Honduras Military Kicks Out President

[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.

[Husar]

I can find this.
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.
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"

[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?

[rvg]

here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12861459/C...a-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/C...a-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.

[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?

[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?

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.

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]

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

[rvg]

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

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.