Comments on: Is the Honduran Political Crisis Over? http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/ Commentary on law, public policy, and more Tue, 08 May 2012 01:46:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: J Ricardo Planas http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-3/#comment-702124 J Ricardo Planas Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:53:08 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-702124 Explanatory Note: In the aftermath of Zelaya’s removal from office, two U.S. Government documents were published analyzing the event. The Law Library of Congress issued its report, “Honduras: Constitutional Law Issues,” in August 2009, while the Congressional Research Service (CRS) published its own version, “Honduran-U.S. Relations,” on October 6, 2009. The CRS report is uniquely detached and objective and it does not arrive to any conclusion regarding the constitutionality of Zelaya’s removal. Instead, it allows the reader to interpret the chronology of events as they occurred. The report by the Law Library was published in reply to a request by U.S. Congressman Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., who had inquired whether the Honduran Government had proceeded in accordance with the law in removing President Zelaya from power. This report was criticized by those who opposed the incident for “over-reading” of the Honduran Constitution while those who supported Zelaya’s removal used the document to criticize the Obama administration’s stand on the issue and to side with anti-Chavez forces inside and outside of Honduras. The point I sought to make in the above article is that, despite having the necessary constitutional powers to bring Zelaya to trial and likely to remove him from office, the National Congress chose not to rely on the “impeachment-like” procedures at its disposal. Note: The Law Report correctly states that while specific impeachment legislation no longer exists, the constitution does enumerate various powers residing in the hands of the Congress and the Supreme Court that may accomplish the same objective. I cite several of these powers in the article. Three important points, however, need to be made. First, conflictive inquiries issued at the request of members of Congress need to be read between the lines. For example, the Law Report states, “Available sources indicate 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” (emphasis added). The statement suggests that the analyst did not have all pertinent information at hand; only what the Honduran Government had released. A correct interpretation of this statement might be that the Honduran authorities responsible for removing Zelaya from office were of the opinion that their actions were in conformity with constitutional and statutory law. This apparent partiality initially appears in the report’s Executive Summary as it adds that, “The Constitution … gives Congress the power to interpret the Constitution.” While nothing in politics is impossible, it is dubious that a republican constitution would allow those who write the law to interpret it, too. If so, this may be one reason why so much chaos has been created by those who removed Zelaya from power. Further ambiguity expressed by the Law Report analyst attests to the uncertainty of the constitutional question. The analyst states, “The Constitution does not contain an express provision giving the National Congress the authority to remove a President from office. Nonetheless, the National Congress apparently used several other constitutional powers to remove President Zelaya from office” (emphasis added). In the end, the analyst, in a show of proper research and analysis techniques, concludes, “The question of which Constitutional provision gives the National Congress the power to remove the President still remains.” In addition, as if to further qualify the constitutionality of Zelaya’s forceful exile in Costa Rica, the Executive Summary concludes quite tersely, “The Constitution prohibits the expatriation of Honduran citizens.” The second point pertains to the question the Law Report asks regarding the constitutionality of Zelaya’s removal: “Did the Honduran Supreme Court have the authority under the Honduran Constitution to request that the military remove the President because the National Congress, the Supreme Court, the Human Rights Ombudsman, and the Attorney General found an action of the President unconstitutional?” (Emphasis added). The question incorrectly indicates “findings” by the National Congress and the Human Rights Ombudsman. Only the Attorney General had brought charges against Zelaya prior to his removal from office, which the Supreme Court agreed with. The National Congress, as well as other social and political institutions had expressed political opposition to Zelaya’s actions but there had been no formal “findings” other than the decisions by Attorney General and the Supreme Court. Perhaps, the most egregious unconstitutional action throughout the entire Honduran affair, which went unnoticed by the Law Report, is the timing of the judgment the National Congress issued against President Zelaya. The CRS Report states—and the Law Report agrees—that, “Following Zelaya’s removal …, the Congress then passed a decree that disapproved of Zelaya’s conduct for ‘repeated violations against the Constitution and laws of the Republic and nonobservance of the resolutions and rulings of the judicial organs,’ removed Zelaya from office, and named Roberto Micheletti—the Head of Congress and the next in line constitutionally—the president of Honduras for the remainder of Zelaya’s term…” Such disapproval was precisely the charge that the National Congress was constitutionally mandated to issue prior to Zelaya’s removal from office as a means to request the Supreme Court to review the charges and take action. However, as the CRS Report indicates, the action by the National Congress was taken retroactively. Indeed, Zelaya had been charged and found guilty after he had been removed and sent to Costa Rica. He never underwent a trial as mandated by the constitution. News of the so-called “extensive investigation” that the National Congress relied on “to disapprove of the conduct of the President,” as stated in the Law Report’s Executive Summary, was made public after Zelaya’s removal. Other errors in the Law Report are worth mentioning. The report states that, “Two days later, on June 28, 2009, Zelaya was arrested. Nonetheless, Zelaya was never arrested. The Supreme Court had issued a warrant for his arrest; however, someone undercut this decision and instead the Army took Zelaya by force to a foreign State in violation of Article 102 of the constitution. Note: In reference to my statement that the Supreme Court does not have the power to order the military to depose the president, it is correct that the Supreme Court is empowered to rely on the Armed Forces to adjudicate its decisions. In this case, however, it was the National Police that was empowered to have Zelaya arrested, according to documentation presented by the Attorney General. Someone made the decision to circumvent this procedure. Further, the Law Report did not give much value to other constitutional violations by the National Congress, the Supreme Court and/or the Armed Forces, despite its veiled acknowledgement. The report states, “The Chief Prosecutor filed a complaint (requerimiento fiscal) against President Zelaya before the Supreme Court on June 26, 2009. The complaint: (1) accused the President of acting against the established form of government, treason against the country, abuse of authority, and usurpation of functions; (2) requested that the Court order the arrest of the President; (3) requested that the Court notify the President of the facts alleged against him; (4) requested that the President’s testimony be heard; and (5) requested that the President be suspended from office. However, again, someone decided to shortcut the Attorney General’s requests, as only the first two requests were implemented. Inasmuch as it seems that President Zelaya had violated the constitution, and probably would have been found guilty if properly judged, in lieu of the above, it is constitutionally challenging at best to argue if his removal was legal. In the end, the democratic process became the unintended victim. Explanatory Note: In the aftermath of Zelaya’s removal from office, two U.S. Government documents were published analyzing the event. The Law Library of Congress issued its report, “Honduras: Constitutional Law Issues,” in August 2009, while the Congressional Research Service (CRS) published its own version, “Honduran-U.S. Relations,” on October 6, 2009.

The CRS report is uniquely detached and objective and it does not arrive to any conclusion regarding the constitutionality of Zelaya’s removal. Instead, it allows the reader to interpret the chronology of events as they occurred.

The report by the Law Library was published in reply to a request by U.S. Congressman Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., who had inquired whether the Honduran Government had proceeded in accordance with the law in removing President Zelaya from power. This report was criticized by those who opposed the incident for “over-reading” of the Honduran Constitution while those who supported Zelaya’s removal used the document to criticize the Obama administration’s stand on the issue and to side with anti-Chavez forces inside and outside of Honduras.

The point I sought to make in the above article is that, despite having the necessary constitutional powers to bring Zelaya to trial and likely to remove him from office, the National Congress chose not to rely on the “impeachment-like” procedures at its disposal. Note: The Law Report correctly states that while specific impeachment legislation no longer exists, the constitution does enumerate various powers residing in the hands of the Congress and the Supreme Court that may accomplish the same objective. I cite several of these powers in the article.

Three important points, however, need to be made. First, conflictive inquiries issued at the request of members of Congress need to be read between the lines. For example, the Law Report states, “Available sources indicate 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” (emphasis added). The statement suggests that the analyst did not have all pertinent information at hand; only what the Honduran Government had released. A correct interpretation of this statement might be that the Honduran authorities responsible for removing Zelaya from office were of the opinion that their actions were in conformity with constitutional and statutory law.

This apparent partiality initially appears in the report’s Executive Summary as it adds that, “The Constitution … gives Congress the power to interpret the Constitution.” While nothing in politics is impossible, it is dubious that a republican constitution would allow those who write the law to interpret it, too. If so, this may be one reason why so much chaos has been created by those who removed Zelaya from power.

Further ambiguity expressed by the Law Report analyst attests to the uncertainty of the constitutional question. The analyst states, “The Constitution does not contain an express provision giving the National Congress the authority to remove a President from office. Nonetheless, the National Congress apparently used several other constitutional powers to remove President Zelaya from office” (emphasis added). In the end, the analyst, in a show of proper research and analysis techniques, concludes, “The question of which Constitutional provision gives the National Congress the power to remove the President still remains.” In addition, as if to further qualify the constitutionality of Zelaya’s forceful exile in Costa Rica, the Executive Summary concludes quite tersely, “The Constitution prohibits the expatriation of Honduran citizens.”

The second point pertains to the question the Law Report asks regarding the constitutionality of Zelaya’s removal: “Did the Honduran Supreme Court have the authority under the Honduran Constitution to request that the military remove the President because the National Congress, the Supreme Court, the Human Rights Ombudsman, and the Attorney General found an action of the President unconstitutional?” (Emphasis added).
The question incorrectly indicates “findings” by the National Congress and the Human Rights Ombudsman. Only the Attorney General had brought charges against Zelaya prior to his removal from office, which the Supreme Court agreed with. The National Congress, as well as other social and political institutions had expressed political opposition to Zelaya’s actions but there had been no formal “findings” other than the decisions by Attorney General and the Supreme Court.

Perhaps, the most egregious unconstitutional action throughout the entire Honduran affair, which went unnoticed by the Law Report, is the timing of the judgment the National Congress issued against President Zelaya. The CRS Report states—and the Law Report agrees—that, “Following Zelaya’s removal …, the Congress then passed a decree that disapproved of Zelaya’s conduct for ‘repeated violations against the Constitution and laws of the Republic and nonobservance of the resolutions and rulings of the judicial organs,’ removed Zelaya from office, and named Roberto Micheletti—the Head of Congress and the next in line constitutionally—the president of Honduras for the remainder of Zelaya’s term…”

Such disapproval was precisely the charge that the National Congress was constitutionally mandated to issue prior to Zelaya’s removal from office as a means to request the Supreme Court to review the charges and take action. However, as the CRS Report indicates, the action by the National Congress was taken retroactively. Indeed, Zelaya had been charged and found guilty after he had been removed and sent to Costa Rica. He never underwent a trial as mandated by the constitution. News of the so-called “extensive investigation” that the National Congress relied on “to disapprove of the conduct of the President,” as stated in the Law Report’s Executive Summary, was made public after Zelaya’s removal.

Other errors in the Law Report are worth mentioning. The report states that, “Two days later, on June 28, 2009, Zelaya was arrested. Nonetheless, Zelaya was never arrested. The Supreme Court had issued a warrant for his arrest; however, someone undercut this decision and instead the Army took Zelaya by force to a foreign State in violation of Article 102 of the constitution. Note: In reference to my statement that the Supreme Court does not have the power to order the military to depose the president, it is correct that the Supreme Court is empowered to rely on the Armed Forces to adjudicate its decisions. In this case, however, it was the National Police that was empowered to have Zelaya arrested, according to documentation presented by the Attorney General. Someone made the decision to circumvent this procedure.

Further, the Law Report did not give much value to other constitutional violations by the National Congress, the Supreme Court and/or the Armed Forces, despite its veiled acknowledgement. The report states, “The Chief Prosecutor filed a complaint (requerimiento fiscal) against President Zelaya before the Supreme Court on June 26, 2009. The complaint: (1) accused the President of acting against the established form of government, treason against the country, abuse of authority, and usurpation of functions; (2) requested that the Court order the arrest of the President; (3) requested that the Court notify the President of the facts alleged against him; (4) requested that the President’s testimony be heard; and (5) requested that the President be suspended from office. However, again, someone decided to shortcut the Attorney General’s requests, as only the first two requests were implemented.

Inasmuch as it seems that President Zelaya had violated the constitution, and probably would have been found guilty if properly judged, in lieu of the above, it is constitutionally challenging at best to argue if his removal was legal. In the end, the democratic process became the unintended victim.

]]> By: JaimeInTexas http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-3/#comment-682485 JaimeInTexas Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:49:33 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-682485 Are you asking me to explain what the process is in Honduras or do you just want to argue based on how it is done here in an impeachment and removal proceedings? Zelayas actions and statements were done in the open. The Honduran Legislature and Court went through their respective Consitutionally assigned duties. Zelaya was measured and found wanting through a Consitutional process, not a coup. Are you asking me to explain what the process is in Honduras or do you just want to argue based on how it is done here in an impeachment and removal proceedings?

Zelayas actions and statements were done in the open. The Honduran Legislature and Court went through their respective Consitutionally assigned duties.

Zelaya was measured and found wanting through a Consitutional process, not a coup.

]]> By: Oren http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-3/#comment-682284 Oren Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:49:24 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-682284 <blockquote>Please get back to us with further analysis when you at least have some idea of the most criminally cartoonish attempt at “constitutional amendment” I’ve ever heard of.</blockquote> The National Assembly wouldn't amend the Constitution for him so he got his crony judges to do it. I said I thought it was <strong>illegitimate</strong>, what more do you want me to do, insult his momma? By the way, he already had zero credibility with me when he rigged the '08 municipal elections. Once a fraud, always a fraud (iow, this is more of the same, not a precipitous drop in his otherwise credible work). <blockquote>Once the Honduran Legislature and the Court found that Zelaya violated Article 239, the only procedure to follow is one of sucession.</blockquote> In the course of finding this, do you feel like he ought to be allocated, I don't know, maybe 15 minutes for rebuttal? Do you feel it's normal for a deliberative body to make findings of fact without allowing the relevant parties a chance to speak in their own defense? Anyone want to take odds on my prediction by the way?

Please get back to us with further analysis when you at least have some idea of the most criminally cartoonish attempt at “constitutional amendment” I’ve ever heard of.

The National Assembly wouldn’t amend the Constitution for him so he got his crony judges to do it. I said I thought it was illegitimate, what more do you want me to do, insult his momma? By the way, he already had zero credibility with me when he rigged the ’08 municipal elections. Once a fraud, always a fraud (iow, this is more of the same, not a precipitous drop in his otherwise credible work).

Once the Honduran Legislature and the Court found that Zelaya violated Article 239, the only procedure to follow is one of sucession.

In the course of finding this, do you feel like he ought to be allocated, I don’t know, maybe 15 minutes for rebuttal? Do you feel it’s normal for a deliberative body to make findings of fact without allowing the relevant parties a chance to speak in their own defense?

Anyone want to take odds on my prediction by the way?

]]> By: JaimeInTexas http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-3/#comment-682238 JaimeInTexas Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:21:41 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-682238 <blockquote>http://volokh.com/posts/1246284495.shtml#607985 ARTICLE 239: The citizen that has performed [under] the title of Executive Power cannot be President or Designate. Whoever breaks this provision/regulation or proposes its reform, as well as those who support directly of indirectly [the breaking of this provision/regulation], will cease immediately in their performance of their relative charges (public office?), and are inelegible from public office for a period of 10 years. </blockquote> I keep reading about the procedure for removal. Once the Honduran Legislature and the Court found that Zelaya violated Article 239, the only procedure to follow is one of sucession.

http://volokh.com/posts/1246284495.shtml#607985
ARTICLE 239: The citizen that has performed [under] the title of Executive Power cannot be President or Designate.

Whoever breaks this provision/regulation or proposes its reform, as well as those who support directly of indirectly [the breaking of this provision/regulation], will cease immediately in their performance of their relative charges (public office?), and are inelegible from public office for a period of 10 years.

I keep reading about the procedure for removal.

Once the Honduran Legislature and the Court found that Zelaya violated Article 239, the only procedure to follow is one of sucession.

]]> By: geokstr http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-3/#comment-682171 geokstr Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:46:48 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-682171 <blockquote>Oren says: <blockquote>Dr Weevil is correct, I was misquoted when I said Noriega instead of Ortega. :o) </blockquote> You mean to say you misquoted yourself, right? </blockquote> Of course. I do, believe it or not, have a sense of humor, often self-deprecating. That little collection of symbols after my comment is called a smiley face. <blockquote>Ortega already has the fraud during the 2008 municipal elections going against him (although by all accounts, he did win legitimately in 2006). As for the recent amendment of their constitution to allow him a second term, I imagine that does not conform with the procedure for amendment. That said, I’m going to hedge against my own ignorance because I have not read the Nicaraguan Constitution.</blockquote> Then you obviously have not even the faintest idea what happened there, if you think you need to read their constitution. Please get back to us with further analysis when you at least have some idea of the most criminally cartoonish attempt at "constitutional amendment" I've ever heard of. Ortega makes Hugo look like an originalist.

Oren says:

Dr Weevil is correct, I was misquoted when I said Noriega instead of Ortega. :o)

You mean to say you misquoted yourself, right?

Of course. I do, believe it or not, have a sense of humor, often self-deprecating. That little collection of symbols after my comment is called a smiley face.

Ortega already has the fraud during the 2008 municipal elections going against him (although by all accounts, he did win legitimately in 2006). As for the recent amendment of their constitution to allow him a second term, I imagine that does not conform with the procedure for amendment. That said, I’m going to hedge against my own ignorance because I have not read the Nicaraguan Constitution.

Then you obviously have not even the faintest idea what happened there, if you think you need to read their constitution. Please get back to us with further analysis when you at least have some idea of the most criminally cartoonish attempt at “constitutional amendment” I’ve ever heard of. Ortega makes Hugo look like an originalist.

]]> By: Oren http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-682098 Oren Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:27:56 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-682098 Prediction: The election in a few weeks will go off without a hitch, Zelaya will step down and the winner of the election will be inaugurated. Mild bloodshed, a few raucous protests maybe. No serious incidents. We should have a system whereby a thread like this can be set to revive itself to the top of the front page on a set date (like, say, the inaugaration of Zelaya's successor). If I'm wrong, I'd like to be reminded that I was wrong so I can reread my comments and reconstruct why I thought what I did. Of course, I wouldn't mind being reminded in 3 months that I was totally right either. ;-) Prediction: The election in a few weeks will go off without a hitch, Zelaya will step down and the winner of the election will be inaugurated. Mild bloodshed, a few raucous protests maybe. No serious incidents.

We should have a system whereby a thread like this can be set to revive itself to the top of the front page on a set date (like, say, the inaugaration of Zelaya’s successor). If I’m wrong, I’d like to be reminded that I was wrong so I can reread my comments and reconstruct why I thought what I did.

Of course, I wouldn’t mind being reminded in 3 months that I was totally right either. ;-)

]]> By: Steve Johnson http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-682051 Steve Johnson Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:37:46 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-682051 Zelaya's reinsertion with the connivance of our State Department employees makes the comparison with Lenin and the Germans more apt. Zelaya’s reinsertion with the connivance of our State Department employees makes the comparison with Lenin and the Germans more apt.

]]> By: Mark Field http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-682045 Mark Field Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:30:13 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-682045 <blockquote>Why when I read Oren (and the high officials and senators of the US) am I reminded of Dreyfus and the secret papers,that could never bo shown, that revealed they were right...</blockquote> This seems like a peculiar analogy. The obvious comparison would be Dreyfus = Zelaya. I'm not, btw, claiming that Zelaya is innocent (as Dreyfus was); I'm just noting that the similarities in what occurred make that the more obvious comparison.

Why when I read Oren (and the high officials and senators of the US) am I reminded of Dreyfus and the secret papers,that could never bo shown, that revealed they were right…

This seems like a peculiar analogy. The obvious comparison would be Dreyfus = Zelaya.

I’m not, btw, claiming that Zelaya is innocent (as Dreyfus was); I’m just noting that the similarities in what occurred make that the more obvious comparison.

]]> By: Toby http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-682015 Toby Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:52:54 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-682015 Why when I read Oren (and the high officials and senators of the US) am I reminded of Dreyfus and the secret papers,that could never bo shown, that revealed they were right... Why when I read Oren (and the high officials and senators of the US) am I reminded of Dreyfus and the secret papers,that could never bo shown, that revealed they were right…

]]> By: Oren http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681925 Oren Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:15:33 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681925 <blockquote>Dr Weevil is correct, I was misquoted when I said Noriega instead of Ortega. :o) </blockquote> You mean to say you misquoted yourself, right? Ortega already has the fraud during the 2008 municipal elections going against him (although by all accounts, he did win legitimately in 2006). As for the recent amendment of their constitution to allow him a second term, I imagine that does not conform with the procedure for amendment. That said, I'm going to hedge against my own ignorance because I have not read the Nicaraguan Constitution.

Dr Weevil is correct, I was misquoted when I said Noriega instead of Ortega. :o)

You mean to say you misquoted yourself, right?

Ortega already has the fraud during the 2008 municipal elections going against him (although by all accounts, he did win legitimately in 2006). As for the recent amendment of their constitution to allow him a second term, I imagine that does not conform with the procedure for amendment. That said, I’m going to hedge against my own ignorance because I have not read the Nicaraguan Constitution.

]]> By: Oren http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681919 Oren Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:03:30 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681919 <blockquote>Ah, that statement must be delineated in the Honduran constitution in the missing section where the method for impeachment lies. Care to [c]ite? </blockquote> Right next to the part that gives the Supreme Court the power to impeach by <i>ex parte</i> summary judgment. <blockquote> For that matter, care to point me to the clause in the US constitution guaranteeing the president the right to face his accusers in an impeachment trial?</blockquote> Precedent is that an impeached official has all the rights normally attaching at trial, including counsel and the right to make a statement. Look, this is a civil process, there is no reason not to let the man make a speech before the Congress before they vote. Leave him in irons, if you insist that he is so dangerous that he can't be trusted not to bolt into the jungle. <blockquote> The officers who decided to expel him from that country should be tried under appropriate provisions of law. That has nothing to do with his removal from office, and says even less about his return to power. </blockquote> Moreover, the Congress should withdraw their motion to remove him from office until he has had a chance to justify his actions. <blockquote> That isn’t clear to me at all, considering the document creates a paradox of demanding the removal of a president while providing no mechanism for doing so.</blockquote> In the absence of a specified mechanism, any reasonable one would suffice. One in which the official being removed has no right to even speak in his own defense, even informally, is not reasonable. <blockquote> Is the military bound to executive direction no matter the provocation? They had already been ordered to commit what the Court declared unconstitutional acts, at some point isn’t the army bound to obey the highest law in the land? Its a rather dangerous precedent (especially in the region) to expect the military to back the executive against both the courts and the legislatures in overtly illegal acts. Are they required to fulfill an order to assassinate the courts?</blockquote> Absolutely not. They should have carried out the detention order as specified by the competent legal authority. Since expulsion from the country is not specified in any law of the land, high or otherwise, that is most certainly something they should not do.

Ah, that statement must be delineated in the Honduran constitution in the missing section where the method for impeachment lies. Care to [c]ite?

Right next to the part that gives the Supreme Court the power to impeach by ex parte summary judgment.

For that matter, care to point me to the clause in the US constitution guaranteeing the president the right to face his accusers in an impeachment trial?

Precedent is that an impeached official has all the rights normally attaching at trial, including counsel and the right to make a statement.

Look, this is a civil process, there is no reason not to let the man make a speech before the Congress before they vote. Leave him in irons, if you insist that he is so dangerous that he can’t be trusted not to bolt into the jungle.

The officers who decided to expel him from that country should be tried under appropriate provisions of law. That has nothing to do with his removal from office, and says even less about his return to power.

Moreover, the Congress should withdraw their motion to remove him from office until he has had a chance to justify his actions.

That isn’t clear to me at all, considering the document creates a paradox of demanding the removal of a president while providing no mechanism for doing so.

In the absence of a specified mechanism, any reasonable one would suffice. One in which the official being removed has no right to even speak in his own defense, even informally, is not reasonable.

Is the military bound to executive direction no matter the provocation? They had already been ordered to commit what the Court declared unconstitutional acts, at some point isn’t the army bound to obey the highest law in the land? Its a rather dangerous precedent (especially in the region) to expect the military to back the executive against both the courts and the legislatures in overtly illegal acts. Are they required to fulfill an order to assassinate the courts?

Absolutely not. They should have carried out the detention order as specified by the competent legal authority.

Since expulsion from the country is not specified in any law of the land, high or otherwise, that is most certainly something they should not do.

]]> By: Oren http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681913 Oren Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:48:54 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681913 <blockquote>Putting him on trial would have been the legally correct thing to do, but would likely have led to bloodshed, with Zelayists rioting in the streets, as indeed they have done, especially since he sneaked into the Brazilian embassy.</blockquote> Indeed, doing the wrong thing is often expedient. That does not absolve us of doing the right thing, even when it is difficult. <blockquote>It looks to me like whoever (military, Supreme Court, Congress, some combination of them) decided to put Zelaya on a plane was trying to do both sides a favor by letting Zelaya go free and unpunished for his crimes, while avoiding bloodshed in Honduras.</blockquote> Neither does good motive absolve us of doing the right thing. Even more ridiculous, of course, is the notion that you can do someone "a favor" against his will. Zelaya wanted to confront the accusation and plead his case. The military did him no favor by denying him that eminently reasonable right. [ By the way, I have no complaint about keeping him detained and stripped of his power in the interim between arrest and disposition. ] <blockquote> Finally, I will not be entirely surprised if Zelaya is still ‘president’ after his term expires in January, and even less surprised if dozens or hundreds are killed and thousands more imprisoned or exiled between now and then.</blockquote> At that point, I will have no qualms if the military exiles him into a shallow grave. <blockquote> In uncharted waters, the Honduran government proceeded to protect and defend their Constitutional Republic.</blockquote> Again, good motives do not rescue an action quite clearly contrary to law (as most have already agreed). Zelaya should stand for the charges of violating the Constitution and the military should stand for the charges of unlawfully deporting a citizen without process.

Putting him on trial would have been the legally correct thing to do, but would likely have led to bloodshed, with Zelayists rioting in the streets, as indeed they have done, especially since he sneaked into the Brazilian embassy.

Indeed, doing the wrong thing is often expedient. That does not absolve us of doing the right thing, even when it is difficult.

It looks to me like whoever (military, Supreme Court, Congress, some combination of them) decided to put Zelaya on a plane was trying to do both sides a favor by letting Zelaya go free and unpunished for his crimes, while avoiding bloodshed in Honduras.

Neither does good motive absolve us of doing the right thing.

Even more ridiculous, of course, is the notion that you can do someone “a favor” against his will. Zelaya wanted to confront the accusation and plead his case. The military did him no favor by denying him that eminently reasonable right.

[ By the way, I have no complaint about keeping him detained and stripped of his power in the interim between arrest and disposition. ]

Finally, I will not be entirely surprised if Zelaya is still ‘president’ after his term expires in January, and even less surprised if dozens or hundreds are killed and thousands more imprisoned or exiled between now and then.

At that point, I will have no qualms if the military exiles him into a shallow grave.

In uncharted waters, the Honduran government proceeded to protect and defend their Constitutional Republic.

Again, good motives do not rescue an action quite clearly contrary to law (as most have already agreed). Zelaya should stand for the charges of violating the Constitution and the military should stand for the charges of unlawfully deporting a citizen without process.

]]> By: geokstr http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681888 geokstr Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:09:17 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681888 Dr Weevil is correct, I was misquoted when I said Noriega instead of Ortega. :o) Oren, please give us your opinion on whether the BS Ortega just pulled was "constitutional". I would be so interested in hearing why you feel that he was justified in what he did and why Obama and Clinton should fully support his actions. Dr Weevil is correct, I was misquoted when I said Noriega instead of Ortega. :o)

Oren, please give us your opinion on whether the BS Ortega just pulled was “constitutional”. I would be so interested in hearing why you feel that he was justified in what he did and why Obama and Clinton should fully support his actions.

]]> By: Mark Buehner http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681855 Mark Buehner Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:34:55 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681855 <blockquote>In that case, he would at least have the chance to confront ths accusation in some sort of process. You cannot condemn an officeholder for violation of the constitution in such an ex parte fashion — it makes no sense. He’s entitled to make a case for the legality of his actions, by denying him that chance, the military transformed a legitimate operation of law into an illegitimate exercise of force. </blockquote> Ah, that statement must be delineated in the Honduran constitution in the missing section where the method for impeachment lies. Care to site? For that matter, care to point me to the clause in the US constitution guaranteeing the president the right to face his accusers in an impeachment trial? This isn't a criminal case, its a removal from office. <blockquote>The military is not entitled to arbitrarily chose random courses of actions because they feel it’s best. </blockquote> True. The officers who decided to expel him from that country should be tried under appropriate provisions of law. That has nothing to do with his removal from office, and says even less about his return to power. <blockquote>The part that you seem to miss is that, according to you, the Supreme Court and the AG can remove the President for any reason, true or false, that they agree on. This is obviously counter to the intent of the drafters of the Honduran Constitution, who were perfectly capable of writing a clause giving the Court the power to remove the President at any time and for any reason.</blockquote> That isn't clear to me at all, considering the document creates a paradox of demanding the removal of a president while providing no mechanism for doing so. If the AG, the courts, and the legislature are all in agreement, what more could you possibly ask for? One could argue if the writers had intended an impeachment trial in the legislature US style they would have said so. Their silence is troubling (and the cause of this crisis), but I think its dangerous ground to assume what their assumptions were given that failure. <blockquote>Zelaya was a terrible President and I have every reason to believe that the military was acting in good faith. No matter how pure their intentions and how wicked he is, the voters of Honduras vested in him (and not them) the powers of the Executive</blockquote> Is the military bound to executive direction no matter the provocation? They had already been ordered to commit what the Court declared unconstitutional acts, at some point isn't the army bound to obey the highest law in the land? Its a rather dangerous precedent (especially in the region) to expect the military to back the executive against both the courts and the legislatures in overtly illegal acts. Are they required to fulfill an order to assassinate the courts?

In that case, he would at least have the chance to confront ths accusation in some sort of process. You cannot condemn an officeholder for violation of the constitution in such an ex parte fashion — it makes no sense. He’s entitled to make a case for the legality of his actions, by denying him that chance, the military transformed a legitimate operation of law into an illegitimate exercise of force.

Ah, that statement must be delineated in the Honduran constitution in the missing section where the method for impeachment lies. Care to site?

For that matter, care to point me to the clause in the US constitution guaranteeing the president the right to face his accusers in an impeachment trial? This isn’t a criminal case, its a removal from office.

The military is not entitled to arbitrarily chose random courses of actions because they feel it’s best.

True. The officers who decided to expel him from that country should be tried under appropriate provisions of law. That has nothing to do with his removal from office, and says even less about his return to power.

The part that you seem to miss is that, according to you, the Supreme Court and the AG can remove the President for any reason, true or false, that they agree on. This is obviously counter to the intent of the drafters of the Honduran Constitution, who were perfectly capable of writing a clause giving the Court the power to remove the President at any time and for any reason.

That isn’t clear to me at all, considering the document creates a paradox of demanding the removal of a president while providing no mechanism for doing so. If the AG, the courts, and the legislature are all in agreement, what more could you possibly ask for? One could argue if the writers had intended an impeachment trial in the legislature US style they would have said so. Their silence is troubling (and the cause of this crisis), but I think its dangerous ground to assume what their assumptions were given that failure.

Zelaya was a terrible President and I have every reason to believe that the military was acting in good faith. No matter how pure their intentions and how wicked he is, the voters of Honduras vested in him (and not them) the powers of the Executive

Is the military bound to executive direction no matter the provocation? They had already been ordered to commit what the Court declared unconstitutional acts, at some point isn’t the army bound to obey the highest law in the land? Its a rather dangerous precedent (especially in the region) to expect the military to back the executive against both the courts and the legislatures in overtly illegal acts. Are they required to fulfill an order to assassinate the courts?

]]> By: Steve Johnson http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681826 Steve Johnson Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:41:04 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681826 When the Hondurans vested Mel with the powers of the executive as delineated in the Constitution, they also vested him with the constraints therein. Mel accepted both. He then abused the powers and tried to break the constraints. He was warned by the Constitutionally appointed party that if he continued in his folly he would be Constitutionally removed. Knowing the consequences, he deliberately provoked his removal. Now, because of the ceremony of his removal was not to their liking, the "kings of the world" have decided that the Honduran government should have acted differently to appease their delicate palates. In uncharted waters, the Honduran government proceeded to protect and defend their Constitutional Republic. They didn't dissolve their government and replace it with a military dictatorship. They didn't install a cabal to run the country until a new group could depose them. Instead, they installed a temporary President of the same party as a care taker until the soon to be held regularly scheduled elections. Would that our "kings of the world" had been around in 1866 to advise President Lincoln on his temporary suspension of habeus corpus. When the Hondurans vested Mel with the powers of the executive as delineated in the Constitution, they also vested him with the constraints therein. Mel accepted both. He then abused the powers and tried to break the constraints. He was warned by the Constitutionally appointed party that if he continued in his folly he would be Constitutionally removed. Knowing the consequences, he deliberately provoked his removal. Now, because of the ceremony of his removal was not to their liking, the “kings of the world” have decided that the Honduran government should have acted differently to appease their delicate palates.

In uncharted waters, the Honduran government proceeded to protect and defend their Constitutional Republic. They didn’t dissolve their government and replace it with a military dictatorship. They didn’t install a cabal to run the country until a new group could depose them. Instead, they installed a temporary President of the same party as a care taker until the soon to be held regularly scheduled elections.

Would that our “kings of the world” had been around in 1866 to advise President Lincoln on his temporary suspension of habeus corpus.

]]> By: Dr. Weevil http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681823 Dr. Weevil Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:37:55 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681823 When geokstr wrote 'Noriega', I'm pretty sure he meant 'Ortega'. The silence of so many in the U.S. on his recent blatant power grab is deafening. Was he encouraged by Obama's support for Zelaya? It can't have discouraged him. As for why the Honduran military cut a few corners and deported Zelaya instead of arresting him for trial, I think the reason is obvious. Some Hondurans (10%? 20%? 30%?) support Zelaya and some of those would be willing to do violence to help him keep power forever. Putting him on trial would have been the legally correct thing to do, but would likely have led to bloodshed, with Zelayists rioting in the streets, as indeed they have done, especially since he sneaked into the Brazilian embassy. It looks to me like whoever (military, Supreme Court, Congress, some combination of them) decided to put Zelaya on a plane was trying to do both sides a favor by letting Zelaya go free and unpunished for his crimes, while avoiding bloodshed in Honduras. Too bad it didn't work. Finally, I will not be entirely surprised if Zelaya is still 'president' after his term expires in January, and even less surprised if dozens or hundreds are killed and thousands more imprisoned or exiled between now and then. Chances of that happening are probably less than even, but I have a very bad feeling about the situation in Honduras, and nothing but contempt for the way Obama has handled it. When geokstr wrote ‘Noriega’, I’m pretty sure he meant ‘Ortega’. The silence of so many in the U.S. on his recent blatant power grab is deafening. Was he encouraged by Obama’s support for Zelaya? It can’t have discouraged him.

As for why the Honduran military cut a few corners and deported Zelaya instead of arresting him for trial, I think the reason is obvious. Some Hondurans (10%? 20%? 30%?) support Zelaya and some of those would be willing to do violence to help him keep power forever. Putting him on trial would have been the legally correct thing to do, but would likely have led to bloodshed, with Zelayists rioting in the streets, as indeed they have done, especially since he sneaked into the Brazilian embassy. It looks to me like whoever (military, Supreme Court, Congress, some combination of them) decided to put Zelaya on a plane was trying to do both sides a favor by letting Zelaya go free and unpunished for his crimes, while avoiding bloodshed in Honduras. Too bad it didn’t work.

Finally, I will not be entirely surprised if Zelaya is still ‘president’ after his term expires in January, and even less surprised if dozens or hundreds are killed and thousands more imprisoned or exiled between now and then. Chances of that happening are probably less than even, but I have a very bad feeling about the situation in Honduras, and nothing but contempt for the way Obama has handled it.

]]> By: Oren http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681813 Oren Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:16:53 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681813 Whoops, I misremembered when the Panamanians first repudiated Noriega at the ballot box, it was in 1984, not 1989. Any power exercised after <i>that time</i> was without the consent of the governed and hence illegitimate. Whoops, I misremembered when the Panamanians first repudiated Noriega at the ballot box, it was in 1984, not 1989. Any power exercised after that time was without the consent of the governed and hence illegitimate.

]]> By: Oren http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681797 Oren Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:53:46 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681797 <blockquote>I am sure he could have stayed, but would likely have been put on trial for his conduct. This was not a military coup, although Zelaya probably should have remained in country *and* been tried.</blockquote> In that case, he would at least have the chance to confront ths accusation in some sort of process. You cannot condemn an officeholder for violation of the constitution in such an <i>ex parte</i> fashion -- it makes no sense. He's entitled to make a case for the legality of his actions, by denying him that chance, the military transformed a legitimate operation of law into an illegitimate exercise of force. <blockquote> The Supreme Court made the order to remove him, with all branches of government in agreement. He was run out of the country because, obviously, he can do less damage out of the country than in it. </blockquote> They made a decision to detain him, not to remove him from the country. The military is not entitled to arbitrarily chose random courses of actions because they feel it's best. <blockquote> Why are you lefties so invested in seeing this nutjob back in power? Its obvious the guys nutso.</blockquote> Because he is the nutjob elected by the People of Honduras to serve as President. When they go to the polls later this month, they may yet elect another nutjob, as is their absolutely inalienable right. <blockquote> The constitution was very very very very very clear on the criterial for his removal from office </blockquote> Except for his right to remain in the country and answer the charges against him, sure. You seem to confuse two issues that are entirely separate questions: (1) Did he engage in $CONDUCT. (2) If he engaged in $CONDUCT, what are the consequences. Zelaya claims that he did not engage in any conduct violating the Constitution of Honduras. Whatever the merit of that claim, he has the right to contest in some sort of process. You and I know that he certainly engaged in conduct that removes him from office, I don't dispute that. I would hope that removal of the executive from his office would require more than mere accusation. <blockquote> So, Oren, are you saying that because the military removed him from the country instead of just arresting him, that the entire process that led to his removal from office was somehow a military coup? </blockquote> If the police arrest me on a valid indictment and then summarily throw me in jail, does that detract from the validity of the warrant? No. Does it transform a valid arrest into an illegal detention? Absolutely. The military's action do not retroactively delegitimize what came before that but they certainly cast a pall on everything that came after -- especially when the Congress did not object to the fact. <blockquote>That process included the Supreme Court and his own Attorney General ruling he had violated the specific article of their constituion that automatically, without trial, fired him as president, the military acting (except for the deportation) in accord with their constitution to execute a valid warrant authorized by a unanimous Supreme Court, a legislature voting nearly unanimously (including his own party), that his removal was justified, etc, etc.</blockquote> Can we infer what part of the process was absent here? Hint, it dates back to before the birth of Christ. The part that you seem to miss is that, according to you, the Supreme Court and the AG can remove the President for any reason, true or false, that they agree on. This is obviously counter to the intent of the drafters of the Honduran Constitution, who were perfectly capable of writing a clause giving the Court the power to remove the President at any time and for any reason. <blockquote> Seems more like you came to your conclusion first, i.e., leftist good, generals bad, must be a coup, and then looked for the one thing you could find, his deportation, to justify your conclusion, and so now he should be reinstated because of this one exception you’ve latched onto. </blockquote> Zelaya was a terrible President and I have every reason to believe that the military was acting in good faith. No matter how pure their intentions and how wicked he is, the voters of Honduras vested in him (and not them) the powers of the Executive. We all have different ideas on what is best for our countries, the important thing is not to imagine that those that disagree about the best policy are really seeking to destroy us instead of expounding a contrary view. <blockquote> I’d be very interest to hear if, and why, you believe Noriega was constitutionally justified in what he just pulled, essentially rewriting their constitution by trickery so he could be the next Hugo, but I suspect it would just be more of the same — leftist good, right wing bad, must be constitutional.</blockquote> In May 1989, the People of Panama voted him out of office (by a 3:1 margin no less). Since they are sovereign, any power he exercised after that point was not by the consent of the People and hence tyrannical. <blockquote> Unless this is their Marbury moment, what they did was ultra vires. Powers not enumerated generally are not implied, at least as far as I learned civil law. </blockquote> Moreover, if this was their Marbury Moment, they could have made it far more convincing by dragging him before the Court (or before the Congress) and actually acting like a deliberative body instead of a declarative one.

I am sure he could have stayed, but would likely have been put on trial for his conduct. This was not a military coup, although Zelaya probably should have remained in country *and* been tried.

In that case, he would at least have the chance to confront ths accusation in some sort of process. You cannot condemn an officeholder for violation of the constitution in such an ex parte fashion — it makes no sense. He’s entitled to make a case for the legality of his actions, by denying him that chance, the military transformed a legitimate operation of law into an illegitimate exercise of force.

The Supreme Court made the order to remove him, with all branches of government in agreement. He was run out of the country because, obviously, he can do less damage out of the country than in it.

They made a decision to detain him, not to remove him from the country. The military is not entitled to arbitrarily chose random courses of actions because they feel it’s best.

Why are you lefties so invested in seeing this nutjob back in power? Its obvious the guys nutso.

Because he is the nutjob elected by the People of Honduras to serve as President. When they go to the polls later this month, they may yet elect another nutjob, as is their absolutely inalienable right.

The constitution was very very very very very clear on the criterial for his removal from office

Except for his right to remain in the country and answer the charges against him, sure. You seem to confuse two issues that are entirely separate questions:
(1) Did he engage in $CONDUCT.
(2) If he engaged in $CONDUCT, what are the consequences.

Zelaya claims that he did not engage in any conduct violating the Constitution of Honduras. Whatever the merit of that claim, he has the right to contest in some sort of process. You and I know that he certainly engaged in conduct that removes him from office, I don’t dispute that. I would hope that removal of the executive from his office would require more than mere accusation.

So, Oren, are you saying that because the military removed him from the country instead of just arresting him, that the entire process that led to his removal from office was somehow a military coup?

If the police arrest me on a valid indictment and then summarily throw me in jail, does that detract from the validity of the warrant? No. Does it transform a valid arrest into an illegal detention? Absolutely.

The military’s action do not retroactively delegitimize what came before that but they certainly cast a pall on everything that came after — especially when the Congress did not object to the fact.

That process included the Supreme Court and his own Attorney General ruling he had violated the specific article of their constituion that automatically, without trial, fired him as president, the military acting (except for the deportation) in accord with their constitution to execute a valid warrant authorized by a unanimous Supreme Court, a legislature voting nearly unanimously (including his own party), that his removal was justified, etc, etc.

Can we infer what part of the process was absent here? Hint, it dates back to before the birth of Christ.

The part that you seem to miss is that, according to you, the Supreme Court and the AG can remove the President for any reason, true or false, that they agree on. This is obviously counter to the intent of the drafters of the Honduran Constitution, who were perfectly capable of writing a clause giving the Court the power to remove the President at any time and for any reason.

Seems more like you came to your conclusion first, i.e., leftist good, generals bad, must be a coup, and then looked for the one thing you could find, his deportation, to justify your conclusion, and so now he should be reinstated because of this one exception you’ve latched onto.

Zelaya was a terrible President and I have every reason to believe that the military was acting in good faith. No matter how pure their intentions and how wicked he is, the voters of Honduras vested in him (and not them) the powers of the Executive. We all have different ideas on what is best for our countries, the important thing is not to imagine that those that disagree about the best policy are really seeking to destroy us instead of expounding a contrary view.

I’d be very interest to hear if, and why, you believe Noriega was constitutionally justified in what he just pulled, essentially rewriting their constitution by trickery so he could be the next Hugo, but I suspect it would just be more of the same — leftist good, right wing bad, must be constitutional.

In May 1989, the People of Panama voted him out of office (by a 3:1 margin no less). Since they are sovereign, any power he exercised after that point was not by the consent of the People and hence tyrannical.

Unless this is their Marbury moment, what they did was ultra vires. Powers not enumerated generally are not implied, at least as far as I learned civil law.

Moreover, if this was their Marbury Moment, they could have made it far more convincing by dragging him before the Court (or before the Congress) and actually acting like a deliberative body instead of a declarative one.

]]> By: Assistant Village Idiot http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681793 Assistant Village Idiot Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:40:25 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681793 gda - the opinion of those people would be irrelevant to ArthurKirkland. He is, by his own description, consumed by grand visions of everyone being made to act properly, so that we will all be happy. (I think he puts it a little better, but that's the sense of it.) People who have been in the way of such visions have historically not done well. Usually, they are described only by their own faults, real and imagined, with no mention of any mistreatment, persecution, or oppression they have received. This is called "balance," because if you don't agree with their accusers, you must obviously have heard only one side. gda – the opinion of those people would be irrelevant to ArthurKirkland. He is, by his own description, consumed by grand visions of everyone being made to act properly, so that we will all be happy. (I think he puts it a little better, but that’s the sense of it.) People who have been in the way of such visions have historically not done well. Usually, they are described only by their own faults, real and imagined, with no mention of any mistreatment, persecution, or oppression they have received. This is called “balance,” because if you don’t agree with their accusers, you must obviously have heard only one side.

]]> By: TheBadness http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681784 TheBadness Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:05:06 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681784 <i>How is what they did activist? The constitution was very very very very very clear on the criterial for his removal from office (though not the ceremonial mechanism, i.e., impeachment)</i> Therein lies the problem: the Constitution of Honduras did not provide for a "ceremonial mechanism." Unless this is their <i>Marbury</I> moment, what they did was <i>ultra vires</i>. Powers not enumerated generally are not implied, at least as far as I learned civil law. However, I welcome an expert in Honduran Constitutional law to explain why I'm wrong; some civil law jurisdictions are more flexible than others in that regard. Hopefully, this 'resolution' really should end up making good and sure the elections go forward and the winner is recognized by all the neighbors. And if Zelaya insists on ignoring the <i>vox populi</i>, screw him. How is what they did activist? The constitution was very very very very very clear on the criterial for his removal from office (though not the ceremonial mechanism, i.e., impeachment)

Therein lies the problem: the Constitution of Honduras did not provide for a “ceremonial mechanism.” Unless this is their Marbury moment, what they did was ultra vires. Powers not enumerated generally are not implied, at least as far as I learned civil law.

However, I welcome an expert in Honduran Constitutional law to explain why I’m wrong; some civil law jurisdictions are more flexible than others in that regard.

Hopefully, this ‘resolution’ really should end up making good and sure the elections go forward and the winner is recognized by all the neighbors. And if Zelaya insists on ignoring the vox populi, screw him.

]]> By: KS http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681739 KS Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:41:08 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681739 Blah!Blah!Blah! Whether you believe the removal of Zeleya to be legal or illegal is irrelevant, that will be sorted out. The fact is that the congress and the supreme court of Honduras had the balls to do what was necessary to remove this guy. There is no doubt, he was taking the country of Honduras down the same path as Chavez did to his country. The big difference is, that rather than sit around the coffee shops complaining, they actually did something about it. God help us if the world pushed Honduras into reinstating Zeleya and it turns into civil war. The bum is out, why not leave him out!! Blah!Blah!Blah!
Whether you believe the removal of Zeleya to be legal or illegal is irrelevant, that will be sorted out. The fact is that the
congress and the supreme court of Honduras had the balls to do what
was necessary to remove this guy. There is no doubt, he was taking the
country of Honduras down the same path as Chavez did to his country.
The big difference is, that rather than sit around the coffee shops complaining, they actually did something about it. God help us if the
world pushed Honduras into reinstating Zeleya and it turns into civil war. The bum is out, why not leave him out!!

]]> By: John http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681673 John Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:29:01 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681673 <blockquote cite="comment-681271"> <strong><a href="#comment-681271" rel="nofollow">Allan Leedy</a></strong>: I don’t get it. What could possibly be wrong with the military deposing an elected president and running him/her out of the country? </blockquote> I dunno. What could be wrong with a president attempting to hijack the constitution and seek additional terms in office in direct violation of said constitution? What could be wrong in seeking the assistance of outsider strongman / dictator Hugo Chavez in doing so? Liberals frighten me. They truly have no respect for the rule of law and desire power attained by any and all means necessary. Three cheers for the people of Honduras for saving their country.

Allan Leedy: I don’t get it. What could possibly be wrong with the military deposing an elected president and running him/her out of the country?

I dunno. What could be wrong with a president attempting to hijack the constitution and seek additional terms in office in direct violation of said constitution? What could be wrong in seeking the assistance of outsider strongman / dictator Hugo Chavez in doing so?

Liberals frighten me. They truly have no respect for the rule of law and desire power attained by any and all means necessary.

Three cheers for the people of Honduras for saving their country.

]]> By: geokstr http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681664 geokstr Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:08:32 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681664 <blockquote>Oren says: <blockquote>Rather, the Honduran Supreme Court declared that Zelaya had violated the Honduran Constitution and therefore was no longer president. The Honduran Congress affirmed this decision and action.</blockquote> And then the military inexplicably decided to shuttle him out of the country instead of complying with the detention order.</blockquote> So, Oren, are you saying that because the military removed him from the country instead of just arresting him, that the entire process that led to his removal from office was somehow a military coup? That process included the Supreme Court and his own Attorney General ruling he had violated the specific article of their constituion that automatically, without trial, fired him as president, the military acting (except for the deportation) in accord with their constitution to execute a valid warrant authorized by a unanimous Supreme Court, a legislature voting nearly unanimously (including his own party), that his removal was justified, etc, etc. Seems more like you came to your conclusion first, i.e., leftist good, generals bad, must be a coup, and then looked for the one thing you could find, his deportation, to justify your conclusion, and so now he should be reinstated because of this one exception you've latched onto. I'd be very interest to hear if, and why, you believe Noriega was constitutionally justified in what he just pulled, essentially rewriting their constitution by trickery so he could be the next Hugo, but I suspect it would just be more of the same - leftist good, right wing bad, must be constitutional.

Oren says:

Rather, the Honduran Supreme Court declared that Zelaya had violated the Honduran Constitution and therefore was no longer president. The Honduran Congress affirmed this decision and action.

And then the military inexplicably decided to shuttle him out of the country instead of complying with the detention order.

So, Oren, are you saying that because the military removed him from the country instead of just arresting him, that the entire process that led to his removal from office was somehow a military coup? That process included the Supreme Court and his own Attorney General ruling he had violated the specific article of their constituion that automatically, without trial, fired him as president, the military acting (except for the deportation) in accord with their constitution to execute a valid warrant authorized by a unanimous Supreme Court, a legislature voting nearly unanimously (including his own party), that his removal was justified, etc, etc.

Seems more like you came to your conclusion first, i.e., leftist good, generals bad, must be a coup, and then looked for the one thing you could find, his deportation, to justify your conclusion, and so now he should be reinstated because of this one exception you’ve latched onto.

I’d be very interest to hear if, and why, you believe Noriega was constitutionally justified in what he just pulled, essentially rewriting their constitution by trickery so he could be the next Hugo, but I suspect it would just be more of the same – leftist good, right wing bad, must be constitutional.

]]> By: Bill http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681661 Bill Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:05:07 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681661 <blockquote>Libertarians hate an activist judiciary, and mock the ineptitude of Congress and the “Congresscritters.” Except in Honduras... </blockquote> How is what they did activist? The constitution was very very very very very clear on the criterial for his removal from office (though not the ceremonial mechanism, i.e., impeachment). Try to enact an additional term, not only are you effectively resigning from the current office, you are retiring from politics for a significant amount of time. He actively moved to that goal, the constitution was <i>strictly</i> interpreted (Libertarians dig that sort of thing, don't they?). While the military screwed up and gave him a one-way ticket out of the country (some argue that that was at Mel's request, but whatever... if they were to detain him they should have detained him no matter what he asked, I mean really! "Dude, help me flee the country."), the legislature and court were acting properly.

Libertarians hate an activist judiciary, and mock the ineptitude of Congress and the “Congresscritters.” Except in Honduras…

How is what they did activist? The constitution was very very very very very clear on the criterial for his removal from office (though not the ceremonial mechanism, i.e., impeachment). Try to enact an additional term, not only are you effectively resigning from the current office, you are retiring from politics for a significant amount of time. He actively moved to that goal, the constitution was strictly interpreted (Libertarians dig that sort of thing, don’t they?). While the military screwed up and gave him a one-way ticket out of the country (some argue that that was at Mel’s request, but whatever… if they were to detain him they should have detained him no matter what he asked, I mean really! “Dude, help me flee the country.”), the legislature and court were acting properly.

]]> By: gk1 http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681650 gk1 Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:54:07 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681650 Seeing the mischief Zalaya propagated while squating at the Brazilian consulate, calling strikes, asking for riots etc, I am coming to understand why the army put him on a plane and kicked him out of the country. Now Zalay is complaining about Israeli brain waves and covering the consulate's windows with aluminum foil. Why are you lefties so invested in seeing this nutjob back in power? Its obvious the guys nutso. Seeing the mischief Zalaya propagated while squating at the Brazilian consulate, calling strikes, asking for riots etc, I am coming to understand why the army put him on a plane and kicked him out of the country. Now Zalay is complaining about Israeli brain waves and covering the consulate’s windows with aluminum foil. Why are you lefties so invested in seeing this nutjob back in power? Its obvious the guys nutso.

]]> By: Strict http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681646 Strict Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:52:23 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681646 Rather, the Honduran Supreme Court declared that Zelaya had violated the Honduran Constitution and therefore was no longer president. The Honduran Congress affirmed this decision and action." Libertarians hate an activist judiciary, and mock the ineptitude of Congress and the "Congresscritters." Except in Honduras... Rather, the Honduran Supreme Court declared that Zelaya had violated the Honduran Constitution and therefore was no longer president. The Honduran Congress affirmed this decision and action.”

Libertarians hate an activist judiciary, and mock the ineptitude of Congress and the “Congresscritters.” Except in Honduras…

]]> By: Amos http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681644 Amos Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:51:19 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681644 <blockquote cite="comment-681635"> <strong><a href="#comment-681635" rel="nofollow">Strict</a></strong>: “It’s true that Hillary went to Yale, but I guess in those days it had affirmative action for women.”Lol.Sounds like you “hate success.”Are you jealous that Hillary has had a more successful career than you? </blockquote> Not to make an ugly comparison, or to be unfair, but technically, that depends on what you're aiming at. Jeffrey Dahmer had a more successful career than I have. Barack Obama has had a wildly successful career. But is that good?

Strict: “It’s true that Hillary went to Yale, but I guess in those days it had affirmative action for women.”Lol.Sounds like you “hate success.”Are you jealous that Hillary has had a more successful career than you?

Not to make an ugly comparison, or to be unfair, but technically, that depends on what you’re aiming at. Jeffrey Dahmer had a more successful career than I have. Barack Obama has had a wildly successful career. But is that good?

]]> By: Amos http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681642 Amos Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:48:41 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681642 <blockquote cite="comment-681271"> <strong><a href="#comment-681271" rel="nofollow">Allan Leedy</a></strong>: I don’t get it.What could possibly be wrong with the military deposing an elected president and running him/her out of the country? </blockquote> Deposing him was mandated by their Constitution. It was designed as a poison pill for the sort of Strong Man so common in Latin American politics. As I recall, if you pushed for a removal of term limits while you were an elected official, you were disqualified from the office you were holding. The Supreme Court made the order to remove him, with all branches of government in agreement. He was run out of the country because, obviously, he can do less damage out of the country than in it. Keeping him in-country puts real lives at stake (least of all his own); lives (other than his own) that deserve more than sophomoric jabs about the validity of ousting a would-be tyrant. Had this kind of challenge happened in a Progressive country so beloved on college campuses and American newsrooms (or the White House, these days), rest assured the man probably would not have been deported. But his limbs would have found homes all over the countryside.

Allan Leedy: I don’t get it.What could possibly be wrong with the military deposing an elected president and running him/her out of the country?

Deposing him was mandated by their Constitution. It was designed as a poison pill for the sort of Strong Man so common in Latin American politics. As I recall, if you pushed for a removal of term limits while you were an elected official, you were disqualified from the office you were holding. The Supreme Court made the order to remove him, with all branches of government in agreement. He was run out of the country because, obviously, he can do less damage out of the country than in it. Keeping him in-country puts real lives at stake (least of all his own); lives (other than his own) that deserve more than sophomoric jabs about the validity of ousting a would-be tyrant. Had this kind of challenge happened in a Progressive country so beloved on college campuses and American newsrooms (or the White House, these days), rest assured the man probably would not have been deported. But his limbs would have found homes all over the countryside.

]]> By: Strict http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681635 Strict Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:34:28 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681635 "It’s true that Hillary went to Yale, but I guess in those days it had affirmative action for women." Lol. Sounds like you "hate success." Are you jealous that Hillary has had a more successful career than you? “It’s true that Hillary went to Yale, but I guess in those days it had affirmative action for women.”

Lol.

Sounds like you “hate success.” Are you jealous that Hillary has had a more successful career than you?

]]> By: Dotar Sojat http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681616 Dotar Sojat Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:59:54 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681616 Hugo wins. Hugo wins.

]]> By: REN http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681615 REN Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:56:33 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681615 <blockquote cite="comment-681271"> <strong><a href="#comment-681271" rel="nofollow">Allan Leedy</a></strong>: I don’t get it.What could possibly be wrong with the military deposing an elected president and running him/her out of the country? </blockquote> Whoops, you forgot (intentionally?) to add, as many others have pointed out ~> It was the Supreme Court's doing, backed by the Legislature, only carried out by the military, because Zelaya violated the Constitution of Honduras. I am sure he could have stayed, but would likely have been put on trial for his conduct. This was not a military coup, although Zelaya probably should have remained in country *and* been tried.

Allan Leedy: I don’t get it.What could possibly be wrong with the military deposing an elected president and running him/her out of the country?

Whoops, you forgot (intentionally?) to add, as many others have pointed out ~> It was the Supreme Court’s doing, backed by the Legislature, only carried out by the military, because Zelaya violated the Constitution of Honduras. I am sure he could have stayed, but would likely have been put on trial for his conduct. This was not a military coup, although Zelaya probably should have remained in country *and* been tried.

]]> By: Oren http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681609 Oren Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:30:15 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681609 <blockquote>Rather, the Honduran Supreme Court declared that Zelaya had violated the Honduran Constitution and therefore was no longer president. The Honduran Congress affirmed this decision and action.</blockquote> And then the military inexplicably decided to shuttle him out of the country instead of complying with the <i>detention</i> order.

Rather, the Honduran Supreme Court declared that Zelaya had violated the Honduran Constitution and therefore was no longer president. The Honduran Congress affirmed this decision and action.

And then the military inexplicably decided to shuttle him out of the country instead of complying with the detention order.

]]> By: Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » The international reaction to Honduras agreement: 15 Minutes on Latin America http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681606 Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » The international reaction to Honduras agreement: 15 Minutes on Latin America Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:25:56 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681606 [...] Trumps Honduran Law Spain’s El Pais editorial: La derrota de Zelaya Jonathan Adler: Is the Honduran Political Crisis Over? Honduras News: Manuel Zelaya Regretting [...] [...] Trumps Honduran Law Spain’s El Pais editorial: La derrota de Zelaya Jonathan Adler: Is the Honduran Political Crisis Over? Honduras News: Manuel Zelaya Regretting [...]

]]> By: PeterRice http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681596 PeterRice Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:39:18 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681596 <blockquote cite="comment-681271"> <strong><a href="#comment-681271" rel="nofollow">Allan Leedy</a></strong>: I don’t get it.What could possibly be wrong with the military deposing an elected president and running him/her out of the country? </blockquote> Other than that they did not do that. Rather, the Honduran Supreme Court declared that Zelaya had violated the Honduran Constitution and therefore was no longer president. The Honduran Congress affirmed this decision and action.

Allan Leedy: I don’t get it.What could possibly be wrong with the military deposing an elected president and running him/her out of the country?

Other than that they did not do that. Rather, the Honduran Supreme Court declared that Zelaya had violated the Honduran Constitution and therefore was no longer president. The Honduran Congress affirmed this decision and action.

]]> By: Ricardo http://volokh.com/2009/11/01/is-the-honduran-political-crisis-over/comment-page-2/#comment-681595 Ricardo Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:30:45 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=20885#comment-681595 <blockquote cite="comment-681594"> <strong><a href="#comment-681594" rel="nofollow">A. Zarkov</a></strong>: I doubt that Ron Bloom will ever stand up and announce “I am a Marxist,” although quoting from Mao in the way he did comes close. I know what you are trying to do: (1) Define Marxism so narrowly that even Lenin would fail to qualify as a Marxist, if not Marx himself; (2) Demand a standard of proof so rigorous, it’s hardly ever met in practice. </blockquote> Not at all. What you are doing is to say that exactly the same statement simultaneously accomplishes two things: a) Bloom is a Marxist because he quotes Mao and b) this shows he is an uneducated Marxist for failing to realize that Mao contradicts Marx. This is simply bad logic. Aside from his quotation of Mao your other evidence seems to be that Bloom shares a similar background to that of David Horowitz or perhaps Irving Kristol. Pretty thin gruel.

A. Zarkov: I doubt that Ron Bloom will ever stand up and announce “I am a Marxist,” although quoting from Mao in the way he did comes close. I know what you are trying to do: (1) Define Marxism so narrowly that even Lenin would fail to qualify as a Marxist, if not Marx himself; (2) Demand a standard of proof so rigorous, it’s hardly ever met in practice.

Not at all. What you are doing is to say that exactly the same statement simultaneously accomplishes two things: a) Bloom is a Marxist because he quotes Mao and b) this shows he is an uneducated Marxist for failing to realize that Mao contradicts Marx. This is simply bad logic. Aside from his quotation of Mao your other evidence seems to be that Bloom shares a similar background to that of David Horowitz or perhaps Irving Kristol. Pretty thin gruel.

]]>