*hugz Tolstoy

I was showing the argument against term limits, Toltoy, and without saying whether or not it was the right idea. What they are, in both the US and Honduras, is the law and as such they need to be followed.

I also admit I had not idea who Zelaya was before today, but that doesn't change the fact that he was removed from office because he was acting against the Supreme Court and Congress. Just because he's president doesn't mean he's above the law. The military arrested him because he tried to organize a farce of an election to legitimize his staying in power.

If the President of the United States were to try and pull such a nakedly unconstitutional power grab I hope he would be stopped. While having the military arrest a sitting president is a horrible scenario to imagine, what else can happen when he refuses to listen to the courts and Congress?

Ah, but Roosevelt *wasn't* stopped when he broke with 150 years of tradition (which may have well have been law) and ran successfully for a a third term after ignoring many a dictate from the Supreme Court. It *was* viewed as a blatantly unconstitutional power grab by a great many people, as any lifelong Republican over the age of 85 might tell you today(we have a great many 'unwritten rules' in American politics even today, and many countries have 'unwritten constitutions'). But there was no military takeover and Roosevelt wasn't dumped in Mongolia in favor of the Republican empty-suit corporate lawyer. We did have a more or less fair election in 1940 (as Zelaya apparently wants), and America didn't end. Most historians and political scientists who write your PoliSci textbooks think Roosevelt's reelection in 1940 was a wonderful thing - although George Washington was probably rolling over in his grave. Democracy didn't die and things continued more or less as they did after president-for-life Roosevelt died in 1945.

Invictus, do you really think there should've been a military coup in 1940 to prevent Roosevelt from running for an unprecedented and tradition-violating 3rd term?

Roosevelt getting a third term and this guy pushing for a second are entirely different scenarios.

The US Constitution didn't have term limits at the time. There was a powerful two term tradition, but legally there was no reason a person couldn't be President indefinitely. I'd like to meet someone who actually believes that Roosevelt running for a third term was unconstitutional. Then I would ask them why it was necessary to amend the constitution to include term limits.

The US Supreme Court did not tell Roosevelt that he couldn't run in 1940. The Supreme Court of Honduras told Zelaya that he couldn't organize a referendum to extend his stay in power since the Honduran constitution expressly forbids presidential reelection. He went and tried to organize a referendum about that anyway. That's illegal and incomparable to Roosevelt deciding to *only* break tradition.

"Roosevelt wasn't dumped in Mongolia in favor of the Republican empty-suit corporate lawyer."

I think you saying this means that you think the opposition is in control of Honduras. The leader of Congress who is Acting President now is a member of the same party as Zelaya. He is not that party's nominee for the upcoming presidential elections.

Zelaya defied a court order and an act of the Honduran Congress. It's beyond question that he broke the law. What he did was certainly an impeachable offense, and if he hadn't been so hell bent on having an illegal referendum so soon that probably would have happened. By arresting him, the military legally enforced a court order coming from the Supreme Court of Honduras. This wasn't a coup. This was the government upholding the rule of law when the president was determined to act outside it.

As you can see, I do not think there should have been a coup in 1940. I don't think there should ever be a coup in America, since a coup by definition is an unconstitutional power play. It might have been more noble for Roosevelt to step aside in 1940, but there was no legal reason that he had to so he ran again and he won.

What I would support is something like what happened in Honduras. If, God forbid, an American President decided that he didn't have to listen to the Supreme Court or Congress and wanted to extend his power unconstitutionally, then he ought to be arrested and removed from power. I guess you could call it a fast-track impeachment.

"Most historians and political scientists who write your PoliSci textbooks..."

Please don't assume I'm just spitting out what I heard in class. I only mentioned it to show that I'm not your average idiot who regurgitates what they hear on CNN or FOX News. I also meant more the scholarly sources, not textbooks per se.

That was too long. I hope people read it...

Here's Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution.

"Any citizen who has carried out the function of titular head of the Executive power may not be President or Vice-president of the nation. One who breaks this rule or proposes its reform, as with those who support such a person directly or indirectly, will immediately cease carrying out their positions and will be ineligible for any public charge for ten (10) years."

The translation is from the bottom of Wikipedia, but here's the original document in Spanish. I actually found the constitution site first, then saw it was the same source Wikipedia used. Georgetown University seems like a pretty solid source.
http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html

From what I can see, just by actively proposing to reform the ban on reelection Zelaya forfeited the powers of the presidency.

"Please don't assume I'm just spitting out what I heard in class."

I'm not. In fact, I'm pleased to see you can defend yourself with facts and logic instead of threatening to give me an 'F' in your class (as one professor I had once did).

But Supreme Court rulings have often been ignored by presidents, from Jackson's "The court has made their decision - now let them enforce it" to Bush II ignoring the SC's verdict that Guantanamo detainees have the right to a trial. Roosevelt got into a lot of trouble with the SC over his economic programs - so much so that he even tried to up the number of SC justices from 9 to 13 so he could "pack" the court with newly-appointed judges sympathetic to his programs. Frack, Lincoln supposedly signed an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice and several Associate Justices of the SC after an unfavorable ruling at the beginning of the Civil War (a warrant which, if real, was obviously never actually executed). Do you think they all should've been removed by military force? Keep in mind that there's nothing in the Constitution that says a Supreme Court verdict is binding on the operations of the Executive branch - this is simply a practice that has (generally) been accepted since Marbury vs. Madison, much like the 2-term tradition that existed prior to Roosevelt. I can't help but wonder what similar twists and nuances of the Honduran constitutional and legal system we are overlooking (which have probably been missed by foreign wire service journalists or ignored by native Honduran journalists whose bread is buttered by one faction or another - whether they know it or not).

I read a commentary by a mainstream-media journalist recently (don't remember where), where he (I think it was a he) admitted that the media almost always gets the facts wrong - whenever he wrote an article about a certain subject, he would always get dozens of letters from subject matter experts pointing out the obvious errors in his report. I've seen this myself, where media reports to events I'd been involved in or witnessed first hand bore almost no resemblance to what actually happened. I gotta wonder how accurate all the foreign (English-speaking) reporters are about the Honduran constitutional system which they're reporting on. Is Zelaya "Not a Crook!"? Is he a new Castro? How can we really know? We can't. Even Hondurans, I expect, have a broad range of opinions on the subject, just as we have a broad range of opinions on whether Clinton should've been removed from office or Bush II was the worst president in American history.

Invictus, my Spanish isn't that good, but this reads a lot like it's referring to a specific person (perhaps a dictator of Honduras at the time of the constitutional ratification - I know Central America had a lot of dictators and chaos back in the '80s), not that anyone who is president may not run for a second term. Would be interested to hear an opinion from a native Spanish speaker.

Again, your arguments aren't really what you think they are.

I'll deal with the second post first. It's undoubted referring to how anyone who is president cannot run for a second term. The idea that the Honduran people would write a constitution just excluding one person from reelection flies in the face of logic and the events which have been reported in any news source I've seen. There's no doubt Honduras bans reelection.

As to Presidents ignoring the Supreme Court, you offer very different examples. Jackson letting the Cherokee be sent to Oklahoma was a blatant instance of the President not listening to the court. It was not, however part of Jackson trying to seize more power. Zelaya was taken out in Honduras because of the immediacy of the crisis. What would have happened if the referendum had happened? He could have claimed to have a popular mandate to stay in power, even though his actions were undoubtedly illegal and only his supporters would have voted. Jackson did wrong by not heeding the Court, very wrong in my opinion, but these are totally different situations.

As for Guantanamo detainees, they are getting trials. Bush did listen. Grudgingly and half-assedly, but he listened.

Roosevelt's court packing was also a completely different situation than Honduras. The Court ruled a bunch of New Deal program unconstitutional, so Roosevelt tried to fill the Court with justices who'd rule in his favor. While this was an unsettling move it was legal. Congress decides by law how many Supreme Court Justices there are.

I never heard of this Lincoln trying to arrest Supreme Court Justices. I don't know how that would even work, and the quick searches I've found on the internet say it's likely a hoax.

Your Marbury v. Madison point also doesn't hold. Not just because Honduras could very well have judicial review actually codified but because the order to arrest Zelaya had nothing to do with judicial review, really. The Supreme Court of Honduras issued an arrest warrant just like any judge can if there's probable cause that a crime was committed.

You seem to be suspicious of the news reports, and that's usually right. There's no arguing, however, that the Supreme Court told Zelaya he couldn't hold the referendum and Congress passed a law where the timing of the referendum was illegal and then he tried to do it anyway. That is complete contempt for the institutions of government which he ought to be serving. You can't wrap yourself in the mantel of being elected by the people and then say you won't follow acts of Congress or court orders. He was then removed from office for breaking the law. I doubt any conspiracy could warp the story so much as to change even those facts.

There are undoubted a wide range of opinions, but at the end of the day he did break the law and everything that has happened looks like it was exactly what was supposed to happen in this sort of a situation.

Invictus, considering he has been disbarred in Arkansas AND by the U.S. Supreme Court. Add to that the fact that ANY impeachment, according to the US Constitution, includes the "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States"

Most of the countries in Latin America are denouncing this as a military coup.

Also, an Obama staff mamber has been quoted saying that Zelaya is the only constitutional president that they recognice.

(I have a link, but it's in Spanish. http://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/nacionales/51175)

Another link:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/29/honduras.president.arrested/index.html

The Congress, in their deposition of Zelaya, read a forged letter of resignation.

Here's a link in English with the info from before, and wich gives a rather accurate description of the facts.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1907600,00.html?xid=rss-world-cnn

Draugnar, disbarment has to do with him being able to practice law, not holding office. It's the conviction of an impeachment that prevents someone from holding office again, not just the act of being impeached. Impeachment is just a trial.

Xapi, they might be denouncing Zelaya being removed, but I still think this was the right thing to do. See what I wrote above.

How would anyone know the letter is forged? Zelaya of course would deny it, and from my reading of the Honduran Constitution it looks like he lost the powers of his office when he pushed the illegal referendum anyhow.

I believe no law can declare itself unchangeable.

That Constitution is a scam, and real democracy (as in, the people voting to decide which president to have, the people voting to decide if they want to change the Constitution) should trump that sort of f*cked up law.

Sure constitutions ought to be able to be amended, but it has to be done legally. Zelaya cannot just ignore the Supreme Court and Congress. HIS actions were more like those of an old style caudillo than the military and government.

Also, the referendum was not directly tied to the changing of that particular law.

The referendum was to see weather the people wanted to have an election on November (on top of another election that was previously scheduled) to elect Representatives to a Constitutional Reform Assembly.

In Honduras (as in most Latin American countries) you can't ammend the Constitution as in the US, you must conduct a particular election to choose the members of a special assembly that is authorized to change the Constitution.

The Congress passed a law banning referendums less than 180 days before an election and the Supreme Court ruled the referendum was illegal and unconstitutional. Zelaya tried to do it anyway.

How can that be justified?

His actions were akin those of an old style caudillo, as much as the military's actions were akin those of an old style dictatorship, and the Congress actions were akin those of an old style oligarchic class.

It's the seventies all over again, and guess what?

The people prefered the caudillos over the dictators and oligarchs any time. If you want a Democracy, you must accept the number one rule. The people decide. And that's something the military and Congress haven't come to accept yet, and it's 2009.

The people obviously elected an anti-Zelaya majority in Congress.

You can't have presidents flaunting court orders. All people live under the law. It has to be respected.

A caudillo's not a dictator?

"The people obviously elected an anti-Zelaya majority in Congress."

Many of those taking Zelaya down are his members of his own government coalition.

"A caudillo's not a dictator?"

Not in my book.

Most caudillos, at least, even when some came from military backgrounds, were elected by the people in democratic elections.

"Many of those taking Zelaya down are his members of his own government coalition."

How does that change anything? The Congress, with as much of a popular mandate as Zelaya, acted within its powers to pass a law. Zelaya then ignored them. He's trying to wrap himself in the mantle of populism to stay in power, but the truth is that he's acting in defiance of the people's elected representatives, not to mention the courts.

caudillo: 1. A leader or chief, especially a military dictator.
2. A political boss; an overlord.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/caudillo

A caudillo's just a strongman.

The only reference of a dictator as a "caudillo" that I can find is Franco, and he wasn't Latin American.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/100372/caudillo

No names, but it specifically says a caudillo is term for a Latin American dictator.

Here's another.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/caudillo.aspx

It's just semantics, I realize that. You can't deny, however, that Zelaya was breaking the law and defying Congress and the courts. The Supreme Court ordered the army to remove him from power and the army carried out the court order in obedience to the Constitution.

"No names, but it specifically says a caudillo is term for a Latin American dictator."

That's because in the northern hemisphere, you can't tell the difference between, for instance, Juan Domingo Perón and Jorge Rafael Videla.

"You can't deny, however, that Zelaya was breaking the law and defying Congress and the courts. "

Not this part.

"The Supreme Court ordered the army to remove him from power and the army carried out the court order in obedience to the Constitution."

I can deny this part. There was no Court Order to remove him from power, in fact, only the Congress can remove him from power, and they did that ex post facto, as stated earlier.

"Later the Honduran Supreme Court said it had ordered the removal of the president, who had been due to leave office next January. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123126.stm

I'll repost the translation of the relevant clause of the constitution.

"Any citizen who has carried out the function of titular head of the Executive power may not be President or Vice-president of the nation. One who breaks this rule or proposes its reform, as with those who support such a person directly or indirectly, will immediately cease carrying out their positions and will be ineligible for any public charge for ten (10) years."

When he pushed for the referendum he lost the powers of the presidency and the Supreme Court ordered his removal. By defying the other institutions of government he forfeited his position according to the constitution. This was all legal.

I'd focus on the word "later".

Also, I believe only the Congress can remove a President, even when he breaks the law.

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute *anyone* involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html

That's a brilliant article, DipperDon. Here's one of the more powerful qutoes, from a former Argentine UN ambassardor about how the OAS

"seems to believe that only military 'coups' can challenge democracy. The truth is that democracy can be challenged from within, as the experiences of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and now Honduras, prove."

Honduras is trying to defend its constitution against a would-be Chavez-style dictatorship where the president is the only point of government authority. You don't need a violent seizure of power to destroy democracy and the rule of law, you just need to change the rules from within. I hope that Honduras succeeds in defending its constitution.

"I believe only the Congress can remove a President, even when he breaks the law."

Well, that simply isn't the case, Xapi. The president still has to follow the law. Honduras also doesn't even have a mechanism for impeachment.

Emilio Cardenas is nothing but a lobbyist, and the Government to the wich he served as an ambassador was not much more than a puppet state for the US.

The very President he served under described his foreign relations as "Carnal relations" with the US.

To properly explain this matter, I'd have to give a lecture on Latin American history that I'm not inclined to write.

I'd recommend reading "The open veins of Latin America".