and preferably in opposition to–American interests. Whether euphemized as “smart power”, “multilateralism”, or some other warm, fuzzy term, the fundamental tenet of liberal foreign policy today is the complete, vigorous rejection of the idea that protecting or advancing American interests might be a legitimate goal of American foreign policy.
The result is what we’ve seen: a foreign policy that actively assists America’s sworn enemies, and assiduously undermines its friends and allies. One can argue ad nauseam about the actual “humanitarianism” of this or that policy–for the most part, they’ve all been bad for most everyone–but that would miss the point: they’re formulated, first and foremost, with the goal of avoiding even the appearance of actually promoting American interests abroad.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 7:12 pmDilan Esper says:
However in this case, the civilian government was never commandeered by the military.
There have been many instances where the military was used to secure the government for a civilian. Fujimori’s auto-golpe is an example of that.
This sort of thing has a sorry history in Latin America as well.
It’s rarely made explicit these days, in the aftermath of 9/11, but left-of-center thinking about international affairs continues to this day in the same vein: American exercises of power are only justified if they are at best neutral towards–and preferably in opposition to–American interests.
It is very much in America’s interest that the Honduran coup be opposed, because it secures OAS cooperation on a number of issues.
Your comment is all wrong– the real change here is that since the cold war is over, realist considerations now favor the left and not the right.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 7:16 pmHans Bader says:
What happened in Honduras couldn’t be a coup, precisely because it was legal.
A coup is defined as an “unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government by a small group.”
As I explained above, Honduras’s removal of its president was legal under articles 239 and 272 of its Constitution.
Many legal scholars have made this clear.
Honduras’ legitimate government wasn’t removed, only its illegitimate, constitution-shredding president.
Its legitimate government — its democratically-elected legislature and new civilian president and Supreme Court — remain in power.
The president’s removal was backed not by a small group, but by virtually the entire government, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Human Rights Ombudsman, etc., and much of the population, including the middle class and most of the rural poor.
His return is opposed by the Honduran Church and the Archbishop.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 7:18 pmXanthippas says:
As several commentators have already pointed out, this might have gone over better had the Honduran government not a) exiled Zelaya b) shut down opposition media and c) knocked some protesters around. It’s really hard to understand how opponents of Zelaya make a case that the coup was “legal” (since we enjoy quotation marks here) when what happened after his removal most certainly was not. Also, it’s silly to argue merely about legality; everyone knows this is a political issue. Were it plainly legal, we wouldn’t have various op-eds arguing about whether or not it was legal, nor would the entirety of South American governments be opposed to it.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 7:21 pmHans Bader says:
I don’t understand the argument that while Honduras acted legally in removing its ex-president (and it was indeed legal under Articles 239 &272 of the Honduras Constitution), it somehow became a coup when he was subsequently deported by the military.
If Nixon had been illegally deported after he was forced to resign, would that have made his deportation a coup? Of course not! He would have been entitled to return to the country, but not to become president again — as Obama demands Honduras do for its ex-president Zelaya.
In any event, it’s not the military that stands in the way of Zelaya’s return — it has said that it will respect whatever decision the government makes regarding Zelaya’s return.
Rather, it is the Honduras Supreme Court, which Obama has retaliated against by taking away its visas, and later blocking travel by Hondurans to the U.S. in retaliation for the court’s ruling against Zelaya.
Both actions are foolish responses to a recent ruling by the supreme court of Honduras refusing to approve the return to power of the country’s bullying ex-president and would-be dictator, Mel Zelaya.
Zelaya was earlier arrested by soldiers acting on orders of the Honduras Supreme Court, which had ruled that he was no longer president. He was then replaced by his country’s Congress with a civilian successor, and forced into exile.
Zelaya’s removal came after he systematically abused his powers: he sought to circumvent constitutional term limits, used mobs to intimidate his critics, threatened public employees with termination if they refused to help him violate the Constitution, engaged in massive corruption, illegally cut off public funds to local governments whose leaders refused to back his quest for more power, denied basic government services to his critics, refused to enforce dozens of laws passed by Congress, and spent the country into virtual bankruptcy, refusing to submit a budget so that he could illegally spend public funds on his cronies.
I don’t understand Dilan’s argument that backing Zelaya helps the U.S. with the OAS. The U.S. has gotten nothing in Latin America in exchange for backing Zelaya.
Allying with Castro and Chavez to force the return of Honduras’s would-be dictator has not even improved U.S. relations with their countries. The dictators Castro and Chavez continue to attack and oppose the United States at every turn, and oppose all of its Latin American initiatives, like its plans for bases in Colombia to fight drug trafficking. Obama has received nothing in exchange for his appeasement of Latin America’s left.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 7:29 pmeinhverfr says:
Dilan:
How do YOU think this should be resolved?
After all, according to the text of the Constitution and the opinion of the court, Zalaya is not eligible to serve as president. Do we just suggest those documents and institutions get thrown out?
Really I am curious what you think a resolution ought to look like.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 7:40 pmDan Simon says:
It is very much in America’s interest that the Honduran coup be opposed, because it secures OAS cooperation on a number of issues.
Oh, really? Name five. Also, explain why OAS cooperation on those issues depends on American support for Zelaya, and is worth the price of supporting an unpopular, avowedly anti-American lame duck Honduran president against the entire rest of the Honduran government and public.
This same type of argument, by the way, has been advanced in support of a whole series of recent enemy-coddling, friend-shafting policies, from the conciliatory messages to Iran to the reversal on missile defense installations in Eastern Europe to the hard line on Israeli settlements and courtship of Syria. They’ve all come up completely empty, accomplishing nothing except to embolden the enemies in question and dishearten and disillusion America’s friends.
Not that they were intended to reap benefits for America, mind you–their purpose, on the contrary, was precisely to demonstrate that America no longer selfishly pursues its own interests abroad. And at that, the new policies have succeeded spectacularly.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 7:41 pmDilan Esper says:
A coup is defined as an “unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government by a small group.”
Well under that definition, Fujimori’s auto-golpe wasn’t a coup either. But everyone treated it as one.
As I explained above, Honduras’s removal of its president was legal under articles 239 and 272 of its Constitution. Many legal scholars have made this clear.
There are many Honduran legal scholars who dispute this. I am not saying it is wrong (again, I don’t know and neither do you), but it is clearly disputed.
Note, also, that American right wing Hispanics like Miguel Estrada have exactly zero experience studying Honduran constitutional law and don’t count as experts.
The president’s removal was backed not by a small group, but by virtually the entire government, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Human Rights Ombudsman, etc., and much of the population, including the middle class and most of the rural poor.
This is way overstated. Zelaya has plenty of supporters, and even some Zelaya opponents nonetheless think the coup was outrageous.
If Nixon had been illegally deported after he was forced to resign, would that have made his deportation a coup?
If Nixon were forcibly removed from the White House in his pajamas by the army, taken to Andrews AFB, and put on a plane for some third world country for exile, I suspect that many would declare that a coup even if the US Supreme Court blessed it.
Both actions are foolish responses to a recent ruling by the supreme court of Honduras refusing to approve the return to power of the country’s bullying ex-president and would-be dictator, Mel Zelaya.
Now lets be clear here. I don’t like trying to extend one’s term limits, but Zelaya was proposing STANDING FOR ELECTION AGAIN. That’s not the act of a dictator. Meanwhile, Michaletti shut down the press, which IS the act of one.
I don’t understand Dilan’s argument that backing Zelaya helps the U.S. with the OAS. The U.S. has gotten nothing in Latin America in exchange for backing Zelaya.
We need OAS cooperation on everything from the war on drugs to anti-terrorism and immigration policies. What we “get” is continued cooperation rather than anti-Americanism in the hemisphere.
Allying with Castro and Chavez to force the return of Honduras’s would-be dictator has not even improved U.S. relations with their countries. The dictators Castro and Chavez continue to attack and oppose the United States at every turn, and oppose all of its Latin American initiatives, like its plans for bases in Colombia to fight drug trafficking. Obama has received nothing in exchange for his appeasement of Latin America’s left.
Hans, get the memo. The Cold War is over. Venezuela and Cuba are not existential threats to the US. They are pipsqueaks, and there’s no reason in the world why we should antagonize them.
You need to grow up. There are going to be governments in the hemisphere that you don’t approve of. But with no Soviet threat, there’s no reason to start stewing conflict with them, just because left-right conflict gives Hans Bader an erection.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 7:42 pmDilan Esper says:
How do YOU think this should be resolved?
Broker a deal where Zelaya gets to return to Honduras, serve out his term in some symbolic fashion, and be replaced by the legitimate victor of the next election.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 7:43 pmDilan Esper says:
Oh, really? Name five. Also, explain why OAS cooperation on those issues depends on American support for Zelaya, and is worth the price of supporting an unpopular, avowedly anti-American lame duck Honduran president against the entire rest of the Honduran government and public.
Who gives a crap that Zelaya is anti-American? What can he do to us?
You conservatives are a bunch of pussies. Seriously. This is the United fricking States of America. Some guy in Honduras can’t do crap to us.
On the other hand, having the whole region against us could screw up our trade, screw up the drug war, screw up our immigration policy, etc.
Grow a pair and learn that there are more important things than which tinpot is in charge of which country in Latin America.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 7:45 pmChrisTS says:
I did not think I had a dog in this fight, but that is pretty silly.
It is true, I think, that many left-of center, and center, and right-of-center citizens want to see something more than U.S. business interests by way of rationale for ‘American exsercises of power’ — particularly as that phrase includes the use of military power. So, war simply for oil is not a big winner with many U.S. citizens.
We like to think of ourselves as having both nobler interests and as being not entirely self-serving. Not that unusual among peoples and nations.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 8:01 pmDan Simon says:
Who gives a crap that Zelaya is anti-American? What can he do to us?
You conservatives are a bunch of pussies. Seriously. This is the United fricking States of America. Some guy in Honduras can’t do crap to us.
On the other hand, having the whole region against us could screw up our trade, screw up the drug war, screw up our immigration policy, etc.
If I understand you correctly, you’re advocating that American conservatives stop being such sissies and show their faith in America’s overwhelming power by...kowtowing to the whims of Latin American anti-Americans, attempting to curry favor with them by joining them in vigorous support of a bombastically anti-American Honduran politician. Have I got that right?
(A side note: I’m neither American nor conservative, so I can view the above ad hominems with the necessary detachment.)
Quote
September 25, 2009, 8:07 pmSteve2 says:
Dilan, have you actually read the provisions of the Honduran constitution in question? The text is pretty unambiguous: a Honduran President who is “proposing STANDING FOR ELECTION AGAIN” is at the same time vacating the Honduran Presidency. Specifically, Article 239:
“El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República.
El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos y quedarán inhabilitados por diez (10) años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.”
That second sentence is the kicker: “Whoever breaks this provision or proposes its reform, whether directly or indirectly, will immediately cease to hold their position and remain ineligible for ten years to hold public office.” So the minute Zelaya proposed standing for reelection, the rules defining the very office he wanted to be reelected to said he no longer held that office, and couldn’t hold any public office for another 10 years. There’s nothing analogous in American Constitutional Law, but... you can’t coup an ex-president, and the moment he did what he did he instantly by definition ceased being Honduras’s President in the same way George W. Bush instantly by definition ceased being America’s President at noon on January 20.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 8:09 pmBama 1L says:
“Whoever breaks this provision or proposes its reform, whether directly or indirectly, will immediately cease to hold their position and remain ineligible for ten years to hold public office.”
That is one tough law!
Quote
September 25, 2009, 8:31 pmBrett Bellmore says:
I’m unclear about this: Is the claim that neither China nor Russia have nuclear weapons pointed at us? Or that neither China nor Russia are expansionist?
Russia is trying to recapture Eastern Europe, and China only escapes being expansionist if you credit their claim that whoever they feel like invading on any given day is a “rebel province”. And they do both have nukes pointed at us, at this very moment.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 8:32 pmfrankcross says:
The trouble, Hans Bader, is that the current government argued it was defending the Constitution by removing Zelaya, but then blatantly violated the Constitution with the exile and, I think, shutting down the media. Without apparent concern. That makes it look like it’s not really the Constitution they are enforcing, just their will.
I’ve seen arguments on both sides that he did or didn’t violate the Constitution, but there are surely plausible reasons to think he did. And the Supreme Court said he did. But he surely should have been tried for the violations they allege, in Honduras. When the government failed to do that, they lost some of the high ground.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 8:41 pmDan Simon says:
We like to think of ourselves as having both nobler interests and as being not entirely self-serving. Not that unusual among peoples and nations.
I agree completely. So-called “neoconservatives”, for example, claim that their passion for democratization is wholly altruistic. But when asked, most neoconservatives can give an at-least-plausible argument for why their position is also in America’s best interests. They will cite the strong correlation between serious threats to American interests and non-democratic governance, and the between democratic government and reasonably cordial relations with the US. One may not agree with these arguments, but one can certainly believe that neoconservatives believe them.
Now consider, for instance, Dilan’s argument above for why pulling out all the stops to ensure that Honduras’ government is led by an anti-American ally of some of America’s staunchest enemies, is actually in America’s interest. It amounts to the claim that the way to counter endemic anti-American sentiment in Latin America is to add to the roster of vehement anti-Americans among Latin American national leaders. Does this sound like the kind of argument that a wholehearted, albeit partisan, defender of America’s interests would make? Or like a lame cover for, at the very least, a distinct lack of enthusiasm for advancing America’s national interests in the first place?
Quote
September 25, 2009, 8:52 pmsubpatre says:
frankcross writes: “... That makes it look like it’s not really the Constitution they are enforcing, just their will.”
The issue is not how it looks to ‘Frankcross’; the issue is whether the action was legal or not. In the face of clear, cited Honduran law, ‘looks like’ is an excuse for partisan squawking.
[Maybe the ‘birthers’ need to start claiming it “looks like” Obama’s election was fraudulent, thereby getting the appearance-concious leftists on their side. My bet is that “looks like” will suddenly become unimportant.]
Quote
September 25, 2009, 8:53 pmOfficious Intermeddler says:
It will never, ever occur to liberals that their preferred foreign policy of lovingly tongue-bathing the squeakhole of every anti-American douchebag in the world might actually embolden said douchebags rather than mollifying them. Oxygen thieves like Dilan will be calling conservatives pussies right up to the moment that some guy in Honduras murders a bunch of Americans, at which point they’ll demand that we all search our navels for the root causes of anti-Americanism rather than do anything about it.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 8:56 pmpmorem says:
I seem to recall hearing that some guy in a cave couldn’t do crap to us. Further back, there was an arguement that some Austrian Corporal wasn’t a danger.
Indeed. That seems to be an objective by some parties, particularly the most vocal supporter of Zelaya.
...“which tinpot”... I think that right there says it all. Some of us oppose all tinpots. Maybe you are okay with them, as long as they’re doing “the right thing”. I’m not.
For most of the last 20 years, we had a worldwide trend of the collapse of authoritarian regimes. I fear that trend may be reversing. I believe that reversal must be opposed at every possible opportunity.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 8:58 pmDilan Esper says:
Russia is trying to recapture Eastern Europe, and China only escapes being expansionist if you credit their claim that whoever they feel like invading on any given day is a “rebel province”. And they do both have nukes pointed at us, at this very moment.
And even if this is taken as true, it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything happening in Latin America right now. (Unlike during the Cold War.)
Quote
September 25, 2009, 9:00 pmDilan Esper says:
It amounts to the claim that the way to counter endemic anti-American sentiment in Latin America is to add to the roster of vehement anti-Americans among Latin American national leaders. Does this sound like the kind of argument that a wholehearted, albeit partisan, defender of America’s interests would make?
It only sounds simplistic to simplistic people.
Meanwhile, what ACTUALLY is happening is that America is cultivating better relationships with Latin American countries that MATTER to us by not worrying about the alleged anti-American tendencies of a deposed leader in an UNIMPORTANT country that the region wants reinstalled.
Meanwhile, it’s the conservatives who are acting like idiots– arguing that we should ignore all our vital interests in the region to take a stand against LEFTISM IN HONDURAS???!?!??!??!?!?
Quote
September 25, 2009, 9:03 pmDilan Esper says:
Oxygen thieves like Dilan will be calling conservatives pussies right up to the moment that some guy in Honduras murders a bunch of Americans, at which point they’ll demand that we all search our navels for the root causes of anti-Americanism rather than do anything about it.
You heard it here first, folks! The next terrorist attack is coming from Honduras!
Now excuse me while I get my tinfoil hat. The mothership is calling.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 9:04 pmDilan Esper says:
...“which tinpot”... I think that right there says it all. Some of us oppose all tinpots.
Really? Really? Pinochet? Batista?
This is complete BS. The right supports lots of tinpots. Jeane Kirkpatrick was celebrated on the right for defending Latin American tinpots.
The fact of the matter is that the only relevance of the Presidency of Honduras to US policy is that the rest of the region supports Zelaya. The fact that he’s anti-American is meaningless. (And as noted above, the new government is repressive, perhaps even more so than Zalaya was.)
The only reason this is a discussion at all is because conservatives think foreign policy is a penis swinging contest rather than an intelligent attempt to cooperate in mutually beneficial way. And Zelaya, to conservatives, is out there saying he’s got a bigger package than we do, and that’s unacceptable.
Really, all this is is ego. Waaaaaah! He’s anti-American! He’s a commie! You guys are a bunch of two year olds who didn’t get your toy.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 9:08 pmOfficious Intermeddler says:
Never said that. Just pointed out the simple reality that braying idiots like you will be mocking your betters’ reluctance to embrace anti-Americans up until the moment said anti-Americanism produces a body count — at which point the game will change to trying to make excuses for the culprits’ anti-Americanism. The capacity of liberals to kiss the asses of people who hate us is limitless.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 9:15 pmnicehonesty says:
If only there were some legal body in Honduras — some sort of court, perhaps — made up of legal scholars that had some experience studying and ruling on Honduran constitutional law that we could turn to for an informed set of opinions on this situation.
Ideally, it would be a group of judges whose ruling were considered to supersede those made by other judges or courts in Honduras — some sort of “Supreme” court, one might call it — so that if there is a dispute among legal opinions on a matter we would know that theirs is the one that controls.
Wait, that sounds sort of familiar.
Ah, yes, there is such a body — the Honduran Supreme Court. And they’ve been making rulings for the past several months that have aligned pretty much with the legal theories put forth by “American right wing Hispanics like Miguel Estrada [who] have exactly zero experience studying Honduran constitutional law and don’t count as experts.”
Funny how you failed to mention that.
Actually, Zelaya is out there saying that the Jooooooooooos! are torturing him in the Brazilian Embassy with high-frequency radiation and toxic gases while plotting to assassinate him. You [and Obama] aren’t backing a strong horse or a weak horse in Honduras — you’re backing a paranoid delusional horse.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 9:35 pmfrankcross says:
subpatre, that would have been a better post if you had responded to actual content of my post (e.g., the unconstitutional exile). I don’t claim any special privilege of “looks”, but I based my conclusion (to which you responded), on specific reasoning (to which you said nothing).
Quote
September 25, 2009, 9:37 pmpmorem says:
Dilan Esper wrote:
I thought you said the cold war was over.
It seems pretty clear to me that you missed my point. Perhaps that’s deliberate.
It seems that this evening you prefer insult over intelligent conversation. I had thought better of you.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 9:47 pmAngus says:
When you are ready to fast forward out of the 1980s, let the rest of us know.
Here’s a hint. Russia does not want Eastern Europe. I know many Russians, and none of them like the other peoples in Eastern Europe. The last thing they want is to be part of the same empire since they’ll all move to Moscow and take jobs from Russians.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 9:57 pmDan L says:
I think from the report that it’s clear that the case for lawful removal turns entirely on the meaning of the word “disapprove” (improbar), and whether it could possibly include removing the president. From my reasonably advanced understanding of Spanish, “improbar” could not be reasonably so interpreted, though I am not a native speaker and cannot so say definitively. While the authority to interpret the constitution rests exclusively with the National Congress, its employing this authority in this manner strikes me as extremely dubious.
What I cannot figure out, however, is why the Honduran constitution has no clear provision for the manner in which the president can be lawfully removed. The only provision that seemed to provide for one was repealed in 2003. The legislative history behind this repeal might illuminate this matter to some degree. In any case, I find it unconscionable that the country had no such constitutional provision on its books. The constitutional crisis that Honduras faced before Zelaya stepped down was very real. Zelaya had become unresponsive to the normal procedures for inter-branch dispute resolution and intent on pursuing a course of action declared unconstitutional. The question is, does Zelaya’s unconstitutional behavior and defiance of the other two branches justify the dubious constitutional measures employed on their part to remove him from office? That one is difficult to answer, although the unity of the other two branches–along apparently with that of Zelaya’s own attorney general–strikes me as more than a little unusual for a typical coup d’etat situation.
More than anything else, however, this situation makes one thing clear: the need for completely unambiguous provisions providing for removal of the chief executive.
Some interesting material from the pro-Zelaya perspective, including some pushback against this staff report, I found here: http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/
Quote
September 25, 2009, 10:24 pmDr. Weevil says:
Dilan Esper writes “American right wing Hispanics like Miguel Estrada have exactly zero experience studying Honduran constitutional law and don’t count as experts”. Is he aware that Miguel Estrada was born in Honduras and lived there for the first 17 years of his life? If Honduran high schools have Civics classes, I imagine his “experience studying Honduran constitutional law” is at least a little more then zero. In any case, a professionally-trained lawyer and experienced judge who is intimately familiar with the country and its language would surely be better positioned than (e.g.) Dilan Esper to opine on the ins and outs of Honduran constitutional law. Of course, there are others even more qualified, people who have devoted their lives to studying the subject, like (e.g.) the members of the Honduran Supreme Court, as ‘nicehonesty’ has already pointed out.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 10:25 pmDr. Weevil says:
Angus:
You may know many Russian, but I doubt that you know Putin or Medvedev. Whether Russia has ambitions to retake some or all of Eastern Europe has far more to do with what they think than with what your friends think. Their gas-pipeline manipulations and last year’s invasion of Georgia do not inspire confidence.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 10:28 pmArthurKirkland says:
Ding!! Ding!! Ding!!
As Oscar said to Mayer: ‘I think we have a weiner.’
Quote
September 25, 2009, 10:53 pmAngus says:
Yes, those nasty Russians just annexed all of Georgia, didn’t they? They certainly could have if they had wanted to–their counterattack and strike into Georgia had basically destroyed the Georgian military’s ability to resist. Yet, Georgia is still there and all Russian troops are back within Ossetia and Abkhazia, right where they were before the flare up last year.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 11:15 pmPsalm91 says:
“pmorem:
I seem to recall hearing that some guy in a cave couldn’t do crap to us.”
Yes, that was the position of the GOP during the Clinton presidency and of the Bush Adminstration pre-9/11. “Guy in cave determined to strike in United States.” No problem.
Glad to see a reference to the “invasion of Georgia” per Randy Schueneman.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 11:25 pmbenji says:
But, Micheletti is of the same party as Zelaya and was “installed” by the constitutional line of succession?
Quote
September 25, 2009, 11:33 pmHugh says:
I guess the well being of the Honduran people means little to you. I suspect that a demogogue like Zelaya would be much worse for the Honduran people in the long run as he takes over various government powers, restricts the press (far more than the current government has), destroys the economy, and drives the industrious people way. He will turn it into another “people’s paradise” where the people with no resources have no chance to get out.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 11:47 pmSarcastro says:
Whoa, Hugh knows alternate history!
Quote
September 25, 2009, 11:51 pmPsalm91 says:
Hugh:
Classic reasoning. Support the coup because “you suspect”. There is no basis for your suspicion.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 11:56 pmHugh says:
Oh, and Castro and Chavez have been so charming and nice to their peoples? I guess that a dictator can be as abusive as they want as long as they say things that make liberals swoon. “Power to the people” and all that stuff.
Quote
September 25, 2009, 11:57 pmDan Simon says:
It only sounds simplistic to simplistic people.
Well, no, berating opponents of America’s pro-Zelaya policy as “pussies” who need to “grow a pair”, while advocating kowtowing to the will of other Latin American countries for fear of their terrifying retaliation, doesn’t sound “simplistic”. It just sounds self-contradictory and needlessly rude.
Meanwhile, what ACTUALLY is happening is that America is cultivating better relationships with Latin American countries that MATTER to us by not worrying about the alleged anti-American tendencies of a deposed leader in an UNIMPORTANT country that the region wants reinstalled.
Yes, you’ve already asserted that. And I’ve already asked you if you could explain to me the manifold ways in which this “cultivating better relationships” amounts to much, much more than simply bending over for anti-American leaders in Latin America by actively promoting yet another vehemently anti-American leader. And you’ve yet to describe a single shred of evidence–even of the most evanescent, subjective variety–that might suggest that all this “cultivating” is accomplishing anything positive for the US. That’s not surprising, because the “cultivating” of Iran, Syria, Russia, China and numerous other mildly-to-murderously anti-American regimes around the globe has been equally stunningly feckless.
I’m not asking for much–a single, concrete threat not carried out, or incentive paid off, in return for America’s aggressive promotion of Honduras’ loudly anti-American ex-president, will do. Heck–I’ll settle for a concrete threat uttered, or incentive offered. Have you got anything? Anything at all?
Or is this “cultivating” business all, as I continue to claim, just lame cover for blanket opposition to any and all American actions that might conceivably result in the advancement or protection of American interests abroad?
Quote
September 26, 2009, 1:09 amJohn Moore says:
Dilan seems to live in a dream world...
Err, Dilan, Russia is STILL pointing nukes at us, still has a doomsday system in operation, aids countries hostile to us (especially Iran and Venezuela), invades a country friendly to us (Georgia), meddles violently in the internal affairs of other friends of ours (such as the Ukraine) and threatens our allies.
And you think the cold war is over? What is it about modern threats, nukes, aiding our enemies, etc. that is different from the cold war days? Is it that the Russians are merely ruled by the KGB mafia than pretending to be communist while ruled by the nomenklatura mafia?
.............
Apparently Dilan has decided that the only foreign policy issues of concern are “existential threats” — an odd view perhaps a result of having been overly fixated on the low-level threat of nuclear war during the cold war (that still exists, at the same level). Dilan, foreign policy folks for thousands of years have recognized that issues outside of “existential threats” are significant.
Errr, right. Yeah, perhaps, say, like Castro, another tin pot of a small country in our hemisphere who caused us all sorts of grief.
Dilan, grow up.
Quote
September 26, 2009, 1:55 amsubpatre says:
frankcross claims: “subpatre, that would have been a better post if you had responded to actual content of my post (e.g., the unconstitutional exile). I don’t claim any special privilege of “looks”, but I based my conclusion (to which you responded), on specific reasoning (to which you said nothing).”
OK, I’ll bite. What makes you think anything is unconstitutional in Honduras? To date, you’ve made no citations. So yes, when you say something “looks like” something bad, readers will —and should— tend to believe you are making personal judgments on looks.
Unlike the USA, most constitutions in the world do not limit government. But here’s Frankcross acting as if the Honduran Constitution is US law directly writ into Spanish:
Unless you can cite a Honduran constitutional provision prohibiting the army from deporting an individual, claims the Honduran army acted unconstitutionally are simply made up out of thin air.
To us in the USA it “looks like” the deportation should be unconstitutional, but without a cite it isn’t. The army claims Zelaya was given a choice of jail or deportation. In the US, that would be illegal too, but explain how this is unconstitutional under Honduran law.
The US Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, but few other nations do. Does Honduran law follow US law or the rest of the world? Similar objections to police functions performed by their army —prohibited in the US— but common in the rest of the world.
Posting what you want the
worldHonduras to be like should be prefaced with “frankcross’s imaginings”; not claims of “blatant violations” as if it was real.Quote
September 26, 2009, 2:02 amGaryC says:
Dilan Esper:
Do you believe that the election would have been free and fair? I suspect that Zelaya’s uncanny ability to provide detailed election results for a referendum that never occurred would have extended to his reelection as well.
Zelaya might have decided to keep the result close, or he might instead have exceeded Saddam’s 100% tally from Iraq’s final election before his regime was overthrown.
Quote
September 26, 2009, 3:09 amearth to mothership says:
Dilan reduced to hysterics and random capslocking. Time to cease commenting imo. If you can’t answer Dan Simon’s quite reasonable question, hysterics aren’t gonna cut it.
Quote
September 26, 2009, 3:39 amDilan Esper says:
Dilan Esper writes “American right wing Hispanics like Miguel Estrada have exactly zero experience studying Honduran constitutional law and don’t count as experts”. Is he aware that Miguel Estrada was born in Honduras and lived there for the first 17 years of his life? If Honduran high schools have Civics classes, I imagine his “experience studying Honduran constitutional law” is at least a little more then zero. In any case, a professionally-trained lawyer and experienced judge who is intimately familiar with the country and its language would surely be better positioned than (e.g.) Dilan Esper to opine on the ins and outs of Honduran constitutional law.
By this theory, any Jewish American can tell you whether the Israeli Supreme Court decisions concerning the settlements conformed with Israeli law.
Miguel Estrada is a hack who knows nothing about Honduran Constitutional law. But since he’s a card carrying member of the conservative movement with the right ethnicity, he was drafted to opine about it.
Quote
September 26, 2009, 3:42 amDilan Esper says:
I guess the well being of the Honduran people means little to you. I suspect that a demogogue like Zelaya would be much worse for the Honduran people in the long run as he takes over various government powers, restricts the press (far more than the current government has), destroys the economy, and drives the industrious people way.
He was in power for a significant amount of time and did none of this. His successor has done some of it.
Just be honest. You don’t like this guy because he’s a leftie. Not because he was ACTUALLY harming the people of Honduras. But because he’s a red. A commie. A Chavez-lover. A Castro ally.
Since when are right wingers at all concerned about human rights in Latin America? Seriously, that’s laughable.
Quote
September 26, 2009, 3:45 ampmorem says:
Dilan Esper wrote:
Try looking beyond your prejudice, caricature and hatred.
You might find something you actually like, and even agree with.
Quote
September 26, 2009, 5:11 ammattski says:
Did it occur to you that it might be in our interests to uphold the rule of law as a matter of principle? Chaos is what ensues when people and nations are motivated only by narrow self interest.
Some on the right have a greater faith in violence than in law. The sorry history of US intervention in Latin America testifies to that. “We’re all for democracy unless you elect someone we don’t like.”
Quote
September 26, 2009, 7:39 amDr. Weevil says:
Dilan Esper writes: “By this theory, any Jewish American can tell you whether the Israeli Supreme Court decisions concerning the settlements conformed with Israeli law.”
Anyone who read my comment knows that this is blatantly false. In fact, by my theory any Israeli-American who lived in Israel for the first 17 years of his life, is (unlike most Jewish-Americans) fluent in Hebrew, and is trained as a lawyer and an experienced judge would have a knowledge of Israeli constitutional law “at least a little more then zero”, and almost certainly far more than Dilan Esper’s own knowledge. I trust anyone who reads this comment can tell that those are very different statements. Whether Dilan Esper can bring himself to admit it is another question.
Quote
September 26, 2009, 8:18 amBGates says:
Did it occur to you that it might be in our interests to uphold the rule of law as a matter of principle?
Is this an argument in favor of pressuring all three branches of government in Honduras to give themselves up to a man who violated the Constitution of that country?
Quote
September 26, 2009, 9:11 amrpt says:
The latest AP reporting suggests that it is Middle Eastern resident alien business owners (“Turks”) who are the key supporters of the coup. Zelaya did raise the minimum wage, which is one of the worst sins for a government leader.
Quote
September 27, 2009, 3:14 pmKieth Nissen says:
One thing I do not see mentioned in the above exchange is the perceived risk that Zelaya was popular enough to have won any illegal, prohibited, unconstitutional election. If Zelaya were unpopular with the electorate you have reason to suspect that opposition to his third (or fourth) term would not excite so much interest. Admission: this is not a comment on the Honduran Constitution or the legality of the expulsion but on the scenery around it.
Quote
September 27, 2009, 5:08 pmrpt says:
per the L.A. Times:
“Reporting from Tegucigalpa, Honduras — The de facto government of Honduras suspended constitutional guarantees indefinitely late Sunday, outlawing public gatherings and making it easier for the army to make arrests.”
The rule of law in action.
Quote
September 27, 2009, 9:49 pmHarryEagar says:
So, the Honduran government-du-jour has suspended civil liberties.
Who would ever have predicted that?
Oh, yeah. Me.
Quote
September 28, 2009, 11:24 amRPT says:
The latest news re the “rule of law”.
The Honduran coup government has declared a state of emergency, which allows it (under the constitution) to suspend most civil rights. Police can arrest with no warrant, and there is no freedom of movement of of the press. They followed it up with a raid on the two most important opposition media: Canal 36 (TV) and Radio Globo. Essentially all of Radio Globo’s equipment has been confiscated. Also, the owner (manager?) of Radio Progreso, the only other significant opposition media, has received death threats.
Quote
September 28, 2009, 2:09 pmMac says:
What can Honduras do to us?
Well, here is this re FARC from Columbia. They are supported by Chavez and active in the drug trade. They were arrested in NYC. Are the same people saying that Honduras can do us no harm the same ones saying that Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc, can do us no harm before 9/11?
They removed a would-be dictator by their laws. Period. He is also certifiable, see the Israeli’s beaming radiation at him. Why would anyone want this guy back in power and another dictator taking over a Democracy in South America? So long as we are a democracy, they will hate us. They don’t want their people getting any ideas about liberty and self-determination.
Obama has been appeasing Chavez, Castro and every other dictator in the world for nine months, yet FARC was just arrested in NYC and the plot to blow things up In NYC by the Afghan terrorist, just revealed. Where is the “love”?
Why would anyone think that the left-wing dictators in South America would help with the drug trade and in other areas? I can’t even imagine what the other areas might be, but they won’t help.
For all the whining about mistakes made by the Honduran government, once Zeleya got permanent power, there would be no law other than his own. Then what would you do and say? Oh well, too bad. If they want freedom, they’ll have to get it on their own. No skin off our noses.
Why are we supposed to not meddle in other countries affairs, as Obama has said and apologized for ad nauseum, yet, meddling in the affairs of Honduras, a democracy trying to stay that way, is OK?
PS We shut down airports and did other things in a fairly recent crisis of our own.
Quote
September 28, 2009, 3:47 pmgeokstr says:
Zelaya’s supporters go nuts, cause violence, legitimate government has to restore order.
Who could have predicted that?
Anybody with an appreciation of the history of the way the left operates. Now they can blame the legitimate government.
Quote
September 28, 2009, 7:05 pmrpt says:
“Supporters go nuts”! Hiding in the Brazilian embassy! Next we’ll learn that it’s all ACORN’s fault, as we proceed into parody.
Quote
September 28, 2009, 7:25 pmgeokstr says:
Of course. Zelaya incites his supporters to violence, legitimate government declares martial law to protect order. Zelaya blames legitimate government for oppression of the worker.
Who would ever have predicted that?
Oh, maybe just about anyone with any historical knowledge of leftism and how it operates.
Cloward-Piven/Rahm strategy — never let a good crisis, especially one you’ve worked so hard to cause, go to waste:
CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY
Quote
September 29, 2009, 9:27 amgeokstr says:
Sorry about the double post. This new site is weird. I posted the first comment last night, but it wasn’t there this morning, so I posted another similar one, and now the first comment shows up. Someone needs to take a look at this.
Quote
September 29, 2009, 9:29 amDotar Sojat says:
Well.......any friend of Hugo’s
Quote
September 29, 2009, 9:55 amEinhverfr says:
MAC:
I don’t think FARC is any reason to let Uribe shred the Colombian Constitution either.
Quote
September 29, 2009, 12:58 pmConstitutional Coups, Foreign & Domestic « Random Musings of a Deranged Mind says:
[...] Coups, Foreign & Domestic Jonathan Alder of Volokh Conspiracy notes a recent report by the Law Library of Congress, which discusses whether Honduran ex-President [...]
John Behives says:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20356728/Honduras-Constitutional-Law-Issues
September 2009
SERIOUS ERRORS ON:
REPORT FOR CONGRESS
August 2009
(The Law library of Congress
Directorate of Legal Research for
Foreign, Comparative,
and International Law
LL File No. 2009–002965)
HONDURAS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ISSUES
Events
The National Congress, directed by Mr. Roberto Micheletti Bain, elected the 15 members of the current Supreme Court in January of this year, 2009, from a list of attorneys presented by Mr. Micheletti to the Congress.
On June 29th, 2009, the National Congress of Honduras interpreted president Zelaya’s disapproval, as removal of president Zelaya. The Congress then elected Mr. Micheletti, its president, as the president of Honduras based on a subjective absolute absence of President Zelaya, while President Zelaya’s absence was not absolute. It was, instead, forced and temporary, as he was violently taken out of his office and expatriated by the Army, a day before.
The National Congress also had a letter of resignation by President Zelaya under consideration. The letter was signed three days before the coup. This resignation consequently would drop charges and close President Zelaya’s case.
These National Congress actions were taken after a Congressional Decree dated Monday 29, 2009, at 12:45 AM — a day after President Zelaya was removed violently from his office and expatriated by the Army on Sunday June 28th at 5:30 AM.
The Supreme Court failed to address the original Executive Orders of President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales and allowed the Honduran lower Court of Letters and the Contentious Administrative to deal with the constitutional matter beyond the competence of this Court. The Supreme Court of Honduras played a passive and facilitative roll in such a high priority and serious case.
Honduras: Constitutional Law Issues Errors on Report LL File No. 2009–002965 Page 2 of 9
I.What are the provisions, if any, in the Honduran Constitution for their Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch (National Congress) to remove an elected President?
If the case against President Zelaya’s was built in the lower Court of Letters of the Contentious Administrative it is an unequivocally fact that this court has no jurisdiction over constitutional matters, unconstitutionality or any violation of the Constitution. Constitutional matters are exclusively handled by the Supreme Court of Honduras. (Honduras Constitution Art. 1841, also here below)
Art. 323, section 2 stays that the Supreme Court has the power to “hear cases against the highest officers of the State and the Deputies.” This is the exclusive duty of the Supreme Court, never a function of a lower court. This provision in the Constitution is ignored by the Honduran Supreme Court.
In addition to the Supreme Court overlooking its duties, the decrees focus of the ousting of President Zelaya — Executive Orders2 # PCM-005‑2009, PCM-019‑2009, PCM-020‑2009 and PCM-027‑2009, would be a matter of unconstitutionality revision due to the fact that these decrees represent a challenge to Art. 51 of the Constitution, which states “Regarding elections acts and procedures will be a Supreme Electoral Tribunal, autonomous and independent, with jurisdictional entity, with jurisdiction and competence in all the Republic, whose organization and function will be established by this Constitution and the law, which will stay equally related matters of other electoral organisms.”
Art. 184 stays “Laws can be declared unconstitutional by reason of form or content. It competes original and exclusively to the Supreme Court of Justice the knowledge and resolution of the matter, and must pronounce it with the requisites of definite sentences.”
To determine if President Zelaya’s decrees are unconstitutional is the sole province of the Honduran Supreme Court of Justice and not any other Court and definite not a lower Court, given the President’s highest authority and the high legal level of his decrees.
1 All references to Honduras Constitution are taken from the updated or amended CONSTITUCIÓN DE LA REPÚBLICA DE HONDURAS. Available online, at: http://www.gobernacion.gob.hn/descargas/leyes/CONSTITUCION%20DE%20LA%20REPUBLICA.pdf
The Constitution was originally published officially in LA GACETA, Jan. 20, 1982.
2 Called Executive Decrees in Honduras: PCM-005‑2009 never was published in LA GACETA, as required. PCM-019‑2009 nullifies PCM-005‑2009. The centerpiece document is PCM-020‑2009, here attached. PCM-027‑2009 follows the execution of PCM-020‑2009.
Honduras: Constitutional Law Issues Errors on Report LL File No. 2009–002965 Page 3 of 9
The U.S. Report for Congress, LL File No. 2009–002965, implies that by Honduran Constitution Art. 313, section 2 the Honduran Supreme Court has the provision, but in the case of President Manuel Zelaya the Supreme Court was not complying with its obligations and its negligence allowed the lower Court of Letters of the Contentious Administrative to build a case without hearings3, with subjective and a-priori sentences, and with improper filing of documents, not even published in the Official Journal “La Gaceta,” as required.
According to the Constitution of the Republic of Honduras, the Supreme Court violated its provision, its obligations and did not proceed according to the Constitution in the matter of its original and exclusive competence.
II. Did the Honduran Supreme Court have the authority under the Honduran Constitution to request that the military remove the President because the National Congress, the Supreme Court, the Human Rights Ombudsman, and the Attorney General found an action of the President unconstitutional?
No, it did not. The military is defined only by Army and Armed Forces in the Constitution of Honduras. Title V, Chapter X, Arts. 272 through 293 clearly state it.
The term Public Force, as it is in many other countries, is reserved for the Police.
The Police are trained with familiarity in criminal law, while military training is focused on war expertise. The law enforcement has been naturally and traditionally done by the providence of the police, not the military. As a matter of fact Honduran police normally attends to all Court enforcement needs. There is not a Honduras constitutional exception on this rule.
More conclusively, there was no other army that the military had the need to confront. The bottom line for this Supreme Court, or any other military coup facilitator, was that no military coup could be done without the military, because of, precisely, the overwhelming war force that makes a military coup successful.
The complicity of the Supreme Court in the military coup extends to not punishing the violations to the Constitution, the Criminal Code and the peace of the country inflicted by the military and their agents in the government:
3 These assertions can be corroborated by examining original Honduran courts documents compiled on a powerpoint presentation available on line at the military coup’s government site: http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/NR/rdonlyres/FB12D38C-64BE-433A-A648-1D416F57623A/2464/CasoJoséManuelZelayaRosales3.pps
Honduras: Constitutional Law Issues Errors on Report LL File No. 2009–002965 Page 4 of 9
a. Violation of Constitution Art. 278. — The orders given by the President of the Republic to the Armed Forces, through their Chief, must be followed and executed. [The Army is under the Executive as the Police is under the Judicial branches of power].
b. Penal Code4 Title XII, Chapter I, Art. 323. — Whoever offends the President of the Republic in his physical integrity or in his freedom will be punished by eight to twelve years in prison.
c. Penal Code Chapter II, Art. 328.- Who delinquents against the form of government will be sanctioned with prison from six to twelve years, and who executes actions directly aim to obtain by force, or outside of the legal venues, some of the following objectives:
1) To replace the republican, democratic and representative Govern by any other form of govern. [An elected President was replaced, after violent action and obscure Congress dealings, by a non-elected President].
d. Penal Code Chapter VI, Art. 336. – Criminals of rebellion are who use arms to topple a govern established legally or to change or to stop in all or in part the constitutional regiment in existence in which refers to formation, functioning or renovation of public powers.
e. Penal Code Art. 333. – It applies the punishment of reclusion from three (3) to five (5) years and fine from fifty thousand (L. 50,000.00) to hundred thousand (L. 100,000.00) to the official or public employee that:
3) Makes victim of humiliation or illegal pressures to the people trusted in their custody;
4) Does not process or resolve within legal terms an Habeas Corpus petition or protection or any other means to obstaculizing its processing; and
5) Order, execute or allow the expatriation of a Honduran citizen.
III. Did the Honduran National Congress properly approve the Articles of Impeachment of the President as provided for by the Honduran Constitution?
No, it didn’t. Because until June 26, 2009, Honduras Congress called only for an extraordinary session with the single agenda issue of electing the Congressional Commission, the first ever to investigate President Zelaya’s conduct. This commission reported a day after the military Coup (Monday June 29 at 12:20 AM. Military Coup happened on Sunday June 28th, 2009, at 5:30 AM). The Commission’s report did not present any article leading to President Zelaya’s impeachment, only some consideration points.
4 All references to Criminal Law are taken from Honduras Penal Code, Decree 144–83, available on line at:
http://www.congreso.gob.hn/Codigos/DECRETO%20144–83.pdf
Honduras: Constitutional Law Issues Errors on Report LL File No. 2009–002965 Page 5 of 9
It is not feasible that in less than three days, mostly during a weekend, a Congressional Commission could gather enough information about President Zelaya from different governmental offices, Congress members and the Executive Branch, as well as to classify this data, evaluate it, analyze it, reach conclusions and write a report. There was not enough time for an “extensive” investigation, but rather only time for cursory notes. And without such an extensive investigation on such a serious issue, the Congress did not have enough information to properly approve any impeachment against the President.
Congress claimed on Monday June 29th, 2009, at 12:37 AM to be in possession of a letter of resignation signed by the President four days earlier, coincidentally written in similar content as the considerations of the Congressional Commission. Why would the President have signed a letter of resignation and then not present it to the Supreme Court to avoid an order of arrest against him? A President who signs a letter of resignation is not a president who wants to be re-elected; all charges against him should have been dropped and his case closed.
The consequent Congressional Decree5 had no articles of impeachment, only six general and subjective considerations. It jumps to an article disapproving the President and then to the next removing him from office, with the ill intention that Congress can interpret disapproval as removal. The military coup idea that the Honduras Congress has the right to remove the President if it only disapproves of him.
The Congressional Commission’s improvised report and the mysterious Presidential resignation letter are the only two documents the National Congress has to show for the designation of its president Roberto Micheletti as president of Honduras. This designation would have never taken place if President Zelaya was not violently removed from his office and forced into expatriation and absence by the military coup a day before.
IV. Did the Supreme Court follow up by holding a proper, constitutionally mandated trial of the President?
No. The Supreme Court could not follow up by holding a proper, constitutionally mandate trial of the President, because President Manuel Zelaya was violently removed from his office by the military coup that forced him to be absent as a result of his expatriation on June 28th, 2009, and without the Supreme Court ordering the immediate return of President Manuel Zelaya to stand trial, then the Honduran Supreme Court did not follow up by holding a proper, constitutionally mandated trial of the President.
5 Congressional Commission’s report and Letter of Resignation are not available. Congressional Decree is attached here.
Honduras: Constitutional Law Issues Errors on Report LL File No. 2009–002965 Page 6 of 9
V. Was the removal of Honduran President Zelaya legal, in accordance with Honduran constitutional and statutory law?
No, it wasn’t. The previous four answers to the questions in the Report illustrate that the available sources used in the Report were insufficient. They missed the correlation of the facts, ignored Honduran law issues that were relevant to the case and did not show any awareness that the judicial and legislative branches of power were relentlessly seeking to criminalize President Zelaya.
Conclusions
The Honduran Congress and Supreme Court blamed President Zelaya for being the provocateur and the divisive one, but why the Supreme Court and Congress fall in a destructive spray to show who is must stubborn? This only brings Honduras to its knees, and everyone loses. It is time to stop it, to let President Zelaya finish his legal term. It was a mistake on the part of the Honduran Supreme Court to use the force in this matter, instead of trusting fully the rule of law. If the President would cheat with the Yes and No ballots then the world will be with Honduras for a just cause, but Army violence and dirty judicial play only damage Honduras. As demonstrated above, the removal of President Zelaya was not legal, it was not in accordance with Honduran constitutional and statutory law. Let us fully respect and trust the rule of law, and let democracy win.
It is important to note that the military coup’s purpose is to dispose forever of a duly President elected by the people of Honduras, José Manuel Zelaya Rosales. The November 29th, 2009, elections seals, perpetuates, fulfill and completes fully the goal of the military coup. Therefore, elections as the last thrust of the military coup should be declared null immediately and defined without any effect. This military coup uses the “law” as a shield to prevail, claiming to defend democracy in Honduras. If these forced elections are not stopped, democracies themselves would be legitimizing and legally accepting the aim and completion of the military coup.
José María Rodríguez González
U.S. and International Foreign Policy Analyst
September 2009
Honduras: Constitutional Law Issues Errors on Report LL File No. 2009–002965 Page 7 of 9
Attachment 1A:
Honduras: Constitutional Law Issues Errors on Report LL File No. 2009–002965 Page 8 of 9
Attachment 1B:
Honduras: Constitutional Law Issues Errors on Report LL File No. 2009–002965 Page 9 of 9
Attachment 2:
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:28 amRPT says:
All of this will be resolved when Jim Demint (R/South Carolina/Honduras) arrives on his Mitch McConnell sponsored trip to encourage the Michiletti government to stand firm and resist the efforts United States and the rest of the hemisphere. Apparently the R’s, currently celebrating the U.S.’ defeat in the Olympics selection process, have their own anti-American foreign policy as well.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 12:05 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Release the Koh Memorandum on Honduras says:
[...] other things, Kirchik notes the Law Library of Congress analysis (noted here): according to a recently released and widely overlooked report drafted by the Library of Congress, [...]
Frank says:
1.- The best thing that the Government of Honduras did is to kick Zelaya out of the country, why? Simple there was knowledge of Venezuelan, Nicaraguan insurgents in Honduras during those day (I they still present today), therefore if he would have been a trial and found Mr. Zelaya, such trial would have not have a completion since the Zelaya followers (with the help of the insurgents) would have kidnapped the judges and lawyers son and daughters, disrupt the peace outside the supreme court, etc. So the best thing that could have happen is that Zelaya would have been out of the country until things would get better between Hondurans.
2.- The constitution of Honduras does not provide impeachment, nor kicking a president out of office in that manner, again reefer to my first comment.
3.- It is not a coup because when the supreme court call the process that he wanted to follow the so called “survey” was illegal, in reality the supreme court in numerous time sent a letter to the president calling that such survey was illegal.
4.- There is a difference between freedom of speech and libertinage; the two news stations that were closed where used to promote riots and to preach incoherent news such as “it was a bad thing that the holocaust did not eliminate all the Jews”… Even hugo Lloren sent a letter to the president of such station because such disparate was put on the air.
5.- 80 percent of the population does not want Mr. Zelaya back in power, the other 20 percent are the ones that burning cars and throwing Molotov bombs in American establishments regardless of who is inside.
Quote
October 13, 2009, 6:12 pm