Honduras Military Kicks Out President

[Tribesman]

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

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.

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.

[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.

[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 law

That 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]

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.

[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.