Honduras Military Kicks Out President

[Crazed Rabbit]

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE55R0US20090628?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)

Sunday's coup was the first successful military ouster of a president in Central America since the Cold War era.

An opposition deputy said Congress would chose Roberto Micheletti, the head of Congress, as acting president later on Sunday, and Honduras' top electoral court said a presidential election would be held as planned on November 29.

The Supreme Court, which last week came out against Zelaya and ordered him to reinstate fired military chief Vasquez, said on Sunday it had told the army to remove the president.

"It acted to defend the rule of law," the court said in a statement read on Honduran radio.
Associated Press. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090628/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_referendum)

So, what should we make of this? On the one hand, it's a troubling return to the military coups of old in Central America.

On the other hand, the country's supreme court said it ordered the army to kick him out because of his plans for an unofficial vote. And it seems most of the rest of the government branches were against him (ie their congress).

CR

[Caius]

I don't get it. When military forces do a coup, OMGZ! TEH MILITARZ! THOSE DEMOCRACY HATERZ! while some countries do a self coup to stay undefinited time in power, aka Chavism.

I think the referendum was about if he could be reelected indefinitely. Which is a thing I heard in other country, but I do not remember. Maybe JAG knows.

[LittleGrizzly]

Im not sure whether this is good or bad...

Some other members of goverment in the country seem to think its a good thing... which leads me to believe it was done for the best interests of the democracy... but then the concerned statements from the US lead me to believe that it might not be such a good thing...

The US certainly isn't allied to the regime so if thier worried about him being ousted then im guessing something is wrong...

[CountArach]

I don't get it. When military forces do a coup, OMGZ! TEH MILITARZ! THOSE DEMOCRACY HATERZ! while some countries do a self coup to stay undefinited time in power, aka Chavism.

I think the referendum was about if he could be reelected indefinitely. Which is a thing I heard in other country, but I do not remember. Maybe JAG knows.
What the hell are you talking about? :inquisitive:

Obama says he is "concerned", but doesn't seem to want to actually do anything. Hillary has condemned the coup and Chavez is threatening military action.

[Reverend Joe]

Well, he shouldn't have tried to make a bid for unlimited reelections, but that's no reason for a full-blown coup. If Congress et al was that opposed to him they could have defeated him legally.

Edit: gotta love the picture in the article: one hoorah go-getter stopping the press from crossing the line, and about five other guys sticking in the background, making sure their face doesn't get photographed too... I think we know who the rookie was in this picture.

[Papewaio]

So the Judicial arm ordered the Military to uphold the constitution?

If so its not another Fiji, its an arrest.

[CountArach]

So the Judicial arm ordered the Military to uphold the constitution?

If so its not another Fiji, its an arrest.
But then the military branch announced its own President. That to me does not sound even close to an arrest - that to me sounds like a coup from within the government.

[CountArach]

You may not like the source, but you'll just have to deal with that. If these things are true (http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/800/41205) then I don't see how someone could support this coup:

Months ago, Zelaya proposed that on June 28, a national referendum be held to present Hondurans with the question as to whether, during the November 29 national elections, Hondurans could vote on whether to call a constituent assembly to write a new constitution.

The current constitution was written in 1982 in the middle of the repression and state terrorism that blanketed Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala during the 1980s. Honduras was controlled by a US-backed military regime; the US had 14 military bases in Honduras.

The Honduran Armed Forces initially pledged to support Zelaya and provide logistical support for the June 28 poll, to be administered by the National Statistics Institute.

Then, on June 23, the Honduran army told the president they would not support the referendum. The president fired the head of the armed forces, General Romeo Vasquez, and the defence minister resigned.

Fearing for the president’s safety, thousands of Hondurans surrounded the presidential palace.

The National Congress is strongly opposed to the referendum, and today met to draft a letter of resignation for Zelaya. The Congress has also called on the OAS to withdraw its elections observers for the referendum, and has entertained initiatives to block their entry to the country.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You may not like the source, but you'll just have to deal with that. If these things are true (http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/800/41205) then I don't see how someone could support this coup:
[indent]Months ago, Zelaya proposed that on June 28, a national referendum be held to present Hondurans with the question as to whether, during the November 29 national elections, Hondurans could vote on whether to call a constituent assembly to write a new constitution.

The current constitution was written in 1982 in the middle of the repression and state terrorism that blanketed Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala during the 1980s. Honduras was controlled by a US-backed military regime; the US had 14 military bases in Honduras.

Hmm. Not only do I not like the source, but they seem to get basic history wrong:
Honduras got rid of its military rule in 1981 (under pressure from the US, according to one article) and had free elections. So it was not under the control of a military regime in 1982, or since 1981.

Considering that, and also that the article is from a place with che guevera in the banner, and 'Venezuelan Solidarity' on the side, along with 'Socialist Alliance' and 'Socialist Youth Organization', I'm gonna call BS on it and demand a better source.

CR

[KukriKhan]

So the Judicial arm ordered the Military to uphold the constitution?

If so its not another Fiji, its an arrest.

Yeah. From some reports it sounds like the SC ordered the military to do it's constitutional duty. And now comes word that their congress has selected an interim Pres. Though ugly, it sounds legit.

The bothersome bit is Zelaya's bid to hold a national referendum/constitutional convention (that would be their 16th), which might accurately reflect the will of its citizens, vs the current set-up.

But their current constituion (Summary Here) (http://countrystudies.us/honduras/84.htm) seems to specifically prohibit moves by any official to extend their terms beyond "one" (see specifically, near the bottom of that linked page, the info on Title VII).

Meanwhile, saber-rattling by Chavez automatically makes me suspicious.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Kukri's link says the constitution was drafted while the military was still ruling (from 1980-early 1982), but was written by elected people, who represented the two major political parties. The president elected in 1981 was from one of those parties.

So I'm still not buyin' CA's link.

And Chavez makes me suspicious; this was the same fellow who congratulated Imnadinnerjacket on his 'election victory' in Iran.

CR

[Devastatin Dave]

Obama says he is "concerned", but doesn't seem to want to actually do anything.

That's what he does about EVERYTHING; licks finger, sticks it in the air, and waits to see which way the wind blows. Empty suit.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This looks legitimate. The Congress and judicial system apparently support it, the Acting President appears to be from the same party as the former President and will apparently remain so until elections are held. Right now it looks like an arrest with a bit of extra muscle.

[rory_20_uk]

Can I ask an admittedly unlikely hypothetical?

The America President after doing something massively popular just after winning a landslide re-election tables legislation for the 2 terms in office to be relaxed. His minions in the houses are so elated they pass the motion.

What would then happen?

Does the Supreme Court step in and if required ask the military to step in, or does the Commander In Chief of the military command them as it was democratically decided? Could the Prez then remove the Supreme Court for acting against the democratic process?

~:smoking:

[FactionHeir]

Obama:

"I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference."

So essentially he is concerned but doesn't want anyone from outside of Honduras to interfere. As we already know that the gvt is against the president, Obama basically means to say that he supports the coup and change in president.

[KukriKhan]

Can I ask an admittedly unlikely hypothetical?

The America President after doing something massively popular just after winning a landslide re-election tables legislation for the 2 terms in office to be relaxed. His minions in the houses are so elated they pass the motion.

What would then happen?

Does the Supreme Court step in and if required ask the military to step in, or does the Commander In Chief of the military command them as it was democratically decided? Could the Prez then remove the Supreme Court for acting against the democratic process?

~:smoking:

Different Constitutions. If both the US House and Senate passed such a "no Prez term limits" bill by a 2-thirds vote of both bodies, it then goes to the 50 States for them to 3-fourths ratify. As soon as the 38th State voted "Yea", it would become the 28th Amendment, overturning the 22nd.

It's not easy to amend the US constitution, but it can be done.

For comparison, the California Constitution can be and is amended by a simple majority citizen initiative - 50% +1 of however many State-wide voters show up can turn an initiative into the latest amendment. Hence why their constitution is a hunk o' junk, legally speaking (IMO), virtually unenforceable.

-edit-
By contrast, Honduras' Constitution tries to hard-wire the 1-term provision, and Zelaya tries to skirt the document by appealing directly to the electorate with a referendum to disregard the current constitution while writing a new one (which would allow multi-terms, and whatever else...). Calling that referendum extra-constitutionally got him into trouble with both other branches of gov't + the military, which has a "separate-but-equal" status as a player in that country.

[Ice]

But then the military branch announced its own President. That to me does not sound even close to an arrest - that to me sounds like a coup from within the government.

Military Branch?


Later, Honduras's Congress formally removed Mr. Zelaya from the presidency and named congressional leader Roberto Micheletti as his successor until the end of Mr. Zelaya's term in January. Mr. Micheletti and others said they were the defenders, not opponents, of democratic rule.

Sounds a bit different to me.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124619401378065339.html

[Reverend Joe]

Imnadinnerjacket

Ahmadinejad.

I don't think the man should have remained in office either. Pushing for an extension of his term is suspicious. But all the Congress and Armed Forces had to do was stop the referendum and ensure that Zelaya left office at the proper time. If anything, this will allow a Zelaya protege to ride to power on the popularity of the deposed president, which is only going to increase because of his arrest/coup.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So, what should we make of this? As far as I've understood it, I would say that, roughly, the division runs along the same lines as in better-known Venezuela. Chavez and Zelaya, the leftist populists. Verus the oligarchs.

Like Chavez, Zelaya tried to get a third pesidential term. This is unconstitutional, therefore Zelaya wrote a referendum about it. At this point, the Supreme Court and parliament asked the army to intervene and to oust Zelaya.

Who to root for? Well, as in Venezuela, neither really. When pressed, my heart goes out a wee bit more to Zelaya, but my mind firmly to the Supreme Court and the army.

[Caius]

LEts condemn both, the military who declared that every person away from home at some hour would be arrested, and Zelaya, you are hanging your own king. Our nations doesnt have too many time away from military coups, and we did not earn nothing when militars were in power. Also, Zelaya, those are the rules. Respect alternancy, and you wouldn't have had this problem.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Zelaya, those are the rules. Respect alternancy, and you wouldn't have had this problem.That's what I was thinking. But the EU, the US and many in Latin America have condemned the coup. Possibly there are factors at work that I am unaware of.

I thoroughly dislike coups, but I didn't think we needed another presidente-for-life. Speaking of which, neither do we need Kirchners-for-life.

[Devastatin Dave]

Obama basically means to say that he supports the coup and change in president.

Not so much. Obama wouldn't go against a fellow leftist and Obama is looking into his future as our own dictator for life here in the United Socialists States of America. :laugh4:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/29/video-the-coup-in-honduras-was-illegal-says-obama/

[KukriKhan]

Not so much. Obama wouldn't go against a fellow leftist and Obama is looking into his future as our own dictator for life here in the United Socialists States of America. :laugh4:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/29/video-the-coup-in-honduras-was-illegal-says-obama/

Won't work here in the time he has left, old buddy.

BUT (to indulge my own pet conspiracy theory) he has time in the next 7 years to arrange a US legal military commitment to the UN, whereupon he can get his dream-job of Secretary-General of the UN...

with (finally) a reliable on-call blue-helmet military force to back him up, apart from the US chain-of-command, answerable only to him; he appointed for 5-year terms indefinitely.

So by 2018 or so, after the US has crumbled economically, socially, and culturally of it's own weight and debt and corruption, and the unholy trioka of China, India and Venezuala emerges as the new people's coalition to replace the old superpower(s)...

you get the idea. :)

Honduras? Been there. Guarded airfields. Sat in foxholes. I sympathize with their 80's (current) Constitution, but point out (what I think of as) the error of trying to encode into law in the original document, term-limits or other concepts that don't allow enough flexibility for future generations to change their minds. Term limits are good. Make those provisions amendments (that can be modified later, the nation willing) and set out strict procedures for the amendment process, so that the elected guys, AND THE PEOPLE are heard, but the mob doesn't over-rule common sense.

[Tribesman]

The country’s supreme court disagrees, but oh well. The One hath spoken.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
What a pile of tripe .
Even if the proposal of the non-binding resolution was illegal the supreme court can't do bugger all legally because there is no legal provision in the constitution for overthrowing the president so they cannot claim to enforce the law while breaking the law themselves.
Its why every government that has commented on the events has condemned the coup as illegal , just like they are condemning the shutting down of the media , the round ups of opposing politicians and the blocking of the election monitors

[KukriKhan]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
What a pile of tripe .
Even if the proposal of the non-binding resolution was illegal the supreme court can't do bugger all legally because there is no legal provision in the constitution for overthrowing the president so they cannot claim to enforce the law while breaking the law themselves.
Its why every government that has commented on the events has condemned the coup as illegal , just like they are condemning the shutting down of the media , the round ups of opposing politicians and the blocking of the election monitors

Sadly, I hafta agree. Declaring the referendum illegal, unconstitutional, and non-binding is one thing. Arresting and deporting the referendum-maker - who just happens to be the duly-elected presidente (even if he tried some extra-constitutional measures), is quite another. And the small matter of who controls the military remains. Apparently, at the moment, it's the military themselves (again), under the guise this time of judicial orders.

watta mess.

[Vladimir]

I’d like to see the actual statue which declares the court and military’s action illegal or unconstitutional. Just because something isn’t expressly allowed by law doesn’t mean it’s against the law.

A better approach would have been for the courts and military to wait take action after the president’s “legitimate” term expired. Then there would be less ambiguity over who is in the right.

And why the deportation? You're just setting yourself up for another coup. If he broke the law/acted unconstitutionally, try him in court.

[Caius]

Even if the proposal of the non-binding resolution was illegal the supreme court can't do bugger all legally because there is no legal provision in the constitution for overthrowing the president so they cannot claim to enforce the law while breaking the law themselves.
But they can make a referendum talking if they could overthrow the president. Oh, wait...


I thoroughly dislike coups, but I didn't think we needed another presidente-for-life. Speaking of which, neither do we need Kirchners-for-life.
We DO need them. Its the first time that Radicals and Peronists are having consensus WITHOUT money aside. They are against both Kirchners, speaking of Nestor, he was the President of the Justicialist Party. Last Sunday, the whole country voted for the renovation of Senators and Diputates. They failed big time. Cristina gives a press conference (the SECOND one since ELECTED) and one of the journalists of Cadena 3 Argentina, a radio I hear almost all day asks her a question. This happened:

Journalist: the question is that the use of the INDEC, one of most questioned and reported policies was to manipulate economic statistics. I would like to know whether to continue with the same policies or if you will modify them. And you join this the issue of federal partnership to Argentine provinces. Are you going to change or not?

President: I would like to point that the question was not an opinion. Because you gave already opinion saying that we manipulated the INDEC statistics.

Journalist: there is a complaint...( a judicial one)

President: normally one question without already having the qualification. If not, almost a statement to which I, instead of reply, have to disprove. You are journalists and know how is this: you ask and I respond. Now, if I have to disprove, already is not a question. But anyway, with such failure or lack of journalistic technique was it I will answer equal.

Gotta love how our president teach us something new every day. She must be some kind of Enciclopedia!

[Crazed Rabbit]

So it seems the past president was doing actions that were against the constitution, and his plan for a referendum was illegal.

And that the military response, as opposed to a police arrest, was not legal.

Right now it seems everyone's - OAS, Obama - coming out on the side of the ousted, illegally acting president. It's a bit of a surprise, and a disappointment from Obama. He takes a hands-off approach on Iran and then says this president, opposed by the court and congress for his illegal actions, has to be reinstated.

CR

[FactionHeir]

Its supposedly against the constitution to bar him from returning as well. Looks like the constitution is flaunted left and right.

[Tribesman]

He takes a hands-off approach on Iran and then says this president, opposed by the court and congress for his illegal actions, has to be reinstated.

Two entirely different issues , one is a dispute about election results the other is an obvious undeniably illegal coup.

[HoreTore]

Ahmadinejad.

I've never understood why that name should be hard to write, after all it's written exactly like we pronounce it...

[Vladimir]

Two entirely different issues , one is a dispute about election results the other is an obvious undeniably illegal coup.

:laugh4: You say that almost as if you believe it was a legitimate election.

[Xiahou]

As an update for this thread, I read a report for Congress prepared by the Congressional Research Service. Based on their research, they conclude that the Supreme Court of Honduras was within its authority when it removed the Zelaya from office and ordered his arrest. The part that they said was illegal was when the military forced him out of the country. The Honduran Constitution apparently prohibits the government from doing that to any citizen.

Read the report here (http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdf).

Can we finally stop supporting this nut (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/5min/story/1248828.html)?

It's been 89 days since Manuel Zelaya was booted from power. He's sleeping on chairs, and he claims his throat is sore from toxic gases and "Israeli mercenaries'' are torturing him with high-frequency radiation.:dizzy2:

[Tribesman]

As an update for this thread,
So the arrest, removal and exile were carried out in an unconstitutional manner, which makes the coup unconstitutional.
Which makes the replacement government unconstitutional, so that is why no country recognises it as legitimate.

[Xiahou]

So the arrest, removal and exile were carried out in an unconstitutional manner, which makes the coup unconstitutional.
Which makes the replacement government unconstitutional, so that is why no country recognises it as legitimate.I tried to fix that for you Tribes, but it really was a mess. :sweatdrop:

Go read the report, it's only 11 pages, I'm sure you can manage it. :yes:

[Husar]

I tried to fix that for you Tribes, but it really was a mess. :sweatdrop:

How can something that was carried out in an unconstitutional manner be constitutional in the end? :inquisitive:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How can something that was carried out in an unconstitutional manner be constitutional in the end? :inquisitive:

Because the coup and his subsequent expulsion are two different issues.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How can something that was carried out in an unconstitutional manner be constitutional in the end? :inquisitive:

If you buy fireworks in a state where they are legal, and then set them off in a state where it isn't, that doesn't make the purchase illegal.

[Tribesman]

I tried to fix that for you Tribes, but it really was a mess.

:flowers:


Go read the report, it's only 11 pages, I'm sure you can manage it.
Wow , so what part of the report don't you understand?
Its very simple, for a process to be legal every step of that process has to be legal.:idea2:




Because the coup and his subsequent expulsion are two different issues.
No, the coup is the removal, his removal involved illegal actions that were against the law and unconstitutional.
An action can be perfectly in compliance with 378 articles of the constitution, but it is still unconstitutional unless it complies with all 379 articles.



How can something that was carried out in an unconstitutional manner be constitutional in the end?
Thats a hard question, a very good question but so difficult to answer.
I think it requires a rather complicated two word answer.
It cannot

But why stop there, just look at how many actions the new "government" have taken since grabbing power in an illegal coup which are further violations of the constitution which they riduculously claim to care so much about.


If you buy fireworks in a state where they are legal, and then set them off in a state where it isn't, that doesn't make the purchase illegal.
Don't be silly, a purchase with the intent to transport illegally makes the purchase illegal.

[Husar]

If you buy fireworks in a state where they are legal, and then set them off in a state where it isn't, that doesn't make the purchase illegal.

Just in this case they bought the fireworks in a state where it was illegal and set them off in a state where it was illegal, so I'd guess the purchase was illegal and they weren't allowed to buy them in the first place.

[Jolt]

No, the coup is the removal, his removal involved illegal actions that were against the law and unconstitutional.

The President tried to approve a referendum which was illegal according to the Honduran constitution. As such, it was declared as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of the Honduras. Further, it was rejected in the Honduran Parliament. Then, with things still in motion for the referendum, Zelaya ordered the Honduran General behind the elections logistics to go ahead with installing the polls for the referendum. The General rejected it on the basis that according to the Constitutional Court, the referendum was illegal. As a result Zelaya fired the General. As a consequence of the abuse of his powers, the military ministers all resigned.
The Surpreme Honduran court ordered by unanimity for Zelaya to reinstate the General. He then hired several people and took the referendum polls from an Air Force base. Clearly he was abusing his power through and through.

Since the military swear to uphold the Honduran Constitution, and the Honduran parliament were being unable to impeach Zelaya since one party was boycotting the speech talks (its leader wanted to become the new President but his demand was rejected, prompting the boycott), the military took matters into their own hands and effectively delivered in their duty to protect their constitution and deposed Zelaya.

Since they couldn't risk having a political enemy which is against the Constitutional law of the country, they expelled him (and IMO should have revoked his nationality as well).

I fail to see where that is unconstitutional. Of course, you could say that the Irish which rebelled against the British were also worthless scum and that the insuing State which came from that rebellion should never have been recognized by anyone.

[Tribesman]

I fail to see where that is unconstitutional.
Really?
Yet in your post you have plainly written that it was in breach of the constitution.
You cannot deliver in your sworn duty to uphold the constitution by violating the constitution.



Of course, you could say that the Irish which rebelled against the British were also worthless scum and that the insuing State which came from that rebellion should never have been recognized by anyone.
Would you like to explore the constitutional issues of that?
Which one would you like to go for , the act of union, the Free State or the Republic?

[gaelic cowboy]

I have to agree with the Tribesman here the actions are illegal preventing illegality with more illegality does not make it constitutional.

[gaelic cowboy]

I fail to see where that is unconstitutional. Of course, you could say that the Irish which rebelled against the British were also worthless scum and that the insuing State which came from that rebellion should never have been recognized by anyone.

That is a red herring the men may have been rebels but they signed a treaty so it was legal for us to have our own state under British law.

[Xiahou]

I have to agree with the Tribesman here the actions are illegal preventing illegality with more illegality does not make it constitutional.You're conflating issues. The legislature was right to condemn Zelaya. Their high court was right when it ordered him removed from office and ordered the military to arrest him. The military was wrong when it expelled him from the country.

The last part is the only part that should not have happened. The military should have arrested him and awaited whatever punishment the courts decided on. The corrective action for that is not to return him to power, but to readmit him to the country and place him under arrest.

[gaelic cowboy]

You're conflating issues. The legislature was right to condemn Zelaya. Their high court was right when it ordered him removed from office and ordered the military to arrest him. The military was wrong when it expelled him from the country.

The last part is the only part that should not have happened. The military should have arrested him and awaited whatever punishment the courts decided on. The corrective action for that is not to return him to power, but to readmit him to the country and place him under arrest.

Yes the generals should be arrested and jailed for breaking the law plus the former president Zelaya should be impeached and then relations with Honduras can get back to normal.

[Xiahou]

Yes the generals should be arrested and jailed for breaking the lawThat should be up to their courts.

plus the former president Zelaya should be impeached and then relations with Honduras can get back to normal.He was lawfully removed from office. He should be taken into the country and placed under arrest. Then everything would be on the up and up. However, I doubt that would satisfy Obama and other leaders who have puzzlingly decided to support this renegade loon.

[gaelic cowboy]

However, I doubt that would satisfy Obama and other leaders who have puzzlingly decided to support this renegade loon.

Ah that's a bit far there not supporting it cos of the bad precedent it sets. The coup in Thailand a while back and now this in Honduras show that it is possible to get away with it I suspect Obama does not entirely like having to support Zelaya but it is the police who should be arresting people not the army.

[Xiahou]

it is the police who should be arresting people not the army.

The report addressed that:
B. The authority of the Supreme Court to order the public forces (fuerza pública) to carry out an arrest warrant against a sitting President

Article 304 of the Constitution grants the courts the authority to apply laws to specific
cases and to adjudicate and enforce judgments. Article 306 states that the courts may request
the assistance of the public forces (fuerza pública) to obtain enforcement of their rulings.

Under this legal authority, the Supreme Court ordered the Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
implement the arrest warrant. The distinction between the police and military is not always the bright line that it is in the US and other countries.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ah that's a bit far there not supporting it cos of the bad precedent it sets. The coup in Thailand a while back and now this in Honduras show that it is possible to get away with it I suspect Obama does not entirely like having to support Zelaya but it is the police who should be arresting people not the army.

The Turkish Army has done this several times to protect their Constitution. It's far better than allowing a country to slide into despotism, and Obama must know this.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It's far better than allowing a country to slide into despotism, and Obama must know this.

That depends entirely on which side of the despotism he ends up on. ~;)

[Tribesman]

You're conflating issues. The legislature was right to condemn Zelaya. Their high court was right when it ordered him removed from office and ordered the military to arrest him. The military was wrong when it expelled him from the country.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

And then the politicians illegally prevented him from returning to the country and on two further occasions made him leave the country and are now saying he must leave the country again.
Its not other people conflating issues Xiahou , its you trying to avoid the issue.
The issue is that the coup was undeniably illegal and unconstitutional.


That should be up to their courts.

Yes, regardless of the fact that your last government described the court as the most corrupt in Latin America it should be up to the courts to have a full hearing and trial....yet they are going to great lengths to avoid that in Honduras.
Why exactly is it that the new "government" in Honduras are desperate to avoid a trial?


However, I doubt that would satisfy Obama and other leaders who have puzzlingly decided to support this renegade loon.

There is nothing at all puzzling about the international opposition to the coup plotters and their new "government", it has nothing to do with supporting Zelaya either.
It is strictly a matter of the rule of law.
The essence of the case is surprisingly simple and very straightforward, yet you are unable to understand it at all.

[Tribesman]

Oh dear, the illegal "government" has really delivered now.
Detention without trial, arrest without warrant and any criticism of any politician or public official is now a crime.
Hooray for the rule of law and upholding the constitution:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[rvg]

While the constitutionality of of what transpired in Honduras might look a bit iffy, Zelaya's removal will likely bring a lot of good to Honduras. Eventually. Once everyone realizes that Zelaya is not coming back and new elections are held, everything will go back to normal. The fewer Chavez stooges in Central America, the better.

[Tribesman]

Zelaya's removal will likely bring a lot of good to Honduras.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
He would have been out of office anyway in January, so what good can come of having a "government" that no one recognises and loosing all the financial aid the country depends on?

[rvg]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
He would have been out of office anyway in January, so what good can come of having a "government" that no one recognises and loosing all the financial aid the country depends on?

Nah. Had he not been given a good kick, he'd become yet another de-facto presidente por vida, just like his good friend Hugo. One Hugo is more than enough.

[Strike For The South]

I'm not sure what this is about but I do know we are wasting bandwith talking about Honduras. Bandwith that could be used for pictures of kitties! Or boobs!

[Tribesman]

Nah. Had he not been given a good kick, he'd become yet another de-facto presidente por vida, just like his good friend Hugo. One Hugo is more than enough.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
How on earth do you square that crazy theory with reality?
BTW how is Chavez a de-facto president for life?
Is someone going to kill him before the next election or are you just talking rubbish.

[rvg]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
How on earth do you square that crazy theory with reality?


It's only crazy in your personal "reality".

[Tribesman]

It's only crazy in your personal "reality".
No its crazy because its crazy and has no bearing on reality.
Do you have a different calendar to the rest of the world perhaps, together with a completely new definition of what constitutes fact?
It certainly appears so.

[rvg]

No its crazy because its crazy and has no bearing on reality.
Do you have a different calendar to the rest of the world perhaps, together with a completely new definition of what constitutes fact?
It certainly appears so.

Actually, it's not crazy at all.

[Tribesman]

Actually, it's not crazy at all.
Its complete lunacy.
The term was due to end in January, how on earth would a non-binding referendum planned for november on a possible future motion which even if passed would have no legal standing but if acted upon could be put before congress and debated and if by some miracle that got approved would then enter into a long legistative process(the last process for amendments took 3 years) and then have to go back for another referendum and be passed before being enacted.
So either you have a very strange calender where 2 months equals many years or you are talking complete rubbish
I think the complete rubbish option is the only answer, and that is reinforced by your nonsense about Chavez being a de-facto President for life. In case you have been living under a rock for a while perhaps you havn't noticed that he lost the vote that would have enabled himself to stand a chance of getting re-elected and no motion whatsoever has been submitted that would enable someone to be elected for life in Venezuela.

So it is obvious that your consipracy theories are crazy and have no bearing on reality whatsoever.

[rvg]

Actually, it is you who is spouting nonsense. What you said about Hugo's 3rd term is a load of crap. He lost a 3rd term referendum back 2005, but this February he called another 3rd term referendum and won. Thus, if you're gonna argue about Hugo's non-dictatorial ambitions get a clue and check the news prior to posting yet another nonsensical tirade.

[Tribesman]

Actually, it is you who is spouting nonsense.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Husar]

I can find this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/16/hugo-chavez-indefinite-rule).
that was a referendum but I found nothing about an actual amendment on the constitution and So rvg has a point that he won a referendum and tribesman seems to be right that it says absolutely nothing about his constitutional chances to actually stay longer because that referendum was just a poll on whether or not people would support an amendment, only an actual amendment would allow him to stay for life but since there has been no amendment we can safely say that he is NOT de-facto president for life. Clear?!

[rvg]

I can find this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/16/hugo-chavez-indefinite-rule).
that was a referendum but I found nothing about an actual amendment on the constitution and So rvg has a point that he won a referendum and tribesman seems to be right that it says absolutely nothing about his constitutional chances to actually stay longer because that referendum was just a poll on whether or not people would support an amendment, only an actual amendment would allow him to stay for life but since there has been no amendment we can safely say that he is NOT de-facto president for life. Clear?!

No. The referendum actually changed the Venezuelan constitution, specifically Article 230:

Pre-Feb 2009: The presidential term of office lasts six years. The President of the Republic may be re-elected immediately and only once for one more term.


Currently: The presidential term of office lasts six years. The President of the Republic may be re-elected.

[Tribesman]

The President of the Republic may be re-elected.

Which you by magic translate to "President for life":laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No, the coup is the removal, his removal involved illegal actions that were against the law and unconstitutional.
An action can be perfectly in compliance with 378 articles of the constitution, but it is still unconstitutional unless it complies with all 379 articles.

So for you it's akin to the "fruit of the poisoned tree" approach. Any one deviation from perfect correspondence with all components of the Honduran Constitution invalidates the entirety of the action?

Thus, we do not have a situation where Zelaya must be returned to Honduras (since his expulsion was un-constitutional) but a situation where Zelaya must be returned to Honduras and returned to office and allowed to conduct his referendum (since his expulsion was un-constitutional). Is this your argument?

[Tribesman]

Any one deviation from perfect correspondence with all components of the Honduran Constitution invalidates the entirety of the action?

Ask any lawyer, lawyers make a good living out of discovering and exploiting deviations from the correct process.
Or how about your judges, what does your supreme court do about any law or action that they find is not in perfect correspondance with all components of your constitution.

Thus, we do not have a situation where Zelaya must be returned to Honduras (since his expulsion was un-constitutional) but a situation where Zelaya must be returned to Honduras and returned to office and allowed to conduct his referendum (since his expulsion was un-constitutional). Is this your argument?
The referendum is now irrelevant, though the arguement that the retrospective application of the new 180 days law to block it was also illegal does hold water.

[Husar]

No. The referendum actually changed the Venezuelan constitution, specifically Article 230:

Pre-Feb 2009: The presidential term of office lasts six years. The President of the Republic may be re-elected immediately and only once for one more term.


Currently: The presidential term of office lasts six years. The President of the Republic may be re-elected.

You see, I tried to provide a link, why don't you? :inquisitive:

[rvg]

here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12861459/Constitucion-de-la-Republica-Bolivariana-de-Venezuela

Scroll to the Article 230 in the main body, and you'll see it in its original (1999) reading, then scroll all the way down to the amendment and in the one and only amendment you'll see article 230 (among other things) in its new reading.

[Tribesman]

One interesting thing about this coup is peoples attempts at linking Chavez with Zelaya and holding up non-existant examples about Chavez and drawing a link with zelayas actions.
It is far easier to link the people involved with the coup to other coups, drug smugglers, terrorists torturers and murderers. In fact you only have to look as far as the last dictatorship in Honduras and a nice little school down Georgia way
Not really a shining example of people you would want to support in the interests of freedom and democracy is it.

[Husar]

here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12861459/Constitucion-de-la-Republica-Bolivariana-de-Venezuela

Scroll to the Article 230 in the main body, and you'll see it in its original (1999) reading, then scroll all the way down to the amendment and in the one and only amendment you'll see article 230 (among other things) in its new reading.

Indeed, thanks, he still has to get elected though, Germany has no term limits either but I wouldn't say Angela Merkel is de-facto chancellor for life. Just because the US and a few others have term limits there's not reason to think everybody else has to have them as well. I myself have often thought the US should get rid of them as well. But then I also play Tropico 3 so I guess I like dictators. :clown:

[Tribesman]

Just because the US and a few others have term limits there's not reason to think everybody else has to have them as well.
Where was all the outrage when Uribe got rid of term limits in Columbia?

[rvg]

Folks like Omar Bongo and Saddam Hussein regularly ran elections. Now, I'm not saying that Chavez is as bad as Saddam yet, he's more on par with the Putin/Medvedev or comrade Mugabe. The Saddam model of staying in power calls for utter destruction of the opposition. The Putin model merely calls for the maginalization of the opposition to the point where it has no chance of winning. That model taken in tandem with no term limits makes for a nice de facto prez-4-life situation. Basically what I'm saying is that Hugo will be president for the remainder of his natural lifespan.

[Husar]

First you say Chavez will stay in power because he(/the people in a referendum) abolished term-limits and now you say he is like Putin even though Putin had to go due to term-limits. So what difference do term-limits make then and why would they be important? Clinton almost came back to power through his puppet-wife as well, clearly term-limits aren't even protecting the USA from despotism and dictators. It's the people who do that and if they're not standing up they get what they asked for, why does it bother you so much?

@Tribes: What is Uribe? :laugh4:

[rvg]

First you say Chavez will stay in power because he(/the people in a referendum) abolished term-limits and now you say he is like Putin even though Putin had to go due to term-limits. So what difference do term-limits make then and why would they be important? Clinton almost came back to power through his puppet-wife as well, clearly term-limits aren't even protecting the USA from despotism and dictators. It's the people who do that and if they're not standing up they get what they asked for, why does it bother you so much?

@Tribes: What is Uribe? :laugh4:

His methods of getting elected are very similar to those of Putin. Yes, Putin left the presidential office, but he will be back. As for importance of term limits, they exist to make sure that nobody tries to run a republic as if it were a kingdom. This is very important for any presidential republic. No so for countries like Germany, where the Chancellor is not the head of state. As for Clinton, he is gone. Done. Even if Hillary won, it would have been her who would run the show, not Bill.

P.S. Uribe is the Columbian prez. Hates Chavez but wants to be just like Chavez. Same bad apples.

[Tribesman]

why does it bother you so much?

Just a guess , but certain sections of the US population have a strange fetish when it comes to Latin american elections and have a history of supporting coups and dictators down that way.

[Tribesman]

This is very important for any presidential republic.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Is that why it took until 1951 to get the 22nd amendment.
Lucky it was very important or they would have had to wait another 163 years.


P.S. Uribe is the Columbian prez. Hates Chavez but wants to be just like Chavez. Same bad apples.
Where was the condemnation of Uribe abolishing term limits?

[rvg]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Is that why it took until 1951 to get the 22nd amendment.
Lucky it was very important or they would have had to wait another 163 years.


Where was the condemnation of Uribe abolishing term limits?

Before 1951 there was no need to hardcode the term limits as FDR was the one and only guy who won more than 2 terms. Once FDR was out, the American people made sure that this never happens again.

As for condemning Uribe, well, I can condemn him right here and right now. Bad Uribe. Bad.

[Tribesman]

Before 1951 there was no need to hardcode the term limits
So they are very important to the extent that they were not needed:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[rvg]

So they are very important to the extent that they were not needed:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

They were important to the extent that all presidents observed them without having them explicitly defined in the law of the land. Until FDR came by.

[Ice]

They were important to the extent that all presidents observed them without having them explicitly defined in the law of the land. Until FDR came by.

I thought past presidents only sat for two terms because they were following Washington's example rather than for the good of the republic.

[rvg]

I thought past presidents only sat for two terms because they were following Washington's example rather than for the good of the republic.

And George Washington was motivated by what he thought was good for the republic.

[Tribesman]

And George Washington was motivated by what he thought was good for the republic.

Washington only served a second term because he was pressured to, he didn't stand for a third because he hadn't wanted to stand for the second in the first place.
As such that shows no precedent in relation to term limits

[rvg]

Washington only served a second term because he was pressured to, he didn't stand for a third because he hadn't wanted to stand for the second in the first place.
As such that shows no precedent in relation to term limits

Sure it does. Washington disdained the idea of a president being re-elected ad infinitum. It is a very clear indication of his preference for term limits.

[HoreTore]

Sure it does. Washington disdained the idea of a president being re-elected ad infinitum. It is a very clear indication of his preference for term limits.

Term limits are rubbish.

The head of state shouldn't have so much power by himself that it becomes an issue.

[rvg]

Term limits are rubbish.

The head of state shouldn't have so much power by himself that it becomes an issue.

Ah and so we get into a discussion on a Parliamentary Democracy versus a Presidential Republic. Each has its plusses and minuses, I guess.

[Tribesman]

Sure it does.
bollox
He simply didn't want the job again , he was tired and wanted to get back to his farm, he didn't even want the bother of having to serve a second term but reluctantly had taken the job.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives, which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence impelled me to abandon the idea.

[Tribesman]

Term limits are rubbish.

Yes, if someone is really bad at the job then just kick them out of office in an election. If they are relatively good at the job then keep electing them again and again.
It certainly avoids having the issue of lame ducks in office.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Washington only served a second term because he was pressured to, he didn't stand for a third because he hadn't wanted to stand for the second in the first place.
As such that shows no precedent in relation to term limits

:laugh4:

Of course it shows a precedent; it set the precedent for over a hundred years in America.

As for being pressured into running for a second term, what's to say he didn't give in to pressure because he thought a second term for him would be best for the Republic?

Heck, Washington, in the very quote you used, said as much:

The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence impelled me to abandon the idea.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
CR

[Tribesman]

Of course it shows a precedent
It shows a precedent of a tired bloke wanting to give up the job, it sets no precedent on the imposition of term limits.
For it to make the precedent you imply it would require that each following Presidents chose not to stand because they wanted to get back to their plantation.


As for being pressured into running for a second term, what's to say he didn't give in to pressure because he thought a second term for him would be best for the Republic?

Heck, Washington, in the very quote you used, said as much:

What has that got to do with the price of cheese?

[Husar]

It's basically so that around the time of George Washington Americans still cared about what was good for the republic but around 1951 all Americans turned into crooks who cannot be trusted and don't care a flying monkey about what's best for the republic so it was decided to limit one crook to just one reelection before the people have to decide for another crook who does not care about the republic and should only be reelected once. Which is why the world should be rolled back to around 1800 when everybody was still an honest citizen, heroic music played in the atmosphere all the time and everybody had only the best of everybody else in mind. :rolleyes:

In other words, what HoreTore said.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

His methods of getting elected are very similar to those of Putin. Yes, Putin left the presidential office, but he will be back. As for importance of term limits, they exist to make sure that nobody tries to run a republic as if it were a kingdom. This is very important for any presidential republic. No so for countries like Germany, where the Chancellor is not the head of state. As for Clinton, he is gone. Done. Even if Hillary won, it would have been her who would run the show, not Bill.

P.S. Uribe is the Columbian prez. Hates Chavez but wants to be just like Chavez. Same bad apples.

I understand your point regarding term limits, but you cannot legislate the concept of a Cinncinatus. You either have a mindset that centers on acquiring executive power to accomplish a simple concrete goal and then set aside power when you're done, or you do not. Term limits just beget loophole exploitation.

e.g. I can't run for the Senate again, so I'll run for the HOR, due two terms there, then go back into the Senate.

Politicians seek power, and for many of them that power is an end goal in itself. Moreover, once you are exercising power, it is easy to come to view your exercise of that power as VITAL to the furtherance of the political program you hold dear.

Creating political leaders who seek to serve for a stretch as leader and then leave office and leave "the game" can only be accomplished on a cultural level.

So, ultimately, I disagree with term limits. If the voters, in a free and fair election, truly wish to have such leadership repeat, that IS their prerogative. I think you end up with a BOHICA situation, but that's their choice.

[rvg]

Term limits just beget loophole exploitation.


In case of Russia, absolutely. In case of us, I do not see how. Once the two terms are up, you permanently lose the eligibility to run for office. That's pretty effective.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In case of Russia, absolutely. In case of us, I do not see how. Once the two terms are up, you permanently lose the eligibility to run for office. That's pretty effective.

Governor Long of Louisiana being "succeeded" by his wife. A few other such incidents. For the most part, we DON'T have term limits. Federally, only the POTUS is limited (2.49 terms or less; elected no more than twice). There, that ammendment was made to prevent another chap running against the precedent GW put in place at the outset -- in other words it did little but codify an extant cultural norm.

Even so, I think it should be repealed. The people should vote for whomever they wish to see serve (save for the constitutional minimum restrictions imposed).

[Tribesman]

Oh well it seems as if the coup is fracturing , politicians are jumping ship and much of the section of the populace who originally supported the coup are now getting sick of the errrrr....dictatorial policies imposed by the new "government" and their flagrant and very serious violations of the constitution which are increasing in number on a regular basis.