James Kirchik, writing in a recent issue of The New Republic, ponders the Administration continued insistence that there was a “coup” in Honduras. He concludes:
In the immediate wake of Honduras’s constitutional crisis, it was understandable that the administration, caught by surprise, might jump the gun in its denunciation of the military action as a “coup.” Now, three months later and with legal repudiation from within its own government, U.S. policy has become a mistake in search of a rationale.
Among 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, the actions the Honduran government took in removing Zelaya were consistent with that country’s constitutional procedures. Although the constitution does not contain specific information as to how a president can be impeached, the report did find that the Honduran Congress “used several other constitutional powers to remove President Zelaya from office.” Furthermore, the report also found that the country’s “Supreme Court, based on its constitutional powers, heard the case against Zelaya and applied the appropriate procedure mandated by the Code of Criminal Procedure.” In conclusion, the report, which was prepared by the Congressional Research Service’s Senior Foreign Law Specialist, determines “that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.”
In other words, far from fitting the administration’s description as a “coup d’état,” the report paints Zelaya’s removal as remarkably orderly and legalistic, especially in a region where the rule of law is so tenuous. The Obama administration’s position, predicated on its hasty conclusion that Zelaya’s removal was illegal, now appears squarely contradicted by the only known official analysis of the constitutional issues involved.
This last bit may need to be revised, as there appears to be another “official analysis” of the relevant legal issues, albeit one that has yet to be released. According to an op-ed by Senator Jim DeMint, who just returned from a trip to Honduras, there is a State Department report authored by State Department legal advisor Harold Koh.
In a day packed with meetings, we met only one person in Honduras who opposed Mr. Zelaya’s ouster, who wishes his return, and who mystifyingly rejects the legitimacy of the November elections: U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens.
When I asked Ambassador Llorens why the U.S. government insists on labeling what appears to the entire country to be the constitutional removal of Mr. Zelaya a “coup,” he urged me to read the legal opinion drafted by the State Department’s top lawyer, Harold Koh. As it happens, I have asked to see Mr. Koh’s report before and since my trip, but all requests to publicly disclose it have been denied.
If this report is indeed the basis for the Administration’s insistence that there was a “coup” in Honduras, and its decision not to recognize the pending November elections in which Zelaya could not be a candidate even were he to be reinstated, it should be released to Congress and the public. In the unlikely event that the legal analysis depends upon sensitive classified information, such material could easily be redacted.
The Honduran government has made numerous missteps, from forcibly removing Zelaya from the country to restricting press freedoms, but I have yet to see a legal analysis to plausibly explain how Zelaya’s removal from office (as opposed to his forced exile) was illegal or unconstitutional, and I have seen no analysis, legal or otherwise, that explains why the already scheduled November elections should not proceed as planned. Yet Harold Koh is quite smart — and I readily admit he knows far more about this subject than I ever will. So if he has an analysis that would support the Administration’s otherwise-implausible position, let’s see it. If not, then the U.S. government should let Honduras determine the course of their own affairs.
UPDATE: For a legal analysis that supports the Administration’s position, see this article by Douglass Cassel of the University of Notre Dame Law School. Harold Koh’s memo may well make similar arguments, but we can’t know for sure unless and until the memo is released.
Ugh says:
According to an op-ed by Senator Jim DeMint,
Ah. Now I’m convinced.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:31 amBrett Bellmore says:
I think something dropped out of that line; That said elections are, what? Somehow illegal?
[Fixed. Thanks! JHA]
The problem here is that what we’ve got is a fight between the executive and the rest of the government, and Obama is... this country’s executive. If he were in Zelaya’s position, HE wouldn’t want the Constitution to prevail, either.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:39 amBrett Bellmore says:
To expand on that, when it’s said that the world’s governments have been remarkably unanimous in backing Zelaya, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the world’s executive branches have been?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:42 amEli Rabett says:
You left out the part where they tossed Zelaya out of the country, that is the part that is against the Hondurian constitution and which made it a coup.
[Only I didn’t leave that part out. I wrote: “The Honduran government has made numerous missteps, from forcibly removing Zelaya from the country to restricting press freedoms, but I have yet to see a legal analysis to plausibly explain how Zelaya’s removal from office (as opposed to his forced exile) was illegal or unconstitutional.” JHA ]
Quote
October 10, 2009, 10:04 amArthurKirkland says:
If not, then the U.S. government should let Honduras determine the course of their own affairs.
So far as I can tell, we are letting Honduras determine the course of its own affairs. I have heard nothing about a plot to support a violent overthrow of the people currently holding
the gunspower in Honduras. Is the United States arranging distribution of machetes and machine-gun-equipped Jeeps, or training death squads? Has Elliott Abrams been reinstalled at State, or is Oliver North advising a “special” military office?If the United States expresses disapproval by refraining from sending money, or by refraining from inviting the current Minister Of Press Crackdowns to a diplomatic ball, that has little to do with violent entanglement in Honduran affairs . . . and constitutes a substantial improvement upon the United States’ record in this regard, in my judgment.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 10:12 amXanthippas says:
In other words, it was determined by the Honduran government that the Honduran government acted legally. Well, certainly can’t argue with definitive interpretations like that. If apologists for the coup-plotters are looking for arguments to bolster their criticisms of American non-condemnation, they could do better than that.
Also, the present government of Honduras would find it easier to bolster their support if they’d stop doing things like this:
Of course since they’re not-Iranian, none of this is credible.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 10:14 amChrisIowa says:
They should have just shot him and that would be OK?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 10:26 amgeokstr says:
So they should have kept him there instead and put him on trial for violating the constitution. That constitution still strips him of all power and authority immediately and without trial, so what is the difference? The Supreme Court determined he should be removed, and ordered his arrest. His own party voted afterwards that he should have been removed. His own Attorney General agreed with all these actions. The military did not take over anything, or ever even attempt to.
Their constitution simply didn’t say they could or could not “deport” him too, so that means it’s a “coup”? This logic makes a Mobius strip look like a straight line.
This will make the sixth time I have asked this question to all the leftwing commenters here. I hope I can get an answer at last:
I will give you credit though for not bringing up the phony “in his pajamas” line to justify calling it a coup (yet).
Quote
October 10, 2009, 10:33 amOren says:
To accept their point of view in the conflict is to take sides itself.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 10:41 amAllan Walstad says:
Brett Bellmore has a very good point.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 10:45 ampireader says:
Professor Adler –
The situation in Honduras is tense, with protest marches, police counter-actions, press censorship, etc. So what does it say about Senator DeMint’s open-mindedness and fact-finding ability that:
“In a day packed with meetings, we [DeMint et al.] met only one person in Honduras who opposed Mr. Zelaya’s ouster, who wishes his return, and who mystifyingly rejects the legitimacy of the November elections ...”
[I recognize that there are many Hondurans who support Zelaya. The point of citing Sen. DeMint is not that his report his representative of what is occurring in Honduras, but that the American official with whom they met relied upon — and referred him to — a State Department memorandum on the issue that the State Department has refused to release. JHA]
Quote
October 10, 2009, 10:45 amCareless says:
Difficult to perform a coup against an ex-president.
Do you really make the same complaints any time our Supreme Court rules that something is constitutional?
I just don’t get it. The Honduran government hasn’t acted perfectly, but that doesn’t make something a coup. I can’t see how a poster’s political leanings can prevent them from seeing that.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 10:50 amDerHahn says:
That DeMint is finding facts in consistent with the Obama Administration’s spin?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 10:59 amcookiemonsta says:
The military removes a sitting president from office, ships him out of the country, immediately suspends the constitution, and installs a death squad strongman as leader...nope, not a coup at all! And it’s especially not a coup because in an alternative universe where Zelaya was a Bush ally, leftists wouldn’t be complaining!
JHA is descending into parody: the coup leaders suspended the country’s constitution, but I have yet to see a legal analysis of how it was unconstitutional!
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:00 amtroll_dc2 says:
But who else should get to decide this matter? Why should not the legislative and judicial branches of the Honduran government be the authorities here? After all, it’s their country, not ours. To question their right to decide the issue and to suggest that the position favored by outside governments (like ours) should prevail is no different from saying that our own institutions should rely on world opinion in interpreting our Constitution. I smell a double standard at work.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:01 amcookiemonsta says:
This reminds me when of Guy Phillipe invaded Haiti with his death squad from the Dominican Republic and ousted democratically elected leader Aristide. The right wing in the US desperately tried to argue that it wasn’t a coup, and that the US wasn’t involved. Of course, Zelaya is a much less sympathetic character than Aristide, and also, like Honduras’ current de facto president, had strong ties to the Honduran death squads.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:05 amtroll_dc2 says:
cookiemonsta, have you read the Law Library of Congress analysis?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:07 amAGD says:
I live in Latin America and my opinion on the Honduras coup is simple: if, in absence of any preestablished constitutional mechanism, you can invent one which grants you (the Supreme Court) the abbility to order a President to be forcibly removed from the country in his pajamas by the armed forces without a trial, you can also invent one which grants him a trial, involves his finding guilty of violating the law and removes him from his authority as President (but not from the country), without the need to do things at gunpoint.
Besides, its not like the US is the only nation in the World opposing Micheletti. The US faces a huge diplomatic backlash from Brazil and the rest of Latin America if suddenly it decides to quit supporting Zelaya. Latin Americans are not yet sure whether to believe Obama’s Trinidad and Tobago Speech... backing Micheletti would settle the matter.
And don’t think my supporting Zelaya’s return has anything to do with being a radical leftist or anything. I am most defenetly a capitalist and sincerely dislike presidents like Zelaya, or Morales or Chavez. I simply believe this region has seen too many coups, and the fact that Honduras takes such a course of action when we all thought coups were (finally!) a thing of the past, is not something I am willing to tolerate.
I hope Zelaya returns, be properly indicted, found guilty at a trial, be legally removed of his authority, sent home and have the next corresponding hierarchical authority assume command of the country (the vice-president I guess?). Is that so terrible?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:22 amfrankcross says:
Well, I think it’s not totally easy either way. Clearly, if you respect internal institutions, the removal of Zelaya was constitutional and not a coup. The counter argument is that the judiciary itself may be a part of conducting a coup (as an affiliate of the military or whoever pursues the coup). This is not entirely implausible, as the Honduran judiciary has consistently received very low ratings from business groups and other evaluators. But still, it had the internal legal authority to take this action, which I presume is contrary to a coup. But I don’t think it is clear. Suppose a Constitution authorized the military to take emergency powers and overthrow a government, and it did so. Would you call that a coup?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:34 amConstantin says:
Yep. He doesn’t even have a Nobel Prize. Shmuck.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:42 amegd says:
Have you had a chance to meet Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
There’s no double standard, this position is entirely in conformity with modern progressive thought. And entirely at odds with the underlying values of the Peace of Westphalia and standards of self-determination.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:55 amAllan says:
Hey, what a good post. It amounts to: let’s do away with attorney/client privilege altogether.
By the way, I seem to remember a bunch of OLC opinions that were never released. There was no uproar from the conservatives at that time.
My take is: the legal opinions affect public policy, so they should be released. That was my take five years ago, too.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:55 amgirlyassmusic.com » “Honduran President Micheletti Blasts OAS During Crisis Talks” and related posts - 166th Edition says:
[...] Release the Koh Memorandum on Honduras - The Volokh Conspiracy [...]
JohnF says:
Surely the inference must be that the Koh memo hurts the administration’s position is some way, or it would be released. If it helped, it would have been released.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 12:38 pmInstapundit » Blog Archive » JONATHAN ADLER: Release the Koh Memorandum on Honduras. Sounds like Harold doesn’t think it’s his … says:
[...] ADLER: Release the Koh Memorandum on Honduras. Sounds like Harold doesn’t think it’s his best [...]
Hans Bader says:
Honduras’s removal of its ex-president from office — unlike his subsequent exile — was clearly legal under Honduran law, as legal scholars and foreign policy experts have noted.
But Harold Koh is a big believer in the notion that vaguely defined international norms constitute “customary international law” that trumps domestic law — whether it’s America’s laws or Honduras’s laws.
Honduras illustrates how “international consensus” can supplant national sovereignty and a democratic country’s own laws.
Honduras’s elected legislature and courts removed and replaced that country’s left-wing ex-president, a follower of Venezuela’s anti-American dictator Chavez, in a way that satisfied Honduras’s Constitution, but offended international sensibilities.
Honduras’s Constitution does not require impeachment to remove presidents who seek to change constitutional term limits, but automatically removes them from office under Article 239 of Honduras’s Constitution. And it gives the military, rather than police, an enforcement role under Article 272). So it was perfectly legitimate under Honduran law for Honduran troops to carry out the Honduran Supreme Court’s order to arrest the ex-president. (The ex-president, a power-hungry bully, had sought to rewrite his country’s constitution in violation of court orders, and had repeatedly refused to enforce a host of laws passed by the Congress, as well as spending government funds not authorized by any budget, and threatening citizens and public employees with firings and the cut-off of basic services if they refused to assist his unconstitutional plans.)
But the ex-president’s removal nonetheless offended international sensibilities (by using the military to arrest the ex-president).
International lawyers have said that they are not interested in whether the ex-president’s removal was legal under Honduras’s domestic law, and are judging its actions based solely on how it looked overseas to have soldiers arrest the ex-president and to have the ex-president removed without more “judicial process.”
(The classic example being the Dutch legal scholar who posts at this very blog as the commenter “Martinned,” who argued that he is as uninterested in whether the ex-president’s removal was legal under Honduran law as he is about whether Bush v. Gore was correctly decided).
In backing Honduras’s ex-president, demanding that Honduras allow him to return to office, and imposing travel and other sanctions on Honduras’s people when its supreme court refused to allow the ex-president’s return to Office, Obama may have catered to that international “consensus” at the expense of America’s interests — and at the expense of the rule of law and democracy in Honduras — while delighting anti-American rulers like Castro and Chavez, who back the ex-president, and also pleasing many socialists in Europe, who seem to prefer socialism without democracy to democracy without socialism (even if, unlike the brutal Castro, they would rather have both socialism AND democracy).
The legality under Honduran law of Honduras’s removal of its ex-president has been noted by many, including lawyers Dan Miller, Octavio Sanchez, and Miguel Estrada, former assistant secretary of state Kim Holmes, Stanford’s William Ratliff, and even “left-liberal” scholars.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 1:23 pmKevin says:
If Nixon had been impeached and convicted, but was using the power of the Executive branch to resist, claiming the Senate vote was unconstitutional or something, would it have been a “coup” if a company of Marines had put him on a plane back to California? Probably not.
Basically, the US is saying that we don’t recognize the judicial and legislative acts of some stinking banana republic and will impose our ideas of how their government should function since they’re a bunch of [insert slur] anyway.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 1:43 pmROSIE says:
AGD: you said “WE all thought coups were (finaly!)a thing of the past, is not something I am willing to tolerate”. I have news for you.... Wheather you tolerate it or not, the same kind of events will be happening in the future in other countries, the masses are awakening and willl not put up with that type of governments anymore. Just take a good look at Venezuela, the people are already protesting and the oilfield workers went on strike against the government. In Bolivia, the indians are protesting against the government. In Ecuador, even his own brother is against Correa, for not fulfilling his promises. In Nicaragua, the people do not want Ortega in power anymore. In Cuba, people do not want the Castro regime anymore, they all had enough. Sadly, there is not too much the cubans can do about it. The regime is already almost 50 years old and the only reason it succeeded is because Cuba does not have borders with any other country.... Open your eyes and see the world around you and everything that is going on. Every country has its own Constitution and every constitution is different. Honduras did what it had to do before the country could be taken over by Chavez and company. It is an internal affair, therefore, let the hondurans handle their own problem. The OAS is involved trying to fix the problem, but Honduras does not belong to the OAS. Why is the OAS trying to impose its will on Honduras? Why is the OAS trying to make the actual honduran government break the law and rule against its own Constitution? Why doesn’t the OAS get involved in what goes on in Venezuela? When this type of events take place everybody has something to say about it and it is called “freedom of speech”. But... if one is going to give an opinion on this matter, one has to, in this case, get a booklet of the Honduras Constitution and read it before reaching to conclusions. Just take a look at what happened to Mr. Arias, President of Costa Rica.... He did things backwards... first he talked too much about the honduran problem and even acted as “mediator” giving his opinion and setting the rules? to the “Acta de San Jose”, before even reading the honduran Constitution. And I am not making a story, . he, Mr. Arias, stated it himself during a press conference with the Miami Herald, and later repeated the same thing in other interviews. Besides... he is trying to “help” Mr. Zelaya get back in power.. Could it be because he also got back in power thru a referendum? the same way Chavez is in power now and Ortega and Morales pretend to do, and, without a doubt, more will follow. Nothing wrong with referendums if they are performed the legal way and if the Constitution allows it, but.... it is not a “forever” job as we see it happening in South America. The elected presidents are now making their own laws and doing as they please and mainly breaking the laws... and NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.... This is the reason why the “coups” are making a comeback...
Quote
October 10, 2009, 1:44 pmDaniel says:
Suppose the President of the United States did something that the Senate, House of Representatives and Supreme Court all considered unconstitutional, and they ordered the army to remove him from office. Would their doing so constitute a coup?
For example, suppose the President announced the end of wasteful presidential elections and declared himself President for Life.
Would this make him entitled to be President for Life?
Or perhaps Emperor?
Some people here seem to answer these questions positively, or at least they do so in the case of Honduras.
If so for Honduras, why not for the USA?
Amazingly enough the United States government seems to take exactly this position.
The only justification I have seen for this view is based on the treatment of the President after his removal by the Honduran legislature and supreme court.
Was he murdered? beaten? imprisoned? No, he was forced to leave the country. How inhuman.
Based on this outrage, the government of this country has refused to recognize the results of a future election in Honduras, one in which the ex-president is in any case barred from running by the Honduran constitution.
Does this amount to official US Government espousal of the doctrine that one presidential election victory once entitles the president to life rule?
Is this the message that the supporters of the Obama administration on this blog are trying to get across?
There are elements of humor though in the situation. The US Ambassador to Honduras, when asked to justify our policy there is quoted as recommending that one read the State Department Official report on the matter. However, the State Department refuses to release that report so that anyone can read it!
The only report actually released by an agency of our government, by the Library of Congress, claims that Zelaya was legally removed from power, and completely undermines our position!
Can anyone explain any of this?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 1:44 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Sure. The Administration likes Zelaya. What have they done so far to lead you to believe “rule of law” is a concept they care much about?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 2:02 pmNeo says:
Perhaps someday we will get to see that “legal opinion” of the State Department, but apparently it is under “double secret encrypted eyes-only shred before reading with a cherry on top” status and can’t be disturbed until Nancy Pelosi is able to get better cosmetic surgery.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 2:03 pmNathanM says:
Isn’t this pretty much the definition of a coup d’état? The constitution doesn’t give anyone the power to remove the president but the army did anyway. Other branches of government going along may or may not make it less bad but it’s still a coup.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 2:06 pmTransnationalist Harold Koh Behind Obama Administration’s Honduras Policy « Nice Deb says:
[...] Release the Koh Memorandum on Honduras The Honduran government has made numerous missteps, from forcibly removing Zelaya from the country to restricting press freedoms, but I have yet to see a legal analysis to plausibly explain how Zelaya’s removal from office (as opposed to his forced exile) was illegal or unconstitutional, and I have seen no analysis, legal or otherwise, that explains why the already scheduled November elections should not proceed as planned. Yet Harold Koh is quite smart — and I readily admit he knows far more about this subject than I ever will. So if he has an analysis that would support the Administration’s otherwise-implausible position, let’s see it. If not, then the U.S. government should let Honduras determine the course of their own affairs. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Harold Koh to State DeptRadical Leftist Obama: Selects Rosa Brooks (Sharia Law/Soros) To Operate Wi…Kenn Starr Backs Harold Koh For State GigJim DeMint: What I Heard in Honduras Posted in Honduras. 1 Comment » [...]
Kazinski says:
It appears that none of the Useful Idiots (I’m using that as a term of art, not necessarily as an insult) commenting on this thread have actually read the Library of Congress’s analysis of the Zelaya’s removal from power and forced exile.
There is no controversy over the fact that Zelaya was trying to use extra-constitutional means to stay in power past the end of his lawful term, and refused to follow multiple orders from the Supreme Court to desist. Congress is empowered to interpret the constitution by the constitution itself. Here is the relevant portion of analysis from the Library of Congress’s Directorate of Legal Research (which is obviously non-partisan):
Quote
October 10, 2009, 2:18 pmTallDave says:
This looks like a classic case of “no enemies to the left.”
Quote
October 10, 2009, 2:35 pmKazinski says:
Isn’t this pretty much the definition of a coup d’état? The constitution doesn’t give anyone the power to remove the president but the army did anyway. Other branches of government going along may or may not make it less bad but it’s still a coup.
Or don’t you believe in the rule of law?
Now to be sure in this case the military commander exceeded his orders by putting Zelaya on a flight out of the country, but that would be akin to an officer here executing a valid arrest warrant and then roughing up the suspect when he is in custody. Roughing him up may be illegal and actionable, but it does not invalidate the legal arrest.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 3:04 pmsol vason says:
What everyone forgets is that every constitution for every country in South and Central American contains an unwritten clause that permits the US President to interpret that constitution as he sees fit.
Therefore, if Obama says the expulsion of Zelaya is a coup, then it is a coup. This rule is the basis for 200 years of Yanqui Imperialismo.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 3:21 pmJim Treacher says:
No, you’re a partisan idiot.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 3:30 pmkwo says:
@ArthurKirkland
Straw man argument. That the U.S. doesn’t force Honduras to reinstate Zelaya doesn’t mean the U.S. isn’t interfering in Honduran affairs.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 3:52 pmTacoBill says:
Castro, Chavez, Oretega, and Ahmadinejad all support Zelaya. These are intellectually honorable and honest leaders who concern for the rule of law, and the welfare of their nation, and the now shackled citizens of Honduras, is unquestioned. Obama and the United States should continue to stand proudly next to these thoughtful and compassionate leaders, whose deep respect for the common man, and the economic equality of all races and all religions are a glorious beacon, lighting the highway to that “shining city on the hill” for the entire planet.
signed,
George Soros, MoveOn, Media Matters, Center for American Progress, America Coming Together, Vladimir Putin
Quote
October 10, 2009, 3:54 pmSteve Johnson says:
Still the oddest “coup” I’ve ever seen.
Ordered by two of the three branches of the government.
Removal of chief executive from office required by the Constitution.
Military acting under authority of court order from the highest court.
Constitutionally designated replacement (of the same political party) appointed.
Entire government apparatus still in place.
Regularly scheduled national elections still to take place.
Elected civilian government, not the military, remains in power.
Military remains subordinate to the civilian government.
The strong man is removed from power rather than put into power.
The Jingoists are from the left wing of the US government.
Mistakes aside, the only unconstitutional act was that the Supreme Court gave Mel a warning first, instead of ordering his removal immediately.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 4:09 pmMe says:
We shouldn’t be distracted by all of this talk of coups and politics. We really should all focus on the truly important event happening in Honduras at this time; that is the US men’s national soccer team qualifying for the World Cup finals. USA! USA!
Quote
October 10, 2009, 4:11 pmBlogDog says:
Ugh,
Perhaps if Sen. DeMint had sat beside a hotel pool in Tegucigalpa drinking tea and talking with people who came by, his views would be utterly convincing to you.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 4:11 pmred says:
Tea-Party Protests, Honduras Style: Images of Anti-Zelaya Protest
Here are more photos from the July 22, 2009 in Tegucigalpa. To review:
July 22, 2009 | Organizers called it “the Great March of Patriotism and Courage,” which began at 10 :00 local time in Tegucigalpa.
Demonstrators sought to lend support the government of (President) Roberto Micheletti Baín and rejecting the return of Manuel Zelaya Rosales, the deposed president. Dozens of men and
http://gregcontreras.blogspot.com/2009/09/tea-party-protests-honduras-style.html
Supporters of Honduras’ post-coup leader Roberto Micheletti take part in a rally in a public park in Tegucigalpa, capital of Honduras, June 30, 2009. Thousands of supporters of the interim President Roberto Micheletti joined anti-Zelaya rally here on Tuesday protesting against the change of Institute and the return of ousted President Zelaya. (Xinhua/David De La Paz)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009–07/01/content_11634400_7.htm
Quote
October 10, 2009, 4:14 pmEAM says:
JHA — there are actually more than one legal analyses out there in cyberspace showing on a point by point basis how the Golpistas (Coupsters?) violated the Honduran constitution by their actions against President Zelaya. Most are in Spanish, as we would expect, but a few have been translated. The most comprehensive analysis was released recently, written by a very distinguished authority on Honduran Constitutional law, Dr. Edmundo Orellano. You may recall that Orellano was President Zelaya’s Minister of Defense who resigned his cabinet post just days before the coup d’etat. Although he felt the courts decision on the opinion poll was absurd, Orellano nevertheless felt that the order to stop the poll should be respected. Orellano’s Coup D’état in Honduras. A Juridical Analysis, has been translated and is available at Adrienne Pine’s Quotha web site.
Furthermore, The Law Library of Congress’ report is fatally flawed on two important issues. The first is under the auspices of the Honduran constitution, congress does not have the power to interpret the constitution. It’s true, as Kazinski points out above, that Article 205, Section 21 says that it authorizes the National Congress to appoint special commissions, but that article was ruled by the Supreme Court of Honduras to be unconstitutional on May 7, 2003. The ruling was based on the concern that if congress had this power, there would be no separation of powers in the Honduran government. In defense of Ms. Gutierrez, the author of the Law Library report, she would not have had knowledge of this court ruling from the law library’s holdings because the Honduran congress at the time blocked the ruling from being published in La Gaceta (the Honduran equivalent of our Congressional Record). However, under Honduran law, a court ruling is authority whether or not it is published, unlike legislation which must be published to become law.
The second flaw the the LLC report is that it makes a brand new argument, instead of evaluating the legal arguments produced by the Honduran congress that justified the actions against Zelaya. Rather than being a legal report then, the report functions as a defense team trying to introduce new evidence after discovery.
See the analyses offered by Armando Sariento, again at Quotha.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 4:43 pmClaude Hopper says:
If you want to know about Honduras from the inside, check out PJTV. They sent an crew down there shortly after the Zelaya ouster, and produced several on camera interviews with insiders. None of it jibs with the MSM take on the situation.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 4:45 pmEAM says:
My error: I meant to cite Article 205, Section 10 grants the power to the National Congress to interpret the Constitution;
Quote
October 10, 2009, 4:50 pmBen P says:
Ok, attempting to look at this with something of an open mind, I see a pretty serious problem with the report from the Law Library Of Congress.
Those available sources?
Perez-Cadalso is one of the individuals who came to the US in July to testify in support of the current government. IE, if you consider this a coup, he’s openly testified in support of the Coup Leaders. Whether you consider this a coup or a legitimate takeover, I’m not so sure you can cite a phone conversation with someone inside the replacement government as support for the legal conclusion that the replacement was completely legal.
Something else in the OP really bothered me, although it’s technically in Jim DeMint’s article not Prof. Adler’s post.
This is almost patently misleading. If you’ll excuse a wikipedia link, The reason that they “only” encountered a single other person who insisted that the current government was illegitimate is because practically every country in the region as well as the EU Countries have withdrawn their ambassadors from Honduras already. If anything, the U.S.‘s response to this has been rather tame, while Obama called the current government illegitimate, he specifically refrained from calling this a coup, because apparently that would trigger the automatic cutoffs of aid to Honduras.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 4:53 pmBen P says:
One other bit I intended to include. If we’re considering actual legal analyses of the constitution, I’ve seen at least two other analysesthat seem equally plausible, and both of which draw the opposite conclusion. That the replacement of Zelaya was not legally conducted.
Doug Cassel (who’s a law professor at Notre Dame), published “Honduras: a coup d’etat in constitutional clothing? in the American Society of International Law journal.
There’s also the 28th of June and the Constitution by Edumundo Orellana, who was a cabinet official in Zelaya’s government who resigned prior to his arrest because he disagreed with Zelaya’s decision to fire the Chief of staff of the military.
Although I think more than anything it shows the difficulty of trying to guess at another country’s constitutional law, I’d be interested in anyone providing reasons why the Gutierrez report from the library of congress that decides the replacement was valid is inherently more reliable than other analyses which look equally valid.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 5:04 pmKazinski says:
EAM,
“Article 205, Section 10 grants the power to the National Congress to interpret the
Constitution;”
And later the Supreme Court publishes and Opinion saying that a provision of the Constitution is invalid, and it has final authority to interpret the Constitution. That is indeed a conundrum, but it really is just a footnote to this case. Since both the Supreme Court and the Congress claim the capability to interpret the constitution, with constitutional provisions to back them, and since both have interpreted the Constitution to give them the power to remove the President for cause, then either way the President loses, legally.
If it was the case that either Congress or the Supreme Court were on the side of the President it would make things a lot more complicated.
As a hypothetical, imagine in the United States, if Congress and the Supreme Court unite on removing the President, then he’s leaving. Even if Congress and the Courts disagree on the rational. Also note that the Honduran constitution has a provision entitling the Courts to enlist the direct aid of the Military in implementing it’s decision, which is not the case in the US.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 5:17 pmKazinski says:
I’d be interested in anyone providing reasons why the Gutierrez report from the library of congress that decides the replacement was valid is inherently more reliable than other analyses(sic) which look equally valid.
Actually the Supreme Court and Congress of Honduras would seem to be most legitimate authority for analysis of the Honduran Constitution.
In the US anybody with a soapbox, or a law degree, or both, are wont to pontificate on what the constitution means. But while we may disagree on Supreme Court decisions, we don’t question the legitimacy. And when we do disagree, we may agitate for changing the law, amending the constitution, or reversing the decision, but we don’t question that the Supreme Court has the final say. And we could care less what foreigners think.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 5:31 pmfrankcross says:
Would that it were so, Kazinski. But there actually is a pretty vigorous minority in the US who has questioned whether the Supreme Court has the final say. Interestingly, it seems to be associated with those who don’t like the Supreme Court’s outcomes. Used to be conservatives who railed against judicial supremacy, now seems to be more liberals
Quote
October 10, 2009, 5:45 pmAndrew Lale says:
Surely if what EAM is saying about Spanish-language legal analyses ‘showing on a point by point basis how the Golpistas (Coupsters?) violated the Honduran constitution’ is true, and they are rife on the web, how come not one person has bothered to translate and bullet point them?
And anyway, as Steve Johnsons excellent synopsis shows, a reasonable man would not see this situation as a ‘coup’. There are enough real deals to make the comparison very easy.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 6:12 pmBen P says:
Point taken, but I think if you take this argument to its logical conclusion you just end up with something akin to “history is written by the victors.” The Supreme Court ruled against the president, the president lost and was arrested, the supreme court is the most qualified party to make that ruling, ergo, their ruling was correct.
But we also have a foreign policy perogative to associate with whichever countries we wish, and to not associate with whichever countries we wish. I certainly see the logical basis for saying “A country’s domestic relations are its domestic problems, we’ll associate with countries when it’s in our own interest, regardless of what happens domestically” but I think anyone would have to admit that there’s a lot of people that don’t believe that. If we do start picking and choosing on some other basis, a government that upholds the rule of law is one such quality that might be a legitimate basis for deciding.
I also think everyone would accept that there are some sorts of domestic policy that should automatically cause us to cut off relations, but at what point is it “obvious” vs “we’re guessing at what their law means?”
As for Honduras, whether or not Zelaya was properly removed, if elections proceed in November and are not in some way patently unfair, I’d find it very difficult to assert that the elected government was not the legitimate one.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 6:19 pmwillis says:
EAM, interesting conclusion that neither the Congress or Supreme Court had the authority to remove a President operating in complete disregard of and in violation of their Constitution by attempting to illegally succeed himself. It would seem from your arguments that the office of Prsident in Honduras is actually the office of dictator for life.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 6:20 pmTwirlip says:
It’s true, as Kazinski points out above, that Article 205, Section 21 says that it authorizes the National Congress to appoint special commissions, but that article was ruled by the Supreme Court of Honduras to be unconstitutional on May 7, 2003.
So the Honduran Supreme Court ruled that a section of the Honduran Constitution was unconstitutional? How very “progressive” of them. Did they cite any authority to alter the constitution?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 6:24 pmBen P says:
I’m not sure what the special significance of a bullet point is, but there have been several counter analyses linked in this very thread.
Armando Sarmiento — argues against the conclusions in the Library of Congress paper
Coup D’état in Honduras. A Juridical Analysis, by Edmundo Orellana
The 28th of June and the Constitution — also by Edmundo Orellana (that whole blog appears to deal with Honduras, although I’ve not read all posts.
Honduras: Coup d’Etat in Constitutional
Clothing? by Doug Cassel, The American Society of international law
Quote
October 10, 2009, 6:26 pmyankee says:
When the military seizes the President at night, deports him, and arrests his political allies; the government proceeds to institute an arbitrary curfew, arrest protestors, and shut down opposition media; government-backed death squads execute opponents with charges or trial; and the new government orders the constitution suspended, then it looks an awful lot like a coup.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 6:28 pmConnecticut Lawyer says:
Whether or not the removal of Zelaya from power was legal under Honduran law, there seems to be no dispute that Zelaya is not eligible to run for another term and that the scheduled election is lawful. So I do not understand the Administration’s argument for opposing the holding of the election. That election should resolve all disputes about who the lawful president is. What am I missing?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 6:31 pmTwirlip says:
Although I think more than anything it shows the difficulty of trying to guess at another country’s constitutional law, I’d be interested in anyone providing reasons why the Gutierrez report from the library of congress that decides the replacement was valid is inherently more reliable than other analyses which look equally valid.
Having looked at one such analysis you provide, that by Doug Cassel, all I can respond with is, “Is that all you’ve got?”.
Cassel hinges his case on the proposition that the Honduran Congress removed Zelaya, and that they lacked constitutional authority to do so. We don’t even need to get into the details of this argument, as the Honduran Supreme Court took the same position as the Honduran Congress.
Do the Honduran courts and Congress acting together have the authority to remove a law-breaking chief executive? Cassel never even addresses this question, which is the question at issue here. If Cassel ever addresses the facts of this case and not some facts which he seems to have manufactured himself, I’ll come back and examine what he has to say.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 6:42 pmEAM says:
Kazinski, reign yourself in a bit, my friend. I used 205–10 to show why the LLC report was flawed, since it erroneously cited the article as law. Your argument here isn’t about the report at all, but about what happened in Honduras three months ago. For that, I think you should study Orellano’s opinion carefully — he certainly is an expert on the Honduran constitution, where I certainly am not. If you have an argument, it should be addressed to the expert opinion — doesn’t that seem reasonable?
I think you need to revisit what the Supreme Court actually ordered on June 26. Finding sufficient merit concerning the commission of the actions, an order of capture is delivered...so that [the military] will place under judicial authority [President Zelaya], and once having done so take the statement of the accused. And it specified that the operation be taken on an unspecified date between 6am and 6pm, as the constitution requires. This is a broad order — it could play out as issuing a citation and obtaining a statement, or physical detainment etc. No where does the Supreme Court authorize Zelaya’s removal from office, or certainly kidnapping and exile. In fact, the Supreme Court had already began a legal process, appointing one of it’s members as investigator that would ultimate result in a legal trial on the charges against Zelaya, which at that time were relatively minor (ignoring a court order etc.) That said, it was the Congress and Military who brought about the coup. It’s just distortional to claim that the Supremes were (originally) in concert with the coup d’etat, although they later issued retroactive rulings that made them so.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 6:45 pmrpt says:
Does anyone have a problem with DeMint (with McConnell $) running his own foreign policy? Can this be answered without reference to “but they did it too”?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 6:49 pmTwirlip says:
When the military seizes the President at night, deports him, and arrests his political allies; the government proceeds to institute an arbitrary curfew, arrest protestors, and shut down opposition media; government-backed death squads execute opponents with charges or trial; and the new government orders the constitution suspended, then it looks an awful lot like a coup.
That’s like saying that “When men with guns break into your home and take you away and imprison you, it looks a lot like kidnapping”. It may, depending on whether the men with guns are agents of the state enforcing the states laws.
When the military seizes the President at night...
There is willful blindness at work in all of these formulations. The “military” in the this case was not acting on its own initative but rather in its lawful role as an arm of the lawful government and defender of the Honduran Constitution — in a law-enforcement role.
If the defenders of Zelaya persist in the habit of pretending that the military acted on their own then they are admitting the fundamental weakness of their case.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 6:52 pmTwirlip says:
Does anyone have a problem with DeMint (with McConnell $) running his own foreign policy?
I have a problem with moronic trolls who can’t argue the matter under discussion. Perhaps your efforts would be more in place back at Daily Kos.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 6:55 pmRebeccaH says:
I believe Mr. Koh might well be the next body under the bus (after we get ride of the “safe schools for predators” czar, Kevin Jennings, that is).
Quote
October 10, 2009, 7:00 pmHans Bader says:
Doug Cassel’s argument that Honduras’s removal of its ex-president was an illegal coup rests on 3 fallacies or logical errors:
(1) A lawful removal of a president from office becomes a “coup” if he subsequently is illegaly subjected to “forced expatriation”
(2) Any illegal removal of a president is a “coup” (never mind that definitions of “coup” require not just illegality, but also that the removal be backed by just a “small group” — and Cassel concedes that there was broad, almost unanimous support in Honduras’s government for the ex-president’s removal)
(3) A court or legislature must cite a constitutional provision in removing a president from office, or subsequent reliance on the provision is just irrelevant “ex post facto” reasoning that can be ignored (never mind that even American courts sometimes issue rulings first, and opinions explaining them only later — as a federal appeals court recently did in the landmark Chrysler bankruptcy case)
None of these 3 assumptions made by Douglass Cassel is valid, as I earlier explained in a commentary at The Examiner:
Aid to Honduras to be cut off, based on legal error by Obama’s State Department
by Hans Bader, August 30, 2009
The Obama Administration is about to cut off aid to Honduras, one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. Earlier, the Obama Administration blocked travel to the United States by the people of Honduras.
Both actions are 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.
State Department lawyers, who are not experts on Honduran law, plan to declare the ex-president’s removal a “military coup” to justify cutting off aid, even though Honduras has a civilian president, and the ex-president was lawfully removed from office (although his subsequent exile may technically have violated Honduran law).
The State Department, OAS, and Latin American dictators like Castro and Chavez have demanded the ex-president’s reinstatement, regardless of whether that violates the Honduran Constitution. (The OAS Secretary-General, a Chilean Socialist, has drawn criticism from the Washington Post for his left-wing theatrics, while the OAS’s supposedly neutral “mediator” is a left-leaning supporter of expanded presidential powers and restrictions on freedom of the press.)
The ex-president’s removal was perfectly constitutional, say many lawyers and foreign policy experts, including attorneys Octavio Sanchez, Miguel Estrada, and Dan Miller, former Assistant Secretary of State Kim Holmes, Stanford’s William Ratliff, and the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady.
Journalists nonsensically refer to Honduras’s removal of its ex-president as a “coup” even while admitting that it was approved by the country’s supreme court, and stating that it was ordered by the court. But if it was legal, by definition, it cannot be a coup, since a coup is defined as “the unconstitutional overthrow of a legitimate government by a small group.”
Moreover, the ex-president’s removal was not a “coup” because it was not committed by a “small group,” as the definition of “coup” requires. The removal of Honduras’s president was supported by the entire Honduran Supreme Court, an almost unanimous Honduran Congress, and much of Honduran society. Honduras did not lose its government, but merely replaced one illegitimate part of it: its overbearing president. And his removal from office (as opposed to his subsequent exile) was clearly legally justified.
The fact that solders, not police, enforced the removal of Honduras’s ex-president does not make it a coup. Because soldiers, “instead of the police,” carried out the court’s orders to arrest the ex-president, the removal has been falsely called a “military coup” by liberal journalists, the Obama Administration, the Carter Center, and the leftist regimes that now prevail in much of Latin America. But soldiers’ participation made sense. Only soldiers, not police, would have enough manpower to remove a would-be dictator who was the most powerful man in his country, with his own bodyguards. More importantly, the Honduran Constitution expressly vests the military — not police — with the power to enforce Constitutional guarantees like term limits, in Article 272. The president forfeited his right to rule by proposing an end to term limits (Honduras has had such a problem with elected presidents later becoming “presidents for life” through vote fraud and intimidation that Article 239 of the Honduras Constitution strips presidents of the presidency if they even “propose” an end to term limits). And soldiers have occasionally been used to enforce court orders, even in the U.S., such as in the 1957 Little Rock desegregation order.
The State Department staff are reported to have a ridiculous response to all this. The State Department is apparently well aware of the constitutional provisions that justify the ex-president’s removal, but believes that they are irrelevant because they were not cited by the Honduran Supreme Court prior to the President’s removal. The U.S. Embassy in Honduras argues that because the court did not cite Article 239 in its order to arrest the President, Article 239’s provision stripping presidents of their office for proposing an end to term limits (as Honduras’s ex-president did) is an irrelevant after-the-fact “post-removal” rationalization.
The State Department staff’s position reflects a basic misunderstanding of how courts operate in the real world. It is quite common for courts to rule first, and issue an opinion explaining their reasoning later, especially in election disputes and other cases where courts need to rule rapidly (like removing a would-be dictator). Many of the court rulings in the Bush v. Gore litigation, for example, were issued first, with the court opinions explaining them following only later. When the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal government’s bankruptcy plan for Chrysler, it ruled first on June 5, and issued its opinion explaining its order only two months later, on August 5. When the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Georgia Thompson’s conviction and ordered her release from jail in United States v. Thompson, 484 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2007), it did so from the bench, “without waiting until completion of a written decision,” and explained its decision only 2 weeks later. Thus, the fact that the Honduras Supreme Court did not explicitly cite Article 239 in its decisions leading to the ex-president’s removal is of no consequence.
Confronted with the sound legal basis for removing the ex-president under his country’s constitution, the Obama Administration has responded with a series of increasingly weak rationalizations for stubbornly seeking to force his return on the Honduran people.
For example, President Obama has erroneously suggested that people have a “universal right” to keep the presidents they elected in office — even, apparently, if they violate their country’s constitution, as Honduras’s ex-president did. That is certainly not true in the U.S.: Richard Nixon was reelected in a landslide in 1972, but was forced to leave office 2 years later after he attempted to cover up the Watergate burglary.
Obama’s nominee for assistant secretary of state has erroneously argued that presidents should not be removed without unspecified “judicial process.” That argument is at odds with our own Constitution’s provision for legislative impeachment; Honduras’s constitutional provision automatically stripping presidents of their office if they even propose changes to constitutional term limits, without the need for impeachment or conviction; and the fact that Honduras’s ex-president was in fact removed through a “judicial” order, that has now been reaffirmed in a “judicial process.”
The Obama Administration earlier ignored bedrock constitutional principles by taking actions predicated on the erroneous idea that Honduran legislators and judges lost their right to hold office when Honduras’s ex-president was removed. That’s like saying that after Richard Nixon resigned in Watergate, all of his judicial appointees (including the 4 Supreme Court justices he appointed, such as Harry Blackmun and William Rehnquist) should have automatically lost their posts, and the entire Congress should have resigned. In an effort to pressure Honduras’s legislature and courts, Obama’s State Department earlier rescinded the visas of a Honduran Supreme Court justice, the leader of Honduras’s Congress, and its human-rights ombudsman, who had criticized human-rights abuses and intimidation by the ex-president. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly justified the taking away of the visas by saying that “We don’t recognize Roberto Micheletti as the president of Honduras. We recognize Manuel Zelaya.” U.S. Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens similarly explained the revocation of a supreme court justice’s visa by saying that “the Supreme Court justice was part of the ‘regime.’”
But Congress and the Supreme Court are co-equal branches of government that do not lose their right to hold office merely because the president leaves his office. Presidents are not emperors. They are not the government, but merely part of it. President Obama was not taught this bizarre theory of imperial power at Harvard Law School, which he and I both attended.
Obama’s demand that Honduras reinstate its would-be dictator has emboldened other elected leaders in Latin America to try to make themselves dictators. (Even the liberal Washington Post, which has not endorsed a Republican for president since 1952, admitted in an editorial by Deputy Editorial Page Editor Jackson Diehl that the Obama Administration has shown a “willful disregard of political oppression” by left-wing dictators in Latin America).
Obama’s demand that Honduras’s ex-president be returned to office has been supported by the Cuban communist dictator Castro and the Venezuelan socialist dictator Chavez, who counted Honduras’s deposed president as an ally, despite his background as a wealthy and corrupt landowner.
But 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
October 10, 2009, 7:02 pmHans Bader says:
The legality under Honduran law of Honduras’s removal of its ex-president has been noted by many, including lawyers Dan Miller, Octavio Sanchez, and Miguel Estrada, former assistant secretary of state Kim Holmes, Stanford’s William Ratliff, and even “left-liberal” scholars.
In the comment above this one, I refute the argument of Doug Cassel of Notre Dame claiming that it was an illegal coup.
Honduras’s removal of its ex-president from office — unlike his subsequent exile — was clearly legal under Honduran law, as legal scholars and foreign policy experts have noted.
But Harold Koh is a big believer in the notion that vaguely defined international norms constitute “customary international law” that trumps domestic law — whether it’s America’s laws or Honduras’s laws.
Honduras illustrates how “international consensus” can supplant national sovereignty and a democratic country’s own laws.
Honduras’s elected legislature and courts removed and replaced that country’s left-wing ex-president, a follower of Venezuela’s anti-American dictator Chavez, in a way that satisfied Honduras’s Constitution, but offended international sensibilities.
Honduras’s Constitution does not require impeachment to remove presidents who seek to change constitutional term limits, but automatically removes them from office under Article 239 of Honduras’s Constitution. And it gives the military, rather than police, an enforcement role under Article 272). So it was perfectly legitimate under Honduran law for Honduran troops to carry out the Honduran Supreme Court’s order to arrest the ex-president. (The ex-president, a power-hungry bully, had sought to rewrite his country’s constitution in violation of court orders, and had repeatedly refused to enforce a host of laws passed by the Congress, as well as spending government funds not authorized by any budget, and threatening citizens and public employees with firings and the cut-off of basic services if they refused to assist his unconstitutional plans.)
But the ex-president’s removal nonetheless offended international sensibilities (by using the military to arrest the ex-president).
International lawyers have said that they are not interested in whether the ex-president’s removal was legal under Honduras’s domestic law, and are judging its actions based solely on how it looked overseas to have soldiers arrest the ex-president and to have the ex-president removed without more “judicial process.”
(The classic example being the Dutch legal scholar who posts at this very blog as the commenter “Martinned,” who argued that he is as uninterested in whether the ex-president’s removal was legal under Honduran law as he is about whether Bush v. Gore was correctly decided).
In backing Honduras’s ex-president, demanding that Honduras allow him to return to office, and imposing travel and other sanctions on Honduras’s people when its supreme court refused to allow the ex-president’s return to Office, Obama may have catered to that international “consensus” at the expense of America’s interests — and at the expense of the rule of law and democracy in Honduras — while delighting anti-American rulers like Castro and Chavez, who back the ex-president, and also pleasing many socialists in Europe, who seem to prefer socialism without democracy to democracy without socialism (even if, unlike the brutal Castro, they would rather have both socialism AND democracy).
Quote
October 10, 2009, 7:06 pmBen P says:
I’m not really sure how the fact that the Congress and the SUpreme Court agree is relevant unless your argument is simply “because everyone agrees they must be right.”
As I understand Cassel’s argument (and borrowing from the other source) neither the Congress nor the Court have power to remove the president form office by themselves. Congress has the power to recommend an impeachment to the court, and the Court has power to hear cases relating to the impeachment of executive officals.
In this case, none of that was followed. The court issued an order directing the military to arrest Zelaya, and he was arrested and deported without any influence from congress.
Subsequently, and after Zelaya was out of the country, the president of Congress (who now also happens to be the “acting president”) presented Congress with an almost certainly manufactured “resignation letter” from Zelaya. Congress voted to “approve” this resignation.
After the fact, and several days later, Congress issued a “decree” deposing Zelaya and citing several justifications. Cassel focuses on that decree.
Because of the structural differences it’s difficult to analogize, but the analogy in the US system might be something akin to the SUpreme Court holding a hearing, ruling that President Obama had violated the Constitution and ordering his arrest. Obama is arrested and deportedTHe house chooses to accept Obama’s “resignation” and votes to approve Pelosi as president. Meanwhile the Senate holds an “trial” and rules after the fact that the president is convicted.
All parties might agree, but that’s really not how it was supposed to have been done at all.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 7:09 pmTwirlip says:
The charge against the Democrats during the Cold War days was they were operationally pro-Communist. Whatever the merits of that charge then, it is fascinating and disturbing to observe the modern Democratic Party displaying its affection for dictators and would-be dictators world-wide.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 7:12 pmTwirlip says:
I’m not really sure how the fact that the Congress and the SUpreme Court agree is relevant unless your argument is simply “because everyone agrees they must be right.”
Do you accept the proposition that US Supreme Court and Congress have the authority to remove a law-breaking chief executive? If not, why not? If so, why do you deny such authority to the Honduran legislature and courts?
Whether the courts and legislature are “right” or not is one of those ineresting philsophical games that are ultimately meaningless. The structure of the US-style divsion of power between a legislature, judiciary, and executive branch is such that what is “right” is what a least two out of the three say is right. I don’t know what other practical defintion of the “right” can be found. (Although we can see Zelaya defenders seeking to argue that the “right” is to be found in the court of Latin America opinion.)
Quote
October 10, 2009, 7:22 pmBen P says:
Only if they follow the constitutionally mandated process for removing him. Are you really arguing that as long as the two other branches agree on something they what they’re doing is automatically constitutional? This isn’t a philosophical question at all, it’s a question of the basic principles of rule of law. Either the political will dictates and “the law follows” or the law binds the political actors to act in certain ways.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 7:29 pmEAM says:
The argument that the Honduran constitution does not provide for impeachment is false, although there is no explicit Impeachment Clause. The power comes through Article 205, 218 and 319 of the 1982 constitution. Congress has the power to decide if there are grounds for impeachment, the Supreme Court is charged with trying cases convened from congress, and the President cannot veto the decisions of congress. However, subsequently these articles had been removed from the constitution by special amendments. By Decree 9–99-E, Feb. 2002, the impeachment procedures were moved to the Penal Code. In 2004, Decree 195‑2004, these codes were amended and the regulations finalized in December. Here’s what is required for the procedings against the most high functionaries of the state and congress members: Article 414: Establishes that the procedures to be defined are the only ones that can be followed to proceed against high government officials.
Article 415: The Supreme Court receives the request, accusation, or complaint from the competent authority or victim, along with the evidence or an indication of where the evidence can be obtained.
Article 416: The Supreme Court designates one justice to undertake the preliminary and intermediary phases of the case. Following that, three justices and one alternate are appointed to hear oral arguments in the case. A similar process is followed when an appeal follows. The same court hears accusations against both the high government official who has immunity from ordinary prosecution and any others accused in the same action who are not high government officials.
Article 417: Defines procedures for review of any decision by the three-person tribunal that is constituted in Article 416, by the remaining justices of the Supreme Court.
[Source]
The Supeme Court did actually start the procedures, and only got to the requirements of the first sentence of Article 416. What happened after was exactly illegal under Honduran law and their constitution.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 7:31 pmTwirlip says:
Because of the structural differences it’s difficult to analogize, but the analogy in the US system might be something akin to the SUpreme Court holding a hearing, ruling that President Obama had violated the Constitution and ordering his arrest. Obama is arrested and deportedTHe house chooses to accept Obama’s “resignation” and votes to approve Pelosi as president. Meanwhile the Senate holds an “trial” and rules after the fact that the president is convicted.
All parties might agree, but that’s really not how it was supposed to have been done at all.
Because of the structal differences it is not possible to make close analogies, as you admit. So why do you attempt to make one? Why this effort to reduce this to a debate over legal minutiae. Why this odd obsession with poring over the actions of the Honduran legislature and courts in detal while ignoring the actions of Zelaya?
What I’d like to see here is an admission from the American left that Zelaya should have been removed from office, and less arging over the details of a foreign constitution. I’d like to see a clear and unequivocal repudiation of dictators and would be dictators, and less de facto endorsement of them.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 7:35 pmTwirlip says:
Only if they follow the constitutionally mandated process for removing him. Are you really arguing that as long as the two other branches agree on something they what they’re doing is automatically constitutional? This isn’t a philosophical question at all, it’s a question of the basic principles of rule of law. Either the political will dictates and “the law follows” or the law binds the political actors to act in certain ways.
This is breathtakingly naive. The “basic principles of the rle of law” in the US is that the law is what the courts say it is.
If you can conjecture me some scenario under which the SCOTUS and Congress agree to do something which is then legally held to be “illegal” (by who?) then I’d be pleased to see it.
On the less philosophical question, you are begging it. That Zelaya was not lawfully removed is what you’re trying to argue, for whatever reasons of your own. You can’t just assume it.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 7:46 pmDragonswirl says:
EAM,
At one point you discount the Library of Congress report because Mr. Guillermo Pérez-Cadalso testified for the Honduran Govt, YET you quote favorably and say we should be instructed by Edmundo Orellana, who was a Zelaya lackey until 5 days before Zeylaya’s ouster.
Seems if one is tainted, Both are.
Regards,
Quote
October 10, 2009, 7:51 pmTwirlip says:
Perez-Cadalso is one of the individuals who came to the US in July to testify in support of the current government. IE, if you consider this a coup, he’s openly testified in support of the Coup Leaders.
If you consider this a coup, then you’re an idiot who thinks that it was a “coup” when Nixon was forced from office.
That aside, I wonder who you would accept as a knowledgeble, impartial and objective commentator on this. Your argument against Perez-Cadalso is of Mobius strip quality — he supports Zelaya’s ouster, therefore he cannot be a creditable source for supporting Zelayas ouster.
You might was well say, “Sure, Von Stauffenberg opposed Hitlers retention of power. But he was part of the effort to overthrow Hitler!”.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:00 pmSteve Johnson says:
Yankee:
A coup is the overthrow of one government and its replacement with another by unlawful means, not simply the appearance of totalitarian measures, of which the appointment of a temporary President, pending the soon to be held held elections, is not one.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:04 pmBen P says:
Although I’m somewhat more liberal than the population of this board I dont’ consider myself a part of the “left” and I certainly don’t share any sympathies with Zelaya.
But when you get down to it, Zelaya was removed from office for proposing a poll, that the option for people to vote for a constitutional convention that would occur after he was out of office.
His political opponents claimed it was a way for him to circumvent term limits, but given the dates, that would only work out if he could run again after leaving office and get elected a second time. Further, it wasn’t on flyers he put out advertising for it. The proposed reforms were apparently quite liberal which might explain the strident opposition to them.
That was the initial basis for everything else that happened. I’m somewhat more concerned with the “aftereffects” as it were, (which is that after the poll was ruled unconstitutional he attempted to do it anyway, and fired the head of the military when the military refused to follow his orders. But I don’t see all that much justification for the initial claims that what he did makes him so close to being a dictator that he had to be not just impeached, but instantly removed from office.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:07 pmBen P says:
So you admit your argument is nothing more than “the victors get to write the history” (or the justifications as it were)?
As for Nixon, suppose this was a “real coup” and the military had deposed him and as is pretty common in most coups said “the safety of the nation required us taking emergency action.”
Would you be just as willing to insist that their justification must be accurate because they’re in power now?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:09 pmTwirlip says:
So you admit your argument is nothing more than “the victors get to write the history” (or the justifications as it were)?
Strange, I don’t seem to recall “admitting” anything. If you want to take issue with something I’ve said, feel free to do. So far you’re not doing that.
As for Nixon, suppose this was a “real coup” and the military had deposed him and as is pretty common in most coups said “the safety of the nation required us taking emergency action.”
Would you be just as willing to insist that their justification must be accurate because they’re in power now?
No, but then I’m not making that argument here, am I?
Your inability to understand short and simple English sentences leaves me doubting your apptitude to untangle Honduran legal issues.
The Honduran military did not depose the Honduran President and seize power. I’m not sure why I need to point this out but it seems that I do.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:22 pmEAM says:
I didn’t say anything about Pérez-Cadalso. But since you bring it up,Orellano is a recognized authority on the Honduran constitution, which is why I cited his opinion. By contrast, Cadalso either didn’t know or was hiding the fact that 205–10 was declared unconstitutional in his consultations with Ms Gutierrez.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:27 pmTwirlip says:
Although I’m somewhat more liberal than the population of this board I dont’ consider myself a part of the “left” and I certainly don’t share any sympathies with Zelaya.
But when you get down to it, Zelaya was removed from office for proposing a poll
If you think that this is what Zelaya was removed for, then perhaps you are more part of the left than you realize.
That was the initial basis for everything else that happened. I’m somewhat more concerned with the “aftereffects” as it were, (which is that after the poll was ruled unconstitutional he attempted to do it anyway, and fired the head of the military when the military refused to follow his orders. But I don’t see all that much justification for the initial claims that what he did makes him so close to being a dictator that he had to be not just impeached, but instantly removed from office.
The first and second sentences here seem to have been written by two different people with little knowledge of one another. The first sentence concedes that Zelaya was attempting to subvert the constitution and coerce the military into assisting him in doing so. The second sentence says “So what?”. Again, you see to be more a part of the left than you are letting on.
Mind you, the remarkable thing about the left is how few people ever admit to being part of it.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:31 pmPat Patterson says:
The Spanish language seems quite adequate to delineate whether the actions taken by Honduras against Zelaya are a coup of not. A coup is strictly the result of the military acting, usually extralegally, and then holding onto power. A pronunciamento is where the military at the behest of civilian authority acts. Since the latter seems more applicable let’s save talk of coups for midnight door bashing and courtyard executions.
BTW, earlier someone mentioned death squads so it should be noted that the target of this charge, Billy Joya, was already working in a similar capacity for Zelaya before July.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:32 pmTwirlip says:
By contrast, Cadalso either didn’t know or was hiding the fact that 205–10 was declared unconstitutional in his consultations with Ms Gutierrez.
What authority does the court have to declare the constitution to be unconstitutional?
Ben P is quite exercised that the courts be themelves subject to the law. So, Ben, what do you think of EAM’s argument?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:35 pmEAM says:
I’ll take a stab at that. The elections, if they procede, are already arranged with international observation teams and quite likely will be clean. That’s not the problem. The OAS, US and NGOs have said that the present conditions in Honduras cannot support fair elections, and I take that to mean issues such as campaign fairness and even the physical survival of some candidates who are now being hunted by Michelleti’s soldiers and cops. Michelleti had shut down all media which criticized the coup, Tiempo excepted, so candidates in opposition to the National and Liberal candidates have no voice, as many have signed on to the resistance movement.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:38 pmTwirlip says:
Michelleti had shut down all media which criticized the coup
What “coup” are you referring to? Zelayas attempted sizure of power?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:41 pmBen P says:
I see I’ll need to frame this very simply because you’re just resorting to attempting to insult me.
The only way I can read the argument that you’re making is that no matter what the Honduran constitution actually says, and no matter whether or not the Honduran authorities made some sort of good faith attempt to follow what it said, the present Honduran government (which includes the court) says that what they did was legal, therefore it is automatically legal. (Because as you said “law is what the courts say it is.”)
If this is what you’re arguing I can accept that, but I think it does show a pretty complete disregard for any idea of the rule of law, and somewhat difficult to distinguish from arguing that anyone else (generals for example) who says the way they seized power was also legal did in fact legally seize power because they say so.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:41 pmOren says:
[ The following is my opinion only. It has no bearing on Honduran Law, the official US response or anything besides my own philosophy. ]
No constitutional provision can legitimately remove the power of the people to convene for the purpose of rewriting their Constitution. The inalienable right ‘to alter or to abolish that Constitution, and to institute new Government’ is one of Natural Law, not positive law, and derives solely from the sovereignty of The People.
The Honduran People have the right, at any time, to change their Constitution to allow whatever term limit they see fit and reorganized the government under whatever new principles they believe will best secure their interests. Insofar as their Constitution claims to deny them this right (and, more outrageously still, to the deny them the right to even propose such a change), it is inoperative.
[ Aside: I don’t know why many of the folks here seem to think this is a left/right issue. The core principle of the DoI — the inalienable right to self-government — is not partisan. ]
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:46 pmTwirlip says:
The proposed reforms were apparently quite liberal which might explain the strident opposition to them.
What “proposed reforms” do you have in mind when you say this? The flash point here was the “proposed reform” of permitting a President to remain in office longer then one term. Merely proposing this was illegal, never mind the numerous illegal actions which Zelaya conducted in the pursuit of his goal. Actions which included leading a mob to attack the Honduran attorney generals office.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:51 pmSteve Johnson says:
Oren:
This is about Zelaya convening such a referendum. Not the people of Honduras.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:54 pmTwirlip says:
The Honduran People have the right, at any time, to change their Constitution to allow whatever term limit they see fit and reorganized the government under whatever new principles they believe will best secure their interests. Insofar as their Constitution claims to deny them this right (and, more outrageously still, to the deny them the right to even propose such a change), it is inoperative.
You must think that the United States Constitution is “inoperative” as well, as it does not allow the American people to change their constitution “at any time” but only in such a manner as specified in the Constitution itself. It contains no provision whereby an American President may order a national referendum to enact Constitutional change.
No doubt you’ll be calling on the OAS to condemn this outrage and President Obama to refuse to be bound by the “inoperative” US Constitution.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 8:59 pmBen P says:
To be completely fair, I may have understated what occurred slightly.
Although I’m simplifying some, what Twirlip characterizes as “Zelaya’s attempted seizure of power” was the following.
Zelaya proposed a poll on whether or not to include a call for a constitutional convention on the ballot on the next presidential elections. (which are in November of 2009)
The Honduran courts ruled that such a poll was unlawful. Zelaya made a statement to the effect that the poll was non-binding and he didn’t consider the courts decision valid. (essentially he pulled an Andrew Jackson).
He instructed the Army Chief of Staff to conduct the poll (which apparently under Honduran Law was the proper person to do so), and the Chief of staff refused. He fired the chief of staff. (Several members of his cabinet including Edmundo Orellana (who wrote the above article saying the replacement was illegal) resigned at this point.
Zelaya then took possession of the ballots and was going to conduct the poll anyway. The honduran supreme court issued an order Zelaya be arrested. The military arrested Zelaya before the poll occured and put him on a plane to Costa Rica.
Subsequent to Zelaya being removed from the country, the Honduran congress first was presented an (almost certainly forged) resignation letter purportedly from Zelaya and voted to approve it, and the voted to appoint the president of congress as Acting president.
Several days later they also issued a decree “deposing” Zelaya, citing several constitutional provisions that he violated.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:00 pmBen P says:
To put it bluntly there’s no evidence for this outside of the claims of Zelaya’s political opponents.
1. No actual reform was proposed in the poll, it was a poll to place a call for a convention on the ballot. The ballot was the same election as Zelaya’s successor was to be elected in.
2. IF a call for a convention was on the ballot and was approved, any such reforms would occur after Zelaya’s successor had been elected and Zelaya was out of office. This leaves the only plausible fact pattern as that term limits were repealed and Zelaya could again seek election. Perhaps not good, but not quite on the level of a “seizure of power.”
3. You can see a translation of the flyers Zelaya produced in favor of the ballot measure here
4. As I said before, or attempted to say before, I find his actions in reaction to the ruling more concerning, and don’t defend them. But I don’t exactly see how those are so offensive that they required his immidate deposal and removal from the country, as opposed to say, impeachment.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:10 pmOren says:
There is a difference between prescribing a method of amending the Constitution and creating clauses in the Constitution that cannot be amended at all. FWIW, I do consider the final limiting clause in Art V to be inoperative, but that’s really small beans. Of course, the US Constitution does expressly allow for the calling of a Constitutional Convention upon application by the legislatures of the various States.
Now, taking your (frankly insulting) tone and throwing it back at you, I bet you don’t believe in the United States Constitution because the Articles of Confederation state:
By your logic, the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was Un(Articles-of-Confederation)al and George Washington should have arrested and exiled Franklin, Madison and the lot of them for treason in seeking to modify a document that declares itself unmodifiable. Good thing he didn’t believe in such nonsense as a document entrenching itself in such a fashion.
By what possible logic can we accept that a document places itself above the power of those who created it to change it? From what source could such a power arise? Such a clause is, by its very construction, ultra vires, since the underlying clause is being created at the same time from the same power.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:11 pmTwirlip says:
Zelaya then took possession of the ballots and was going to conduct the poll anyway.
And how did he “take possession” of the ballots? Don’t omit that part of the story.
Zelaya made a statement to the effect that the poll was non-binding and he didn’t consider the courts decision valid. (essentially he pulled an Andrew Jackson).
What would be your reaction if a US President “pulled an Andrew Jackson” and defied the courts and Congress?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:12 pmBen P says:
Impeachment as is set forth in the constitution.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:12 pmOren says:
Unlike Andrew Jackson, I think Zelaya had the better of the Court.
It’s interesting to note that some conservatives in the US are strong proponents of notion that each branch has co-equal power in interpreting the Constitution. That is, that the Executive may do precisely what Zelaya did and assert a right to interpret the Constitution for itself. This was routinely savaged by a few liberals on this site (in the context of Bush’s executive orders and signing statements) as being contrary to the rule of law in favor of asserting the absolute binding nature of the Supreme Court’s interpretation.
I wonder how many folks will square up their views on these two matters ...
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:19 pmTwirlip says:
There is a difference between prescribing a method of amending the Constitution and creating clauses in the Constitution that cannot be amended at all.
There is, but no such clause is under discussion here.
Of course, the US Constitution does expressly allow for the calling of a Constitutional Convention upon application by the legislatures of the various States.
It does. It does not permit the President to order a national referendum which will then require a Constitutional Conventon though. Nor does the Honduran Constitution, which is why Zelaya ran afoul of the law.
taking your (frankly insulting) tone
If you think my tone was “insulting” then I suggest you are far too thin-skinned to participate in these discussions. You are going to encuonter people who reject your arguments from time to time. Try to deal with it without getting your feelings hurt.
By what possible logic can we accept that a document places itself above the power of those who created it to change it?
Stop molesting that poor strawman.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:20 pmTwirlip says:
Impeachment as is set forth in the constitution.
Then why defend Zelaya?
This is another of those hills which it mystifies me that the left choses to die on, rather similar to the defense of Roman Polanski. It almost seems sometimes as if you say to youselves “Let’s see how implausible a position we can sell to people”, purely as a sort of intellectual pastime.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:25 pmDaniel says:
what makes an action officially illegal or unconstitutional?
it appears that a determination of this illegality or unconstitutionality by the appropriate legal authorities makes it so.
when there are three independent branches of government, it is normally accepted that the judiciary determines constitutionality and illegality. the legislature makes laws and can modify laws to change or upset determinations of illegality, but not of constitutionality.
if the legislature and supreme court agree that the president has acted unconstitutionally or even merely illegaly, they can, between them, declare him an outlaw and order his arrest.
nobody seems to deny that this is what happened in Honduras.
Apparently, the Honduran government was so allergic to attempts by presidents to cling to power, that their constitution automatically removes from the presidency any president who even proposes modification of its election laws. If this is so, Zelaya removed himself from the presidency by proposing same.
So a formal impeachment would have been redundant.
Is this all wrong?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:31 pmBen P says:
Why else would I have chosen to become a lawyer? I can get paid to do this.
That aside, I still maintain there is an important point here. Impeaching the president according to the law of the land is substantially different from having the military arrest the president and fly him out of the country then justifying it after the fact.
Whether or not the latter was correct turns substantially on how the Honduran constitution provides that a president may be removed from office. Although, as I noted in my 6:19 post The effect of deciding whether or not he was correctly removed may be academic anyway.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:32 pmOren says:
But that’s precisely what the Honduran Constitution does:
You wrote:
I wasn’t actually insulted, I was justifying posing a stupid question to you because you had just posed the same one to me. Obviously you believe that the US Constitution is valid, despite the fact that the Articles of Confederation did not allow amendment or revision.
My question to you is how can you justify the Constitution replacing the AoC without accepting the basic tenet that no Constitution can put itself above the right of the people to amend.
Neither did the Articles of Confederation permit Washington, Franklin, Madison (et al) to convene at Philadelphia in 1787. In fact, the AoC specifically forbade it!
No authorization is needed for a Constitutional Convention, it is inherent and inalienably the right of the Honduran People. Why should they have any less right to write their own Constitution than we do?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:32 pmEAM says:
Well, the 1982 constitution did not give congress the power to interpret the constitution, thus preserving the separation of powers. Congress added 205–10 by constitutional amendment in 1983–84. Later, in 2003, the Supremes ruled this inclusion unconstitutional. The separation of powers prevailed, but also in the ruling, while the constitution provided congress the power to amend the existing articles of the constitution, congress did not have the power to write new constitutional articles. So the question you should be asking is not how very “progressive” of them, but rather why it took 9 years for the Supremes to outlaw an unconstitutional article?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:34 pmTwirlip says:
It’s interesting to note that some conservatives in the US are strong proponents of notion that each branch has co-equal power in interpreting the Constitution. That is, that the Executive may do precisely what Zelaya did and assert a right to interpret the Constitution for itself.
I don’t see why this is “interesting” at all, other then being a hobby horse you feel like riding. Whatever “some conservatives” may think, the established legal order in America and the West is that the executive may not “interpet” the Constitution as it sees fit. I know of no Republicans of note who argue otherwise.
This was routinely savaged by a few liberals on this site (in the context of Bush’s executive orders and signing statements) as being contrary to the rule of law in favor of asserting the absolute binding nature of the Supreme Court’s interpretation.
Assuming we go along with your view of events, how do you justify the “liberals on this site” now scoffing at the notion that courts have any role to play in deciding legal issues?
I wonder how many folks will square up their views on these two matters …
By all means, enlighten us as to how you accomplish that feat.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:34 pmTwirlip says:
Congress added 205–10 by constitutional amendment in 1983–84. Later, in 2003, the Supremes ruled this inclusion unconstitutional.
I repeat my question. How do you justify the courts finding the Constitution to be unconstitutional?
So the question you should be asking is not how very “progressive” of them, but rather why it took 9 years for the Supremes to outlaw an unconstitutional article?
“How very progressive of them” is not a a question. And the question I am asking is what authority the court has to ever strike down a constitutional amendment, provided that the legal process has been followed in enacting it. I look forward to your eventual response.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 9:41 pmEAM says:
Asked and answered. No legal process was followed in enacting it, obviously.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 10:08 pmTwirlip says:
My question to you is how can you justify the Constitution replacing the AoC without accepting the basic tenet that no Constitution can put itself above the right of the people to amend.
I am not arguing against the idea that “no Constitution can put itself above the right of the people to amend”. In fact I would argue the exact opposite, though it’s not really on topic here. I believe that every Constitution is subject to amendment by the people, subject to such process as they have encoded in the Constitution. I have no idea how you got this particular idea in your head, but I’m happy to tell you we’re on the same side here. (If your reflexive opposition can swallow such a thing.)
Quote
October 10, 2009, 10:10 pmTwirlip says:
No legal process was followed in enacting it, obviously.
Can you document the specific failings in legal process which you believe occured?It is not “obvious” to me from anything you have said so far. “No legal process was followed” is a pretty big claim to make, but should be easy for you to demonstrate if true.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 10:15 pmOren says:
Then you don’t know too many Republicans. A quick search on this site for the term “co-equal” yields an enormous trove of such assertions.
I don’t justify them at all — it keeps with my general proposition that people adopt whatever argument suits their interests at the time.
You still haven’t justified for me how GW et al could sit in convention and draft a Constitution to replace a perpetual union...
I reject the notion that legalism or legal formalism can solve constitutional crises in the first place. Separation of powers is not just an academic proposition — it’s a recipe for creating a set of political legitimate centers of power that can hold their own.
[ NB that I never called for Zelaya to be returned or recognized. I only opined that I don’t consider Article 374 to be valid constitutional law in the first place. ]
But what if (as if the case with Art 374 of the HC), the “process” in the Constitution states clearly and plainly that certain clauses can never be amended under any circumstances whatsoever?
Presumably, if you believe that the Constitution is subject to amendment, then a clause saying that it’s not is void, no?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 10:51 pmKazinski says:
Oren:
It’s interesting to note that some conservatives in the US are strong proponents of notion that each branch has co-equal power in interpreting the Constitution.
I’d like to see a reference for that.
I’m a neolithic type conservative myself, and I think all three branches have a duty to interpret the Constitution. Congress should faithfully interpret the Constitution when it proposes laws, and should not propose laws that it thinks violate the Constitution; the President and the executive branch when administering the law should interpret the law in conformance to the constitution, and should construe any ambiguous language to conform to the Constitution. If there is no inambiguity then the President should veto the law if he deems it unconstitutional.
But it is the Supreme Court that is the final arbiter of the Constitution and the law, and if they deem the Congress or the President have misinterpreted the supreme law of the land then they get the final vote. I think that is all pretty plain vanilla and is the way the three branches have co-existed since the civil war.
Obviously you’re referring to the Bush adminstration, but while there are probably many instances where the Bush administration violated your interpretation of the Constitution, I’m pretty sure you will not be able to find any instances where they defied the Supreme Court’s, once it was made known.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:03 pmOren says:
Indeed. As it happens, I don’t think that’s a function of legal formalism but rather the product of the US Supreme Court’s political legitimacy.
That is, Presidents defy (Jackson), ignore (Lincoln), coerce (FDR) or concede (Nixon) in conflicts with the Court largely as a function of their relative political stature. It’s not romantic, it’s not legalistic, it’s constitutional-realpolitik.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:15 pmTwirlip says:
Then you don’t know too many Republicans. A quick search on this site for the term “co-equal” yields an enormous trove of such assertions.
I said “Republicans of note”, meaning Republicans on the national stage, not anonymous blog commenters. I’m sure a quick search on DU or Kos would reveal some views well out of the mainstream also.
it keeps with my general proposition that people adopt whatever argument suits their interests at the time.
Including you, it seems.
You still haven’t justified for me how GW et al could sit in convention and draft a Constitution to replace a perpetual union…
Very astute of you to notice. I see that you have still not justified sharia law to me. Maybe because you’re not trying to ...
I reject the notion that legalism or legal formalism can solve constitutional crises in the first place. Separation of powers is not just an academic proposition — it’s a recipe for creating a set of political legitimate centers of power that can hold their own.
Again, you’re carrying on some weird debate with people who exist only in your imagination. I never claimed that “legalism or legal formalism can solve constitutional crises in the first place”, or made any comment whatsoever about “separation of powers”. Who are you talking to?
what if (as if the case with Art 374 of the HC), the “process” in the Constitution states clearly and plainly that certain clauses can never be amended under any circumstances whatsoever
I regard such clauses as morally void, yes. But they are not legally void in Honduras. How do you propose to alter that? By dictating to Honduras what their law must be? If we are to do that to Honduras, what should be our tack be with regimes such as Iran or China?
And Zelaya is not some latter day Bolivar trying to bring democracy to his country, in spite of the efforts of some to paint him as such. It’s clear that he subscribes to the Marxist Maxim — “One man, one vote, one time”.
It reflects poorly on you that your plea for freedom is coupled to a such a thug.
if you believe that the Constitution is subject to amendment, then a clause saying that it’s not is void
I reject any claims made that the US Constitution is not subject to amendment, or that the SCOTUS (or state courts with regard to state constitutions) may strike down amendments as being “unconstitutional”. I reject the notion that the law belongs to any “elite” and may be used by them as a tool to bind the people.
I do this in accordance with the letter and spirit of the US Constitution, and I notice that I am not joined in this by American liberals, for the most part. But if they are reconsidering their opinions, I’ll be happy for them.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:18 pmTwirlip says:
Whatever my quibbles with the Honduran Constitution, I would never suggest that they deserve to be ruled by a Chavez style dictator as punishment.
I don’t understand those who cry “Freedom!” in the cause of Zeyala. The nicest thing that can be said is that such people are shockingly naive. And many of them are certainly dictatorship lovers behind their false words.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:27 pmTGGP says:
This may be the first time I’ve heard anything from Kirchick that didn’t make me retch.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:32 pmrpt says:
Are you new here? There is a certain of courtesy expected on the VC which is not a sign of weakness. This is not Free Republic or Red State. The term “moronic trolls” is juvenile. In the meantime, you have avoided my question. DeMint has blocked a number of appointments, including the ambassador to Brazil, because the administration will not adopt his personal position on Honduras. Is that ok with you?
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:43 pmEAM says:
It’s already been documented. The Honduran constitution does not allow the congress to write new articles. What is it about that that you can’t grasp? Under the Honduran constitution, if you want new articles you must convene a constituent assembly. Do you get it? If congress slips in a new article to the constitution it’s illegal on its face.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:51 pmOren says:
That’s the problem with freedom, isn’t it — that oftentimes it’s freedom to do things that are stupid or deplorable. The Honduran People are free to elect Mr Zelaya Presidente for Life just as much as they are free to elect anyone else. That I view such things as terrible mistakes is besides the point.
[ PS. Not that it’s relevant, but I do agree that Zelaya’s policies are mistaken. ]
I don’t have any power to alter the Honduran Constitution, the Honduran People do.
I do feel that my government should not acknowledge as legitimate the Honduran Supreme Court when it attempts to enforce such a morally void clause. We should let the internal Honduran matter resolve itself internally.
They make their choices, they live with the consequences. I don’t want anyone to be ruled by Chavez, but if he’s the elected President, he’s the elected President.
I don’t presume to chose for the Hondurans what sort of government they want.
Also, the chavez-as-dictator trope is a bit worn. He held a referendum to make himself dictator, lost and then recognized the results of the lost referendum as binding. He’s still a loony nutcase with absurd policies, but at least he’s a loony nutcase with absurd policies that respected the electoral result.
The Senate has institutional prerogatives, they use those to advance policies favorable to their constituents.
Quote
October 10, 2009, 11:58 pmEAM says:
Your “Chavez style dictator is pure fiction.” The only person who would buy that are ones who are totally ignorant of Honduran politics. When Honduras signed on to ALBA, the congress embraced the idea, Michelleti included, and it passed the muster of the Supreme Court. Ditto for Petrocaribe. In fact, Coup architect Adolfo Facussé just stated in an interview with La Jornada that joining ALBA and Petrocaribe was his idea, which he pushed on Zelaya and Congress. So if you’re going to go after Zelaya for being a Chavista, you’ll have to go after half the coup leaders, Michelleti, and w two/thirds of congress to avoid being a complete hypocrite.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 12:01 amEAM says:
Oren, just for the record, Zelaya wasn’t trying to extend his term limits. The struggle for a new constitution has been in the Honduran streets for several years now, and it was only during the Zelaya administration that those advocating a new constitution were given a voice. As a matter of fact, Zelaya was presented with a petition with 600,000 signatures last year asking for a constituent assembly, submitted to him under the authority of the Citizen’s Participation Act. The next step was the “encuesta” which would poll Hondurans and determine how many wanted a constituent assembly to be formed. If a clear majority said yes, the matter would go to the Supreme Electoral Council in order to create the fourth ballot box. If the initiative was voted for, the matter would go to congress for the legislation necessary to create the assembly. Once enacted, I think there would be a protracted political battle over the issue of selecting the members of the assembly that could easily stall the seating of the assembly for a year or two. Once seated, it would take a couple of years to draft a new constitution, as each article would be debated and challenged. And here’s the thing, I’m very dubious that the Honduran voters would agree to more that a single term limit — possibly a two term limit like the US, but that would surprise me. the term extension argument just doesn’t have legs.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 12:45 amTwirlip says:
Coup architect Adolfo Facussé ... half the coup leaders ...
If you stopped raving like a lunatic eveything else you say would not be so easily dismissed. There was no “coup”.
It’s already been documented.
Where?
The Honduran constitution does not allow the congress to write new articles.
Yet the Honduran courts did not strike down 205–10, as you keep alleging. It is part of the Honduran Constitution even today.
Considering that you like Chavez, I don’t need to speculate as to whether you are naive or a lover of dictatorships.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 1:00 amTwirlip says:
That’s the problem with freedom, isn’t it — that oftentimes it’s freedom to do things that are stupid or deplorable.
So is your support of Zelaya stupid, or deplorable?
The Honduran People are free to elect Mr Zelaya Presidente for Life just as much as they are free to elect anyone else.
Not according to the Honduran Constitution they are not.
Any more then the American people are free to elect Obama or anyone else to be President for life.
I do feel that my government should not acknowledge as legitimate the Honduran Supreme Court when it attempts to enforce such a morally void clause.
Then which governments in the world would you have your government recognize as legitimate? Keep in mind that the vast majority of them are far less free then that of Honduras.
the chavez-as-dictator trope is a bit worn. He held a referendum to make himself dictator, lost and then recognized the results of the lost referendum as binding. He’s still a loony nutcase with absurd policies, but at least he’s a loony nutcase with absurd policies that respected the electoral result.
What makes you think that he has accepted the result? Do you believe that to be his first effort at sizing total power? Or his last?
By definition, loony nutcases with dictatorial ambitions do not accept limits on their power unless at gunpoint. See the history of the 20th century for further illustration of this.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 1:14 amSteve Johnson says:
Half the “”””“coup””””” leaders and 2/3 of congress are not the ones trying to subvert the Constitution for their own purposes. Those politicians are working within the Constitutional framework of their nation. Mel knew what he was doing was outside the parameters of the Constitution, the Congress knew it, and the Supreme Court knew it. They all knew what their Constitution proscribed, were all on the same playing field, and all knew that Mel was deliberately violating the rules that they all recognized. None of them are benefiting personally for upholding their Constitutional order. Mel would have benefited personally if allowed to continue his quest to become a Caudillo. Mel alone caused the government to remove him and have to take measures to insure peace and order, especially after his return. Had he not sought his personal goals at the expense of his country, he would be serving out the remainder of his term, elections would be held, and his successor would replace him in January. The “””“golpistas”””” would never have removed him, there would be no temporary President, and there would be no unrest that his followers have fostered on the streets. They only responded to his provocations, and for what? To stand for election exactly as they would have had he not been removed. No personal grandeur, no monetary rewards, no additional power, and no extended term as President. The only guarantee they have is that under their current Constitution, they won’t have to risk a “non-marxist” “agarian reformer” President For Life like other countries that were assured by EAM type’s that they weren’t really Chavistas.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 1:18 amTwirlip says:
Are you new here? There is a certain of courtesy expected on the VC which is not a sign of weakness.
You must be new here if you think that.
The term “moronic trolls” is juvenile.
And what is your pathetic effort to change topic?
DeMint has blocked a number of appointments, including the ambassador to Brazil, because the administration will not adopt his personal position on Honduras.
Is he right to do so? Tell me why do you defend Obama’s “personal position” on Honduras.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 1:22 amLin-Dai Yu-Shan,Virginia says:
I’d like to submit the following clarification (I’m a Honduran native and have been following the election process since July 2007):
Zelaya tried to sell his bid for a “poll calling for a constitutional assembly” as a a simple referendum to be decided with a fourth ballot box (hence: “la cuarta urna”) the main purpose of which was to have people in Honduras vote in favor or against amending the constitution for him to remain in power, in spite of the other running candidates, elected late last year (2008). The caveat does not come from the applicability of the Constitution or Honduran law, but rather from the fact that Zelaya had the ballots printed in Venezuela, ballots & urns sent from Venezuela PRE-FILLED, and Chavez advising step by step how to take a “democratic” take-over using “the poor & disenfranchised” as means of popular support.The outcome was pre-determined.
Raising minimum salaries arbitrarily brought the appearance of being a man “for the people” and he used it to trigger this whole debacle. What the uneducated classes ignore is that Zelaya started bleeding the small enterprise w/ this move. Un-employment sky-rocketed.
Anyhow, it’s a crying shame that this man, who in addition to not submitting the nation’s annual budgets for the past two years also sent his thugs to STEAL from the Central Bank millions of Lempiras, is not seen for who he really is (by the poor and disenfranchised): an oligarch from Olancho with unbounded greed and no principle, egotistical and false, who cares more about his horses than the segment that supports him.
And this is in essence the truth about this Chavez backed dictator wannabe.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 1:32 amLin-Dai Yu-Shan,Virginia says:
No New articles were written. Zelaya advocated his desire to ammend the constitution with every Honduran institution that could hear him. They all refused. On Wednesday June 24th he fired the chief of the Armed Forces and the Minister of Defense for refucing to do the referendum for him.
What doesn’t seem to be CLEAR to some of the commentators here is that ZELAYA’s bid to stay in power was relentless, backed by a Marxist styled ideologue who is a dictator in his own Nation and who had nothing but self interest in mind.
The SAD REALITY of all this is what it’s doing to all Latin America. In shaking Honduras and the US voting “absent” in terms of support for the rule of Honduras’ Constitutional Law is that it’s de-stabilizing the region, making it fertile ground for the infiltration of traffic of Narcotics. Chavez has a well documented network that causes great damage to our Northern Countries in this hemisphere.ZElaya’s alliance w/ Chavez includes permitting the use of La Mosquitia for traffic of narcotics and other illegal drugs.
The Obama Administration has demonstrated here it’s ineptitude, lack of experience and support of a demonstrated dictator wannabe.How is it that he can sit with Iran’s dictator, favor Chavez and Zelaya, and not recognize the legitimacy of an interim government who has affirmed and re-affirmed its commitment to its upcoming elections? Talk about scr*wd up!
Quote
October 11, 2009, 1:51 amDavid says:
re: library of congress report
Section 1 of this report notes that “the political procedure known as impeachment” that was previously contained in Article 205, Section 15 was repealed in 2003. The report also notes that Article 313, Section 2 (currently “Conocer los procesos incoados a los más altos funcionarios del Estado y los Diputados”),which apparently provides the Supreme Court the power to hear cases against the president was also amended in 2003. The change eliminated the language “hear cases against the highest officers of the State and the Deputies when the National Congress had declared that cause existed to level charges [against them]”. Yet, the report then goes on to say “A systematic reading of the different constitutional provisions dealing with the right of Congress to interpret the Constitution...also indicates that the Honduran National Congress has the power to interpret the Constitution with general effect....One may conclude that the National Congress implicity exercised its power of constitutional interpretation in the case of Zelaya when it decided that its power to “disapprove” the President’s actions encompassed the power to remove him.” It seems odd to say that one might reach this conclusion. If the constitution had an express provision for removal, why read into the “disapproval” mechanism an implicit power to impeach? What was the point of the 2003 amendment? I am not questioning the need to have him removed...only the basis
Quote
October 11, 2009, 3:30 amEAM says:
But you’re dead wrong — and you have given no basis whatsoever that what you say is true.
The Supreme Court verdict can be downloaded here in pdf. http://quotha.net/sentencia-7-de-mayo-de-2003.pdf It is in Spanish, so it may be inaccessible to you.
I have proven that you are incorrect. If you have any class, you’ll concede the point. If not, there is no way I can take you seriously.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 3:59 amAGD says:
Rosie, you ask me to “open my eyes to the World around me”. You paint this scenario where the peoples of Latin America are standing up to authoritarians like Morales (who will likely be reelected withh 60% of the votes), Chavez (who –unbelievavly, I know– has an over 55% approval rating) and Correa (who recently won a second term in office). I do not think this is about standing up to dictators. This is about you not liking someone and expecting the rest of the World to follow suit. As I said before, I hate Chavez-like Presidents, but I live in a country where little over 15 years ago, a group of Maoist terrorists decided they did not like the system we had, and that it was about time someone “fixed the problem” and tried to “forcibly remove the President” through armed revolt. How could I ever condemn them for not following the law back then, if when the first guy who I don’t like becomes President I call for his “forced removal” through military means? How could you ever defend yourself the next time a radical leftist group or powerhungry general (like so many others in our nations pasts) decides to overthrow a sound, smart, rightist President if you support this today? How could you claim any moral authority to say “this is wrong”?
I believe the arguments trying to “legitimize” what happened in Honduras under a banner of “The Supreme Court and Congress said so” are weak. As I said before, if you can “invent” procedures to deport a President in his pajamas, a fortiori you can “invent” a propper impeachment procedure and grant Zelaya his day in court.
I am terribly sorry for what has happened in Honduras and I do hope Hondurans can find a way out that enables them to have a succesful, Chavez-free country with sound market based institutions and all, I just want that to be the outcome of the rule of law, not the rule of “whatever I like”.
Oh and I did read the Honduran Constitution. I would not have dared speak of this subject otherwise.
Best of luck! (honestly!)
Quote
October 11, 2009, 4:07 amSara says:
That would be the George Bush appointee.
It sounds like everyone agrees that Zalaya and the current de facto government that forced him out of the country made mistakes and broke laws. Paying for mistakes and breaking laws is a good thing.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 8:36 amGaryC says:
I would point out that Article V of the U.S. Constitution places two specific limits on the amendment power, one of which is that “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” So any amendment that attempted to change that would be null and void, even if ratified by 3/4 of the states. (I suppose that if ALL states ratified it, then one could argue that the change was being made with the consent of each state, and was therefore Constitutional.)
Quote
October 11, 2009, 8:42 amGaryC says:
I disagree with this. The Constitution was ratified with an amendment process with specific limits. In the absence of those limits, it is not at all clear that it would have been ratified by even a majority of states, let alone all of them.
If you believe that equal representation in the Senate is intolerable, you do not have the option of amending the Constitution to change that. You need to replace the Constitution with a new version. It might be otherwise identical, but it is not a continuation of the existing Constitution, and would need to be ratified by the states to take effect. And each state would be in the same position as it was in 1787, free to reject the ratification and not be bound by it.
In practical terms, this rejection might be difficult for a single small state to maintain, but are you certain that you could convince Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and North and South Dakota to relinquish that much power. Or Alaska? Texas might be a challenge as well, though not for precisely the same reason. And once the break-up began, how many other states would want to remain in the same union as California, or Massachusetts, or Michigan.
BTW, I assume that the nuclear weapons in Montana would not be an issue, as long as the other states removed them within a few years.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 9:00 amNorthern Dave says:
Oren, was what was done with Nixon wrong then? It seems to be a total analogy.
Leader of the Executive Branch commits a (by the laws of his country) crime. Other Branches of the Government bring him down.
Hypothetically, if the current President proposed a poll for a Constitutional Convention circumventing the (I believe very sane, smart) restrictions of process the brilliant Founders placed there to prevent Demagogues easy access to Tyranny and refused to accept the rejection of same by both Houses and the SCOTUS by going ahead and having stuffed ballot boxes made up in France would you say he was in the right? (You might! While I suspect you aren’t a follower of Taft you might be more radically populist than I imagine :-) )....
Quote
October 11, 2009, 9:04 amGaryC says:
And if the press reports are correct that computers in the Presidential offices had the official results ready to be released, despite the fact that the vote never took place, it appears that Zelaya was also the only person voting in the referendum.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 9:13 amConnecticut Lawyer says:
None of this matters.
Over the past several decades, the US has pressured allies that were controlled by dictatorships to move towards democratic elections. In several countries (Taiwan, S. Korea) this happened. Why isn’t that the model to follow with Honduras? Whether or not the removal of Zelaya was legal or illegal, isn’t the right solution, the absolutely clear next step, to hold an election? What argument is there against this? And is there any argument that Zelaya would be permitted under any interpretation of Honduran law to run in that election?
I really don’t get the US policy here at all. Can someone who thinks the US Government is doing the right thing please explain it to me?
Quote
October 11, 2009, 1:08 pmOren says:
Insofar as the Constitution claims to restrict such a choice, it is morally void.
You don’t think a Constitutional Convention in the United States could alter or abolish the term limits, or changing the structure of the Constitution in any other way? Why not?
Quote
October 11, 2009, 3:01 pmOren says:
Nixon did not have the support of the American People.
No. In the US there is a procedure for the removal of of term limits. Insofar as that procedure exists, the President (and every other American) is bound to follow that procedure.
Since the Constitution of Honduras provides no procedure for the removal of term limits but the power to do so remains with the People, then a convention (which is usually how these things are drafted) will suffice.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 3:15 pmJohn B says:
I love the Doug Cassel piece. It’s absolutely absurd.
In the first place, he defends the Honduran Supreme Court’s authority (when it is convenient to his argument), then journeys into a fog of anarchy to suggest that not even the Supreme Court is vested with the power to interpret its own constitution.
Furthermore, the Cassel piece neglects to mention that the decision to remove Zelaya from the country was made by the SUPREME COURT.
Cassel makes no mention of the appropriate clauses in the Honduran Constitution that defend the Supreme Court’s decision. Is Cassel so dense as to suggest that NO BODY of the Honduran government has the authority to remove the executive...save the “insurrection” clause that Cassel mentions?
To make matters worse, his writing is replete with references to all manner of international treaties...as if they are relevant at all to the Honduran Government’s decision making.
Most troubling, Cassel would have us believe that the entire government can be reduced to one man. Is the unanimity in the decision made by 2/3 of the Honduran government to count for nothing?
Cassel does not engage in any kind of analysis of the actions of Zelaya, and does not fully attempt to explain the significance of them. Lacking this analysis, Cassel’s report is woefully incomplete.
Cassel also mentions the insurrection clause as though it were some trivial thing. Yes, there are numerous supporters of Zelaya, but all indications suggest that a significant MAJORITY OF HONDURANS ARE GLAD HE IS GONE.
And let’s take Cassel’s claim that the Honduran military is brutally supressing the pro-Zelaya movement. Relative to what, Doug? Chavez has done worse...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#2002:_Coup_and_strike.2Flockout
Considering that the government of Honduras is trying to hold together their nation while the pro-Zelaya supporters march to pressure the government to reinstate Zelaya — a democratically elected Congress, I might add — and several other Latin American powers angle to influence the fate of Honduras illegally, I think the government is doing a pretty good job of minimizing violence.
Cassel and friends seem to overlook Chavez’ nationalization (permanently) of various media, false imprisonment and assassination of opponents, and yet the temporary suspension of certain civil liberties (as opposed to a complete declaration of martial law — which is essentially what Chavez did in order to lengthen his presidency) for a few days is suddenly beyond deplorable.
Cassel acts as though this entire crisis can be viewed, “all things being equal,” as if in a vacuum. Well, I’m sorry, but all things are not equal in this crisis. There are a number of issues Cassel cleverly avoids: the interference of ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas) member states (led by Chavez), Zelaya’s attempt to unilaterally remake Honduras, the unconstitutionality of Zelaya’s actions and the numerous clauses of the constitution he violated.
Let’s just be honest about what all of this really comes down to, shall we? Cassel and his ilk support a socialist re-invisioning of South America. The real story is this is just another battle between those who believe that governments should be socialistic, and those who believe in limited government. It’s the same battle that has raged for the last hundred years. Except that now, the American government and American academia all support the former.
Cassel’s legal premise fails to hold water because its an indefensible position. If it appears weak it’s no coincidence...it’s weak because he’s using any plausible excuse to justify his paradigm.
It’s a mystery how this man (Cassel) has risen to such stature. Either he’s simply playing devil’s advocate, or he cannot reason as well as the poorest of 1L students. This piece of his is a joke, and insulting not only to the people of Honduras, but to intelligent people everywhere.
Beneath contempt, Doug. Piss off.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 5:46 pmHans Bader says:
Oren, Gallup polls show that Zelaya did not have the support of the Honduran people anymore than Nixon had the support of the American people at the time he left office — both had approval ratings of about 30 percent.
Not surprising given that Zelaya behaved much worse than Nixon — spending the country into virtual bankruptcy in the absence of any budget (illegally refusing to submit a budget so he could divert funds to cronies and supporters), threatening public employees with termination if they failed to collaborate with his assaults on the constitution, cutting off funds and public services to retaliate against critics, seeking to use pre-printed Venezuelan ballots to perpetrate vote fraud, etc.
To be sure, the international sanctions imposed on Honduras (and some of the actions of the new president) have reduced the new president’s popularity, too, rendering him fairly unpopular among the cross-section of the urban public measured by Honduran opinion polls.
The legality under Honduran law of Honduras’s removal of its ex-president has been noted by many, including lawyers Dan Miller, Octavio Sanchez, and Miguel Estrada, former assistant secretary of state Kim Holmes, Stanford’s William Ratliff, and even “left-liberal” scholars (Powerline links to one).
In one of the comments above, I refute the argument of Doug Cassel of Notre Dame claiming that it was an illegal coup.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 7:53 pmOren says:
Chavez has done much worse things than most of the people on this planet.
Hans, I hope you are right about Z’s lack of popular support (both because I oppose his policies and because high popular support for him would destabilize the country).
Quote
October 11, 2009, 8:31 pmJohn B says:
Hans,
Just read your primary posts. Good articles, all. Cassel is a clown. Great job in exposing his errors.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 8:44 pmKazinski says:
Cassell’s paper has the text of Article 239 which really should settle almost all of the arguments above:
Of course Cassell goes on to argue that this provision is invalid because there is no provision for a hearing and does not conform to international law. I would merely observe that international law does not have jurisdiction over internal Honduran affairs. Just as a provision in International laws outlawing the insulting of religions would not override the 1st Amendment in our courts, International law would have no jurisdiction in a Honduran constitutional crises.
Article 239 however does not sufficiently address Oren’s argument that any constitutional provision in any constitution since the Articles of Confederation is null and void. I hope that is not in Koh’s memorandum because I can’t think of an adequate answer to it.
Quote
October 11, 2009, 11:09 pmJohn B says:
Aren’t we all just ignoring the pink elephant in the room?
Why aren’t people asking these questions regarding Honduras...
1) Why has the international community — from the UN, to the OAS, to the US, and the rest of the world– completely sided with Zelaya? Why did the entire world take the time to acknowledge the crisis and pick sides? Honduras is a tiny country. It must be that Honduras’ significance is greater than it appears at first glance.
2) Why does the Obama administration use such obviously faulty legal reasoning in justifying its decisions regarding Honduras? Why is it trying so desperately to defend and support Zelaya?
3) Why is Obama withdrawing American influence a la the dying dollar, and abdicating clout worldwide, emboldening dictators and strongmen everywhere?
Dan Henninger at the WSJ had a really excellent piece about a week or so ago about Obama’s abandonment of free peoples across the globe — from Iran to Honduras. Simultaneously, he has recognized the rule of Achmedinejad, and cordially encouraged brutes such as Chavez and his ALBA brothers.
There is a pattern, here.
Honduras provides excellent insight into Obama’s vision of law, generally, and especially international law.
And to question #1: It cannot be simply that Honduras crisis represents merely a challenge to Chavez/ALBA’s ambitions. It is true that Chavez groomed Zelaya, and opponents of the new order that ALBA poses would be emboldened, were Micheletti and friends to be victorious and hold free elections without Zelaya’s reinstatement (which is to say, without Honduras’ transformation into a dictatorship). However, that would not explain, the tenacious insistence of the international community that Zelaya was wronged, the people were wronged, and Zelaya absolutely must be reinstated.
Further, even in America’s diminished diplomatic capacity under Obama, the shenanigans perpetrated by Chavez and Brazil would not have been tolerated...unless Obama wanted it so. Were this the case, it would beg the question: WHY WOULD OBAMA WANT IT SO?
It is either the case that Obama is naive about geopolitics and also believes that Latin America is best left in the hands of another hegemon or several, or he is actively trying to support the regional hegemony of narcissistic lunatics.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 1:19 amSteve Johnson says:
That’s Chavez and Lula. The Brazilian people were up in arms over Brazil’s involvement. To the point that they were openly discussing impeachment of Lula in major nationwide magazines like Veja and Epoca (their Constitution also has some very specific sections, including limits on foreign intervention). They printed the relevant sections of the Honduran constitution for their readers, first regarding the proposed referendum, and then regarding the rights of assembly and expression. A majority were still against Brazilian intervention on the side of Zelaya. However, with the awarding of the summer Olympics to Rio and the upcoming end of Lula’s second term, Honduras has been pushed off the front pages their political news for the present.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 2:20 amKazinski says:
Chavez has a long history of illegal mettling in other countries internal affairs, besides supporting a vicious guerrilla movement in Columbia (along with at least one Democrat in Congress). He was busted sending a suitcase of cash to Argentina to illegally influence the election there.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 2:52 amRicardo says:
For the dollar, you could ask Bush the same question since the dollar is actually stronger now than it was in early 2008. But I certainly don’t see a whole lot of concern here over the rights of ordinary Honduras citizens for having to live under widespread censorship, an arbitrary curfew, and a ban against any large demonstrations. Note that when Zalaya returned to the country, ordinary citizens were trapped inside their homes for two days and were not even allowed out to buy basic essentials by the country’s security forces. I’m sure the people must be overjoyed at the new-found freedoms they are enjoying.
I doubt most people here denouncing Zalaya could care less about the freedoms of the people of Honduras. It seems instead to be a good excuse for an old-fashioned partisan pissing match.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 3:07 amEAM says:
Well, you guys are having a regular whine-fest here. Here’s something to whine about: the latest opinion polls (August) in Honduras.
Are you in favor of the June 28 coup d’etat against President Manuel Zelaya Rosales?
In favor of coup: 17.4 percent
Opposed to coup: 52.7 percent
No response: 29.9 percent
Should Micheletti stay in power or leave the current government?
Micheletti should stay: 22.2 percent
Micheletti should leave: 60.1 percent
No response: 17.7 percent
Do you support the return of Manuel Zelaya Rosales to the Presidency of the Republic?
Support Zelaya’s return: 51.6 percent
Oppose Zelaya’s return: 33 percent
No response: 15.4 percent
Do you think that the Armed Forces and National Police are engaging in repression or not against the National Resistance?
Yes, there is repression: 54.5 percent
No, there is not repression: 21.8 percent
No response: 23.7 percent
Do you agree with the repression or condemn the repression that the Armed Forces and National Police have engaged in against the National Resistance?
Against repression: 65.4 percent
For repression: 8 percent
No response: 26.4 percent
Should the general elections organized by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal for November 19 happen even if the institutional crisis isn’t resolved?
Yes, have elections: 66.4 percent
No, don’t have them: 23.8 percent
No response: 2.9 percent
Just a sample — the download has more questions as well as methodology and the credentials of the polling agency. Read it and weep, boys.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 3:25 amNorthern Dave says:
Oren wrote:
” Since the Constitution of Honduras provides no procedure for the removal of term limits but the power to do so remains with the People, then a convention (which is usually how these things are drafted) will suffice.”
There is a process for calling a National Constitutional Assembly in Honduras, because Micheletti tried to get one called in the Honduran legislature in 1985 but suspended his call because it was targeted at — you guessed it — term limits and was thus considered “treason”. In Canada we argue about term limits but no one considers either side of the argument treasonous...apparently they take it *much* more seriously down there....
Quote
October 12, 2009, 9:25 amegd says:
Well, good thing they asked nice, unbiased questions. Besides, what does a poll now have to do with anything? At the time of the “coup” (by which I assume you mean “Constitutional Ouster of Usurping President), a plurality supported the move. Was the ouster Constitutional when more people supported it, but unconstitutional now? How does that work?
Like I said before, this is an issue for Honduras, and if two of the political branches decide that the third one has violated the constitution, then that’s enough for me. Countries have the right to decide their own constitutional principles, regardless of what the international community has to say about things. If they want to decide issues of Constitutional interpretation based on who has the most Koi in their fish pond, then good for them.
Given Micheletti’s actions after the constitutional ouster, I am concerned about elections in November. If Micheletti lets them go off without a hitch and steps down, I think this whole situation will deflate. If not, then I’ll happily side with those calling for the removal of Micheletti.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 10:07 amOh geez « Internet Scofflaw says:
[...] the State Department cites a legal memo from Harold Koh, its top lawyer. But the thing is, Koh’s memo is secret. Even members of Congress can’t see [...]
Oren says:
You can call it whatever you want, but insisting on the right to self-determination is only treason against a government of tyranny.
For Article 239 to not only establish a Presidential term limit (which are manifestly reasonable) but to restrict merely “propos[ing] its reform” is unconscionable. The fact that such rank tyranny is encoded into a constitution is immaterial.
To simply utter the phrase “no President shall propose the reform of term limits” is to discredit it beyond repair. I really don’t understand how anyone could defend such a provision.
Kazinski, you misread my argument. My point is that articles like 239 and 374 of the HC are void by analogy to the perpetuity clause in the AoC. Nobody claims that Washington committed treason in presiding over a convention that rewrote parts of the AoC that were (at least according to the Aoc) ‘unrewriteable’ because such an assertion is absurd on its face.
Similarly, at least for me, Zelaya cannot be held in any way morally responsible for proposing a referendum on rewriting his Constitution, even the parts that it claims can never be changed under any circumstances and we must not utter a word to the contrary.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 12:22 pmJohn B says:
Ricardo,
“For the dollar, you could ask Bush the same question since the dollar is actually stronger now than it was in early 2008.”
With the one notable exception that the US wasn’t facing a global revolt against the US dollar as the preeminent reserve currency. A good portion of power is perception. America is perceived as weak, currently, directly as a result of the actions of our president.
And while your point is taken, it was only marginally lower in 2008, and 2007, as I recall. In addition, the psychological panic over the dollar is inspiring further devaluation — some of it simply being hysteria. However, given the proclivity of the Obama administration to print money, perhaps much of the ‘hysteria’ is well founded.
“But I certainly don’t see a whole lot of concern here over the rights of ordinary Honduras citizens for having to live under widespread censorship, an arbitrary curfew, and a ban against any large demonstrations. Note that when Zalaya returned to the country, ordinary citizens were trapped inside their homes for two days and were not even allowed out to buy basic essentials by the country’s security forces. I’m sure the people must be overjoyed at the new-found freedoms they are enjoying.”
Ricardo, are those censorships/curfews/bans still largely in place? I read that the Micheletti government had decided to restore civil liberties. Look, Hondurans should be happy they have any rights in place, given Chavez, ALBA, and Brazil’s interference and Zelaya’s incitement to insurrection, it’s a miracle Micheletti hasn’t declared martial law. And were the roles reversed and Zelaya in Micheletti’s position, you can bet your life he would have shut down all media and indefinitely suspended civil liberties. After all, Zelaya attempting to follow Chavez’ model, that’s essentially what would have happened while the two other branches of government would be on ice while the constitution would be rewritten.
Let’s be clear, the civil liberties suspensions were short lived. Hell, even Zelaya can broadcast his insane babblings. That’s a real crackdown, isn’t it? Z is free to broadcast his nutty assertions such as Israeli mercenaries were blasting him with radiation, trying to kill him. The Micheletti administration is so tame as to make any comparison of them to brutal dictators such as Chavez, Morales, Correa, Ortega, and the Castro brothers not only laughable, but offensive.
You talk of looking out for the people of Honduras. Were you truly concerned for their well-being you would support the attempts of these bold souls in the interim government who have the stones to stand up to the greatest powers in the Western hemisphere in order to prevent their nation from falling into total tyranny.
I’m sure many of us who believe in freedom as opposed to tyranny feel more solidarity with Micheletti and the anti-Zelaya resistance than with any US domestic political party. Pissing match? No, this is something much bigger. This crisis in Honduras is only a harbinger of things to come. Honduras fights for its rights to remain a free nation without being a slave to the international community today. Tomorrow, it could be the UK or the Czech Republic trying to resist subservience to a superstate. Wait a minute...
Quote
October 12, 2009, 1:01 pmJohn B says:
Ricardo,
About the suspensions:
http://www.honduras.com/honduras-constitution-english.html
see Chapter III, article 187.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 1:22 pmSteve Johnson says:
If only the “kings of the world” here would have been alive in 1866 to advise President Lincoln about his temporary suspension of habeas corpus.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 1:34 pmJohn B says:
Oren:
“To simply utter the phrase “no President shall propose the reform of term limits” is to discredit it beyond repair. I really don’t understand how anyone could defend such a provision.”
I’ll take a shot at defending it. In the first place the nation has a history of government takeovers by strongmen. The provisions were an attempt to stop men like Zelaya.
It does not, in fact, prevent self-determination. As Northern Dave mentioned, there are procedures in place to come together to form a constitutional convention. But I’ll come back to this momentarily.
It’s important to note that even the US constitution has such “unrewritable” clauses, albeit with some nuances:
“Article V — Amendment Note1 — Note2 — Note3
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
I agree with you, articles 373–375 are kind of ridiculous. But if a supermajority of the people desire to abolish the constitution, then at that point in time they may do so and in so doing alter the previously “unrewritable” clauses. I acknowledge the fact that there is no formal process for doing this, but I imagine if support was nearing 80 percent of the public, it would have no trouble becoming a reality.
Honduras has its own unique history and the framers of their constitution wrote it in response to that history. If anything, this whole Zelaya debacle merely underscores the necessity of such “unrewriteable” clauses. Because, let’s remember that Zelaya wasn’t just trying to prolong his stay in the executive mansion. He was following in the footsteps of Chavez, and he would have sought to massively alter the government of Honduras with the help from his dictator friends (ALBA) and his own mob of thugs. THAT would have been anti-democratic. THAT would have been interfering with the right to self determination.
In light of this, one might ask you how you cannot hold Zelaya to account, morally. The man is a certifiable monster. It’s one thing to suggest that the people of Honduras have the right to abolish and create a new constitution. It’s quite another to suggest that the ostensible reasons (self determination)for Zelaya’s actions justify in any way his attempts at a power grab. Perhaps as an academic matter this might be done, and his various actions and motivations might be compartmentalized and judged individually, but outside the ivory tower, it cannot. Evidently, the democratically elected congress of Honduras and the Supreme Court of Honduras felt the same way.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 1:50 pmKazinski says:
Oren:
I don’t care if Zelaya is held morally responsible or not, he was held legally responsible for violating the Honduran Constitution, and “cease[d] immediately in the discharge of [his] respective [post], and will remain ineligible for ten years for the exercise of any public function.”
Quote
October 12, 2009, 2:56 pmOren says:
I have never questioned that the motives of those writing that clause were noble. The unfortunate fact is that they chose nefarious means towards that noble end.
I’m aware of that, and as I said earlier, they are, IMO, void. Pursuant to the regular amendment process, Congress and 3/4 of the States can change the composition of the Senate. At the worst case, Congress and 3/4s of the States can adopt a new Constituion, minus that phrase, and import all the laws, regulations, precedents and officeholders of the previous ones.
This distinction, however, between amending the 1787 Constitution and promulgating a 2009 Constitution that is identical save for the offending phrase, is rigid legal formalism at its very worst.
Then we are in substantial agreement about the core issue.
Except that the Supreme Court has deposed a sitting President for merely asking the constituents if they want to convene to rewrite the Constitution. That is, he didn’t follow the (non-existent) procedure and got sacked for it.
But you have previously agreed that such clauses are not unrewriteable at all. That is, the clause in the Constitution limiting the President to one term has the same status as any other Constitutional provision — it can be amended by supermajority of the National Assembly or by Constitutional convention.
In effect, the extra verbiage on those clauses accomplishes nothing.
If the majority of Hondurans want to alter their government to be more in line with Chavez & Co, that’s their right. I would advise against it, of course, but it’s really none of my business.
I don’t defend Zelaya — I defend the right of the Honduran People to elect monsters if they want to be governed by monsters.
I don’t have to justify Zelaya or his actions either. He is accountable only to the Honduran People.
Interestingly enough, the move to depose him for attempting to rewrite the term limits is quite telling because such a move would only be a “power grab” if he had the support of the electorate to win a second term. If he were not popular with the Honduran People, then there would little concern if he ran for President again.
Except that by preventing the President from even proposing such a convention, the “procedure” becomes a sham intended to preclude the particular clause from ever being reformed.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 3:04 pmHans Bader says:
Honduras has had past presidents who became presidents-for-life, despite being hated by their own people, by using election fraud to be elected again and again.
That’s why Article 239 of the Honduras constitution bars presidents from even proposing an end to term limits, and strips them of their office automatically if they do. (No such sanctions are levied against ordinary citizens who advocate an end to term limits, nor should there be, given constitutional guarantees of free speech).
Article 272 gives the military an enforcement role for such violations.
So the arrest of Honduras’s ex-president (by troops acting on orders from Honduras’s high court) for seeking to get rid of term limits made sense.
The ex-president’s removal was perfectly constitutional, say many lawyers and foreign policy experts, including attorneys Octavio Sanchez, Miguel Estrada, and Dan Miller, former Assistant Secretary of State Kim Holmes, Stanford’s William Ratliff, and the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady.
The potential for voter fraud to secure reelection also addresses Oren’s point above about the will of the majority.
Oren wrote,
“the move to depose him [ex-president Zelaya] for attempting to rewrite the term limits is quite telling because such a move would only be a ‘power grab’ if he had the support of the electorate to win a second term. If he were not popular with the Honduran People, then there would little concern if he ran for President again.”
This assumes that any such support is genuine, rather than fraudulent.
Past Honduras despots used fraudulent reelections to maintain their rule. the infamous period of the Cariato in the early 20th Century being a classic example (the unpopular president was reelected multiple times in fraudulent elections).
The specter of fraud is not absent even today. For example, Honduras’s ex-president Zelaya had had ballots generated with Venezuelan assistance, to secure a fraudulent result.
Gallup polls showed that Zelaya had Nixonian levels of unpopularity in the months before his departure — an approval rating of around 30 percent.
So even if the will of the majority trumped the constitution — which it doesn’t — it would be of doubtful applicability here.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 5:24 pmguy in the veal calf office says:
I learned more about this event (and the various interpretations thereof) by reading this post and the comments than I did while reading the LA Times every day since the coup.
We live in wonderful times.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 6:04 pmOren says:
Hans,
I’m not unsympathetic to the argument, I’m just not convinced by the accusations of electoral fraud. If Zelaya conspired to rig an election, he should be tried for that crime according to the process set forth by Honduran Law. Otherwise, it’s immaterial innuendo that aims to discredit the man (who is thoroughly discredited already, IMO) instead of dealing with the substantive issue.
I’m also generally in agreement with your assertion that the removal was constitutional, which would be dispositive to the issue if I felt that the clauses in question were even vaguely conscionable.
As I said in my first post in this thread (which is now thoroughly out of control), I don’t pretend like my views on the clauses in question having any bearing on the internal politics of Honduras. I would hope that my government would not support those insisting on rigid adherence to these unconscionable terms.
I never said it did, but certainly a majority will suffice to call a constitutional convention to discuss and draft a new constitution to be put to the voters again at a later date.
And the answer to this is to prevent reelection in general? This is like burning all your money because you once got a fraudulent bill.
Democracy isn’t perfect, people often elect the wrong guy, sometimes politicians cheat. It’s still far and away superior to being ruled by the dead hand of a putatively-unamendable document.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 10:21 pmEAM says:
The CID Gallup poll taken in early July, which I assume you are citing, does not say that a plurality supported the move. Two questions were asked: 1) Was President Zelaya’s removal justified? and 2) Do you agree with the actions to remove him? La Prensa only reported the response to the first question: 41% felt the removal was justified, 28% did not think it was justified, and 31% did not answer. Several US papers picked this up from La Prensa, while others noted the second question, which logged these numbers: 46& disagreed with the method of removal, 41% agreed, with 13% not responding. While a plurality was glad to see Mel removed, a plurality did not support the method used. Now this newer poll 52% oppose the coup, up from 46% in early July, or a rise of only 6 points.
Quote
October 12, 2009, 11:12 pmSteve Johnson says:
egd:
Much as I detest all thing French, I’m afraid that we are just going to have to accept that “coup” and “coup d’etat” simply have no meaning anymore on this thread. Just as “racist” has become a meaningless epithet because of its misuse, so have these, except by those who hope to imbed them in the consciousness by their continued and repetitive (mis)use, having lost the semantic argument long ago.
Quote
October 13, 2009, 1:51 amEAM says:
Indeed. Considering the rhetoric of at least part of the political right, it’s easy to see the term had lost its ability to “mean.” That’s actually one definition of functional illiteracy. For the rest of us, however, coup d’etat works just fine — a perfect term to describe the capture and exile of an elected president. I recommend semantic therapy — it will only do good for you.
Quote
October 13, 2009, 5:20 amFrank 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, 6:31 pmtom davis says:
Until reading the article by Douglass Cassel I was convinced that the Obama administrations’ backing of Zelaya was that of one would-be socialist strong-man for another. After reading the article my opinion is not greatly changed in that the reaction came too soon for thoughtful analysis. The article does seem to indicate that, while the Honduran legislature and judiciary may have been right and justified in their actions (to a point) they did not have the backing of the law or the constitution. Unless the article was tainted by withholding relevant information or by misrepresenting the facts and the time-line of events, Zelaya was removed without due process. This administration is still wrong, I feel, if they fail to recognize scheduled elections.
Quote
October 14, 2009, 1:06 pmHome removal companies says:
Just wondering who could be behind this so called “Coup d’etat”.
They are always a result of individual financial gains and the poor population will still be the ones deprived of everything.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 6:38 pmJohn B says:
Yeah. So, Ortega just seized control of Nicaragua. Anybody else want to seriously argue that Zelaya wasn’t going to follow a similar model? Such talk would be nonsense.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487593948546118.html
If the continuous presidency of Chavez is no proof, this ought to be.
Quote
October 26, 2009, 10:42 pmJaimeInTexas says:
Yep. I have been going through the replies and it is amazing. Folks, quit trying to interpret what happlened in Honduras through the prism of the Consititution of these uS.
Whether we like or not the Honduran Constitution states that any governmental official even proposing the modification of the single term of the president, CEASES, has ceased, to be an officer of the government. In other words, when Zelaya took measures to change the single term of the president, Zelaya ceased to be the president and the office became vacant. PERIOD.
Some may think that the restriction is immoral. So be it. Regardless, the actions taken by the Honduran Legislature and Judiciary, and the subsequent CIVILIAN instructions to the military is not the definition of a coup.
Quote
November 1, 2009, 11:11 pmJaimeInTexas says:
A previous discussin on this topic
My translation of some relevant passages of the Honduran Constitution
Quote
November 1, 2009, 11:26 pmJaimeInTexas says:
Here is my translation of some of the relevant passages of the Honduran Constitution:
http://volokh.com/posts/1246284495.shtml#607985
Previous discussions:
http://volokh.com/posts/1247241104.shtml
Quote
November 1, 2009, 11:30 pm