Previous discussions:
http://volokh.com/posts/1247241104.shtml

My translation of some relevant passages of the Honduran Constitution

Steve Johnson: 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.

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.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487593948546118.html

If the continuous presidency of Chavez is no proof, this ought to be.

Steve Johnson: 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.

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.

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.

egd:
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.

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.

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.

So even if the will of the majority trumped the constitution — which it doesn’t — it would be of doubtful applicability here.

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.

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).

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.

We live in wonderful times.

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.

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.

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.

It’s important to note that even the US constitution has such “unrewritable” clauses, albeit with some nuances:

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.

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.

Then we are in substantial agreement about the core issue.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

“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.

About the suspensions:

http://www.honduras.com/honduras-constitution-english.html

see Chapter III, article 187.

“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…

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….

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.

EAM: Are you in favor of the June 28 coup d’etat against President Manuel Zelaya Rosales?

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.

” 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….

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.

John B: 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.

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.

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.

art. 239: “El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o
Designado. El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato
en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos, y quedarán inhabilitados por diez años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.”
Unofficial translation: “The citizen who has been the Chief of the Executive Power cannot [again] be President or Designee. Anyone who breaches this provision or proposes its reform, as well as those who assist him directly or indirectly, shall cease immediately in the discharge of their respective posts,
and will remain ineligible for ten years for the exercise of any public function.”

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.

Just read your primary posts. Good articles, all. Cassel is a clown. Great job in exposing his errors.

Chavez has done worse

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).

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.

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.

Oren, was what was done with Nixon wrong then? It seems to be a total analogy.

Nixon did not have the support of the American People.

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?

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.