Honduras Military Kicks Out President

[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.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/2...al-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.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/2...al-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.

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]

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