Honduras Military Kicks Out President

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

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.