I've never understood why that name should be hard to write, after all it's written exactly like we pronounce it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Joe
Printable View
I've never understood why that name should be hard to write, after all it's written exactly like we pronounce it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Joe
:laugh4: You say that almost as if you believe it was a legitimate election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.
Can we finally stop supporting this nut?
:dizzy2:Quote:
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.
So the arrest, removal and exile were carried out in an unconstitutional manner, which makes the coup unconstitutional.Quote:
As an update for this thread,
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Go read the report, it's only 11 pages, I'm sure you can manage it. :yes:
How can something that was carried out in an unconstitutional manner be constitutional in the end? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Because the coup and his subsequent expulsion are two different issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
:flowers:Quote:
I tried to fix that for you Tribes, but it really was a mess.
Wow , so what part of the report don't you understand?Quote:
Go read the report, it's only 11 pages, I'm sure you can manage it.
Its very simple, for a process to be legal every step of that process has to be legal.:idea2:
No, the coup is the removal, his removal involved illegal actions that were against the law and unconstitutional.Quote:
Because the coup and his subsequent expulsion are two different issues.
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.
Thats a hard question, a very good question but so difficult to answer.Quote:
How can something that was carried out in an unconstitutional manner be constitutional in the end?
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.
Don't be silly, a purchase with the intent to transport illegally makes the purchase illegal.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.
Really?Quote:
I fail to see where that is unconstitutional.
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.
Would you like to explore the constitutional issues of that?Quote:
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.
Which one would you like to go for , the act of union, the Free State or the Republic?
I have to agree with the Tribesman here the actions are illegal preventing illegality with more illegality does not make it constitutional.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
That should be up to their courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
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.Quote:
plus the former president Zelaya should be impeached and then relations with Honduras can get back to normal.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The report addressed that:Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
The distinction between the police and military is not always the bright line that it is in the US and other countries.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
That depends entirely on which side of the despotism he ends up on. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
That should be up to their courts.
Why exactly is it that the new "government" in Honduras are desperate to avoid a trial?
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.Quote:
However, I doubt that would satisfy Obama and other leaders who have puzzlingly decided to support this renegade loon.
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.
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:
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.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Zelaya's removal will likely bring a lot of good to Honduras.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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!
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
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.
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.
It's only crazy in your personal "reality".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
No its crazy because its crazy and has no bearing on reality.Quote:
It's only crazy in your personal "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.