The military of ANY nation should not be involved in the elections of that nation. Period. The fact that the Honduran constitution seemingly gives the military this role means that it is fucked up.
Edit: Also, when one of the first actions of an interem leader is to institute curfews, that's not a good sign.
Be that as it may, in this case it looks like the military was properly enforcing the constitution, under direction from the Supreme Court. Allowing the vote to take place, and leaving the President in power, would have been the coup.
Um no. You feel that the head of your country is committing crimes, you impeach him. You don't force him out of the country in the dead of night. And you also don't force out and beat up the ambassadors of countries you think might be sympathetic to the guy you're forcing out.
Honduras's Supreme Court gave the order for the military to detain the president, according to a former Supreme Court official who is in touch with the court.
Later, Honduras's Congress formally removed Mr. Zelaya from the presidency and named congressional leader Roberto Micheletti as his successor until the end of Mr. Zelaya's term in January. Mr. Micheletti and others said they were the defenders, not opponents, of democratic rule.
"What was done here was a democratic act," Mr. Micheletti, who was sworn in as president Sunday afternoon, said to an ovation. "Our constitution continues to be valid, our democracy continues to live."
Mr. Micheletti is a member of Mr. Zelaya's Liberal party. But he had opposed his plans for a referendum that could have led to overturning the constitution's ban on re-election, allowing Mr. Zelaya to potentially stay in power past January, when his term ends.
So they plastered on a legal band-aid after they ejected him from the country. From reports, the vote you're referring to occured on Sunday night, in other words well after Zelaya was ejected from his nation. If we tried that here, with ANY President, there would be riots in the streets, and for good reason.
Although the constitution and law provide for an independent judiciary, the judicial system was poorly funded and staffed, inadequately equipped, often ineffective, and subject to patronage, corruption, and political influence.
On March 27, a court acquitted but did not release from custody Joel Nahum Espinoza, a member of the presidential guard arrested in June 2006 in connection with the 1999 killing of Francisco Javier Morales in Trujillo. On April 30, prosecutors filed an appeal, which was pending at year's end. Santos Israel Barahona Chirinos, the other suspect in the killing, remained at large.
Low wages and lack of internal controls rendered judicial officials susceptible to bribery, and powerful special interests exercised influence in the outcomes of court proceedings.
There are 12 appeals courts, 77 courts of first instance with general jurisdiction, and 330 justice of the peace courts with limited jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Justice names all lower court judges. The media and various civil society groups continued to express concern that the eight-to-seven split between the National and Liberal parties in the Supreme Court of Justice resulted in politicized rulings and contributed to corruption in public and private institutions.
Provides a good narrative of what happened, though clearly to make the case that this is all on the up and up. Would be interesting to see if anything contradicts this. My view - the president was in the wrong, but Honduran institutions (Congress, courts, military) also went about this the wrong way, at least assuming that his exile was involuntary. If he had violated the constitution he should have been arrested and tried for doing so.
Also, some media are reporting that one legislator was killed, but apparently that is not the case.
The Honduran constitution was written by the Reagan administration back in the 80's, ostensibly at the same time they were training Honduran death squads, so I'm perfectly fine with the idea of people violating the living hell out of it.
There might be defenses to the whole military-expulsion business, but the "nation of laws" argument is pretty hollow to begin with and even more so when you consider the origins of these particular laws.
The military of ANY nation should not be involved in the elections of that nation. Period.The fact that the Honduran constitution seemingly gives the military this role means that it is fucked up.
Edit: Also, when one of the first actions of an interem leader is to institute curfews, that's not a good sign.
Be that as it may, in this case it looks like the military was properly enforcing the constitution, under direction from the Supreme Court. Allowing the vote to take place, and leaving the President in power, would have been the coup.
Um no. You feel that the head of your country is committing crimes, you impeach him. You don't force him out of the country in the dead of night. And you also don't force out and beat up the ambassadors of countries you think might be sympathetic to the guy you're forcing out.
The only problem is that there are no impeachment laws in Honduras. Instead they have constitutional articles that automatically terminate an official's service if he does certain things. The Supreme Court made a ruling that what the president was doing was unconstitutional and ordered him to stop. When he ignored that order, the law was carried out based on that original ruling.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Despite Obama's comments, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration was not formally designating the ouster as a military coup for now, a step that would force a cut-off of most U.S. aid to Honduras.
Under U.S. law, no aid -- other than for the promotion of democracy -- may be provided to a country whose elected head of government has been toppled in a military coup.
When did we pass this law? Hasn't the US been aiding and organizing military coups for decades?
FirstComradeStalin on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Despite Obama's comments, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration was not formally designating the ouster as a military coup for now, a step that would force a cut-off of most U.S. aid to Honduras.
Under U.S. law, no aid -- other than for the promotion of democracy -- may be provided to a country whose elected head of government has been toppled in a military coup.
When did we pass this law? Hasn't the US been aiding and organizing military coups for decades?
TEGUCIGALPA, June 29 (Reuters) - Honduras has shut down television and radio stations since an army coup over the weekend, in a media blackout than has drawn condemnation from an international press freedom group.
Shortly after the Honduran military seized President Manuel Zelaya and flew him to Costa Rica on Sunday, soldiers stormed a popular radio station and cut off local broadcasts of international television networks CNN en Espanol and Venezuelan-based Telesur, which is sponsored by leftist governments in South America.
A pro-Zelaya channel also was shut down.
The few television and radio stations still operating on Monday played tropical music or aired soap operas and cooking shows.
They made little reference to the demonstrations or international condemnation of the coup even as hundreds of protesters rallied at the presidential palace in the capital to demand Zelaya's return and an end to the blackout.
"The spurious government is violating our right to information, blocking the signals of channels like CNN," Juan Varaona, a protest leader at a barricade, said as burning tires sent plumes of black smoke into the sky.
CNN en Espanol is the Spanish-language channel of the U.S.-based 24-hour news network CNN.
Others blasted the two main Honduran newspapers and said they were still online because they supported the coup.
"El Heraldo and El Tribuno are two papers that were part of the coup plot, them and some television channels controlled by the opposition," said 27-year-old Erin Matute, a government health worker.
"This morning, they were the only ones with signals, the others were shut down," Matute said at a barricade on a side street in the capital.
El Heraldo's website ran one headline saying "Semblance of normality across Honduras."
Some Hondurans used Internet social networking site Twitter to urge on demonstrators and spread news about the protests.
"Down with the coup! Brothers of Honduras break the information blackout and watch the repression on Telesur on the Internet," one message said.
Some protesters burned and smashed El Heraldo newspaper stands and others used them as barricades to block streets around the presidential palace.
PRESSURE ON OAS, WEST
Paris-based press freedom group Reporters Without Borders criticized the media shutdown.
"The suspension or closure of local and international broadcast media indicates that the coup leaders want to hide what is happening," the group said in a statement.
"The Organization of American States and the international community must insist that this news blackout is lifted."
The coup -- triggered by a dispute over Zelaya's push to extend presidential terms -- is the biggest political crisis to hit Central America in years.
It followed a week of tension when Zelaya, an ally of Venezuela's socialist President Hugo Chavez, angered the Honduran Congress, Supreme Court and army by pushing for a public vote to gauge support for changing the constitution to let presidents seek re-election beyond a single four-year term.
Before he could hold the poll on Sunday, the Honduran military seized Zelaya and flew him to Costa Rica in Central America's first successful army coup since the Cold War era of dictatorships and war in the region.
The Supreme Court, which last week overruled Zelaya's attempt to fire the armed forces chief, said it had told the army to remove the president. (Reporting by Mica Rosenberg and Gustavo Palencia in Tegucigalpa and Armando Tovar in Mexico City; Writing by Robin Emmott)
Again, this is very similar to what happened with Chavez back in 2002, and with what happened in Iran just recently. The actions of the coup are showing the lack of legitimacy of their move.
Again, this is very similar to what happened with Chavez back in 2002, and with what happened in Iran just recently. The actions of the coup are showing the lack of legitimacy of their move.
The problem with shutting down a populist coup is that you have to do many of the same things that you would do if you were instigating the coup. Rather than actually look at the situation, CNN, Reuters, AP and the rest have been parroting the line that this was a military coup. So far as I know, none of them have published any articles that actually look at Honduran law or the Constitution. So, the government now has several news agencies falsely reporting a coup to people who are probably not well versed in their own Constitution (as is the case with most countries). Not only does this violate several of the same laws that got Zelaya booted out, but it is also an incitement to riot. Their other option is to allow the broadcasts to be aired, further destabilize the country. This is not Iran. People would not be dying in defense of their rights; they would be dying in a misguided attempt at allowing a criminal to piss all over the Constitution.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Again, this is very similar to what happened with Chavez back in 2002, and with what happened in Iran just recently. The actions of the coup are showing the lack of legitimacy of their move.
The problem with shutting down a populist coup is that you have to do many of the same things that you would do if you were instigating the coup. Rather than actually look at the situation, CNN, Reuters, AP and the rest have been parroting the line that this was a military coup. So far as I know, none of them have published any articles that actually look at Honduran law or the Constitution. So, the government now has several news agencies falsely reporting a coup to people who are probably not well versed in their own Constitution (as is the case with most countries). Not only does this violate several of the same laws that got Zelaya booted out, but it is also an incitement to riot. Their other option is to allow the broadcasts to be aired, further destabilize the country. This is not Iran. People would not be dying in defense of their rights; they would be dying in a misguided attempt at allowing a criminal to piss all over the Constitution.
You keep on acting as if the Honduran constitution is something that shouldn't be pissed on. This is something that is questionable.
Oh, and do you actually understand that "populist coup" is an oxymoron?
Again, this is very similar to what happened with Chavez back in 2002, and with what happened in Iran just recently. The actions of the coup are showing the lack of legitimacy of their move.
The problem with shutting down a populist coup is that you have to do many of the same things that you would do if you were instigating the coup. Rather than actually look at the situation, CNN, Reuters, AP and the rest have been parroting the line that this was a military coup. So far as I know, none of them have published any articles that actually look at Honduran law or the Constitution. So, the government now has several news agencies falsely reporting a coup to people who are probably not well versed in their own Constitution (as is the case with most countries). Not only does this violate several of the same laws that got Zelaya booted out, but it is also an incitement to riot. Their other option is to allow the broadcasts to be aired, further destabilize the country. This is not Iran. People would not be dying in defense of their rights; they would be dying in a misguided attempt at allowing a criminal to piss all over the Constitution.
You keep on acting as if the Honduran constitution is something that shouldn't be pissed on. This is something that is questionable.
And you seem unwilling to accept the possibility that it isn't.
Again, this is very similar to what happened with Chavez back in 2002, and with what happened in Iran just recently. The actions of the coup are showing the lack of legitimacy of their move.
The problem with shutting down a populist coup is that you have to do many of the same things that you would do if you were instigating the coup. Rather than actually look at the situation, CNN, Reuters, AP and the rest have been parroting the line that this was a military coup. So far as I know, none of them have published any articles that actually look at Honduran law or the Constitution. So, the government now has several news agencies falsely reporting a coup to people who are probably not well versed in their own Constitution (as is the case with most countries). Not only does this violate several of the same laws that got Zelaya booted out, but it is also an incitement to riot. Their other option is to allow the broadcasts to be aired, further destabilize the country. This is not Iran. People would not be dying in defense of their rights; they would be dying in a misguided attempt at allowing a criminal to piss all over the Constitution.
You keep on acting as if the Honduran constitution is something that shouldn't be pissed on. This is something that is questionable.
And you seem unwilling to accept the possibility that it isn't.
For reasons that I and others explained, and which you seem unwilling to address. I'm sorry, but one of the aspects of democracy is that the people have the ability to write the rules of how they are governed, up to and including being able to say "fuck it, let's start over." Quite a few nations have done this throughout history - including the United States. Saying that pushing for changes to the laws is a crime is a quintessentially anti-democratic action.
There's a difference between "fuck it, let's start over" and "fuck it, let's make me President for Life" that I don't think you're fully appreciating.
How? Everyone keeps on saying that it's only the limitation on terms that prevents a leader from staying in power, but I don't really buy that. Our own term limit system is a matter of historical happenstance, and only continues for two reasons:
It's really, really, REALLY hard to amend the Constitution.
The two parties see more value in limiting the ability of the other to exploit a charismatic leader then in being able to use theirs. (Consider a Reagan/Dukakis matchup in 88 or a Clinton/W matchup in 2000, and you'll very quickly see why the parties like it that leaders term out.)
Our country didn't collapse because FDR won four terms. Personally, I see the term limit clauses as yet another means to assert military primacy (as is the apparent ability of the Honduran Supreme Court and National Assembly to assert control over the military), worked in with the assistance of the Reagan Administration to make sure that the "right" people always had their hands on the reins.
Again, this is very similar to what happened with Chavez back in 2002, and with what happened in Iran just recently. The actions of the coup are showing the lack of legitimacy of their move.
The problem with shutting down a populist coup is that you have to do many of the same things that you would do if you were instigating the coup. Rather than actually look at the situation, CNN, Reuters, AP and the rest have been parroting the line that this was a military coup. So far as I know, none of them have published any articles that actually look at Honduran law or the Constitution. So, the government now has several news agencies falsely reporting a coup to people who are probably not well versed in their own Constitution (as is the case with most countries). Not only does this violate several of the same laws that got Zelaya booted out, but it is also an incitement to riot. Their other option is to allow the broadcasts to be aired, further destabilize the country. This is not Iran. People would not be dying in defense of their rights; they would be dying in a misguided attempt at allowing a criminal to piss all over the Constitution.
You keep on acting as if the Honduran constitution is something that shouldn't be pissed on. This is something that is questionable.
Oh, and do you actually understand that "populist coup" is an oxymoron?
Newsflash: Mob rule is not the pinnacle of democracy!
Much like our Constitution, the Honduran one has a democratic process for reform. Much like our Constitution, it does not permit a convention to be called by popular vote. If a US president were to take steps toward calling such a convention, he would be in violation of our Consitution. If they had proceeded with those steps, they would have been impeached, which is the legal recourse for such violations in the US. In Honduras, the legal recourse automatically removes the person from power.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Again, this is very similar to what happened with Chavez back in 2002, and with what happened in Iran just recently. The actions of the coup are showing the lack of legitimacy of their move.
The problem with shutting down a populist coup is that you have to do many of the same things that you would do if you were instigating the coup. Rather than actually look at the situation, CNN, Reuters, AP and the rest have been parroting the line that this was a military coup. So far as I know, none of them have published any articles that actually look at Honduran law or the Constitution. So, the government now has several news agencies falsely reporting a coup to people who are probably not well versed in their own Constitution (as is the case with most countries). Not only does this violate several of the same laws that got Zelaya booted out, but it is also an incitement to riot. Their other option is to allow the broadcasts to be aired, further destabilize the country. This is not Iran. People would not be dying in defense of their rights; they would be dying in a misguided attempt at allowing a criminal to piss all over the Constitution.
You keep on acting as if the Honduran constitution is something that shouldn't be pissed on. This is something that is questionable.
Oh, and do you actually understand that "populist coup" is an oxymoron?
Newsflash: Mob rule is not the pinnacle of democracy!
Much like our Constitution, the Honduran one has a democratic process for reform. Much like our Constitution, it does not permit a convention to be called by popular vote. If a US president were to take steps toward calling such a convention, he would be in violation of our Consitution. If they had proceeded with those steps, they would have been impeached, which is the legal recourse for such violations in the US. In Honduras, the legal recourse automatically removes the person from power.
You...you do realize that the reason our Constitution exists is because guys like Ben Franklin and John Adams did what you're condemning, right?
For what it's worth, my mom's from Honduras and has a lot of family still living there so of course I asked her about the coup. Apparently she believes that Zelaya's father was involved in murdering several peasants, nuns, and priests in an attempt to seize their land, that Zelaya was in bed with several large gangs and ever since they've stopped using the death penalty for a lot of crimes (they couldn't afford courts and prisons) crime has skyrocketed.
Yeah I know, I couldn't find any cites so I thought a little hearsay from someone very close to the issue is better than trying to make blind judgements about this guy. That's really just my two cents worth.
There's a difference between "fuck it, let's start over" and "fuck it, let's make me President for Life" that I don't think you're fully appreciating.
How? Everyone keeps on saying that it's only the limitation on terms that prevents a leader from staying in power, but I don't really buy that. Our own term limit system is a matter of historical happenstance, and only continues for two reasons:
It's really, really, REALLY hard to amend the Constitution.
The two parties see more value in limiting the ability of the other to exploit a charismatic leader then in being able to use theirs. (Consider a Reagan/Dukakis matchup in 88 or a Clinton/W matchup in 2000, and you'll very quickly see why the parties like it that leaders term out.)
Our country didn't collapse because FDR won four terms. Personally, I see the term limit clauses as yet another means to assert military primacy (as is the apparent ability of the Honduran Supreme Court and National Assembly to assert control over the military), worked in with the assistance of the Reagan Administration to make sure that the "right" people always had their hands on the reins.
What are you saying, that the US doesn't have a history of despotic dictators? Didn't we know that already?
And the fact that the elected Congress and the Congressionally-appointed judiciary exercise control over the military is evidence of military primacy? What are you talking about?
And the fact that the elected Congress and the Congressionally-appointed judiciary exercise control over the military is evidence of military primacy? What are you talking about?
Because when you say "the military can take orders from any branch", what happens is that they can play the branches off one another. They don't like what the executive is doing - they just go to the legislative branch and ask them to give them a legal order to do what the executive won't let them do. Or they go to the courts. Which is why in the US, military command is vested in the executive alone, with requirements that actions beyond a specific scope laid out have to be authorized by the legislative.
Again, this is very similar to what happened with Chavez back in 2002, and with what happened in Iran just recently. The actions of the coup are showing the lack of legitimacy of their move.
The problem with shutting down a populist coup is that you have to do many of the same things that you would do if you were instigating the coup. Rather than actually look at the situation, CNN, Reuters, AP and the rest have been parroting the line that this was a military coup. So far as I know, none of them have published any articles that actually look at Honduran law or the Constitution. So, the government now has several news agencies falsely reporting a coup to people who are probably not well versed in their own Constitution (as is the case with most countries). Not only does this violate several of the same laws that got Zelaya booted out, but it is also an incitement to riot. Their other option is to allow the broadcasts to be aired, further destabilize the country. This is not Iran. People would not be dying in defense of their rights; they would be dying in a misguided attempt at allowing a criminal to piss all over the Constitution.
You keep on acting as if the Honduran constitution is something that shouldn't be pissed on. This is something that is questionable.
Oh, and do you actually understand that "populist coup" is an oxymoron?
Newsflash: Mob rule is not the pinnacle of democracy!
Much like our Constitution, the Honduran one has a democratic process for reform. Much like our Constitution, it does not permit a convention to be called by popular vote. If a US president were to take steps toward calling such a convention, he would be in violation of our Consitution. If they had proceeded with those steps, they would have been impeached, which is the legal recourse for such violations in the US. In Honduras, the legal recourse automatically removes the person from power.
You...you do realize that the reason our Constitution exists is because guys like Ben Franklin and John Adams did what you're condemning, right?
You knowledge of English law appears to be as in-depth as your knowledge of Honduran law. Many of the grievances that precipitated the Revolution involved violations of the rights detailed in the documents that form the British Constitution.
Also, as long as we are throwing around the views of founding fathers, both Franklin and Jefferson believed term limits were necessary to the continuance of democracy. Adams held similar views until an abrupt about face during his second term as VP (go figure).
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
You knowledge of English law appears to be as in-depth as your knowledge of Honduran law. Many of the grievances that precipitated the Revolution involved violations of the rights detailed in the documents that form the British Constitution.
If you're the product of modern American schooling, I weep for our nation. Google "Articles of Confederation" sometime. We scrapped the underpinnings of our original governmental system because it dawned on us that it wasn't working. And they didn't even have a vote as to if they should or not.
Also, as long as we are throwing around the views of founding fathers, both Franklin and Jefferson believed term limits were necessary to the continuance of democracy. Adams held similar views until an abrupt about face during his second term as VP (go figure).
And yet many nations (and many states in the US) don't term out their executives, and are yet quite stable. And term limits didn't make it into the Constitution until the 1940s, so that tells you how contentious the issue was.
You...you do realize that the reason our Constitution exists is because guys like Ben Franklin and John Adams did what you're condemning, right?
You knowledge of English law appears to be as in-depth as your knowledge of Honduran law. Many of the grievances that precipitated the Revolution involved violations of the rights detailed in the documents that form the British Constitution.
If you're the product of modern American schooling, I weep for our nation. Google "Articles of Confederation" sometime. We scrapped the underpinnings of our original governmental system because it dawned on us that it wasn't working. And they didn't even have a vote as to if they should or not.
Actually, they did. Congress voted to call the Constitutional Convention, which proposed the new Constitution. Congress then voted to submit the document to the state legislatures for ratification. Because the Articles stated that any changes required the agreement of Congress and the approval of all state legislatures, they were still legally in effect until the Constitution was ratified in Rhode Island in 1790. Unless you are suggesting that the delegates were obligated to vote on what could be suggested at the Convention, which was by no means the case; they were free to make suggestions and only had to vote on what should be sent to Congress.
Also, I learned enough to know that John Adams had no part in drafting the Constitution; both he and Jefferson were in Europe at the time. Now, if you are done kicking my ass with your legal and historical expertise, can we put this thread back on topic?
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
You...you do realize that the reason our Constitution exists is because guys like Ben Franklin and John Adams did what you're condemning, right?
You knowledge of English law appears to be as in-depth as your knowledge of Honduran law. Many of the grievances that precipitated the Revolution involved violations of the rights detailed in the documents that form the British Constitution.
If you're the product of modern American schooling, I weep for our nation. Google "Articles of Confederation" sometime. We scrapped the underpinnings of our original governmental system because it dawned on us that it wasn't working. And they didn't even have a vote as to if they should or not.
Actually, they did. Congress voted to call the Constitutional Convention, which proposed the new Constitution. Congress then voted to submit the document to the state legislatures for ratification. Because the Articles stated that any changes required the agreement of Congress and the approval of all state legislatures, they were still legally in effect until the Constitution was ratified in Rhode Island in 1790. Unless you are suggesting that the delegates were obligated to vote on what could be suggested at the Convention, which was by no means the case; they were free to make suggestions and only had to vote on what should be sent to Congress.
Also, I learned enough to know that John Adams had no part in drafting the Constitution; both he and Jefferson were in Europe at the time. Now, if you are done kicking my ass with your legal and historical expertise, can we put this thread back on topic?
No, Congress voted for what became the Constitutional Convention for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confereration. It was only once the Convention had convened that its members decided that the Articles were fatally flawed and needed to be scrapped, not revised. So while Congress voted to convene the Convention, it was never their intent for the Convention to do what it did. And this was one of the reasons why the ratification of the Constitution was a pretty bitterly fought battle.
Now, getting back on topic, you keep on harping on how the Honduran constitution says that not only is there a term limit on the executive, but that the term limit is immutable and to push for the change of the term limit can cost you your citizenship. I posit that such laws are fundamentally undemocratic, as they say that the people have a limited right to determine how they are governed, and severely punishes them for attempting to do so. I also posit that it is no sin to oppose a bad law, and no virtue to defend one. I also point out that the Honduran constitution is of questionable origin, and that it is structured not to protect democracy, but to keep democracy chained in such a way as to make it impossible for the democratic structures to challenge either the military or more importantly business interests both foreign and domestic.
No, Congress voted for what became the Constitutional Convention for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confereration. It was only once the Convention had convened that its members decided that the Articles were fatally flawed and needed to be scrapped, not revised. So while Congress voted to convene the Convention, it was never their intent for the Convention to do what it did. And this was one of the reasons why the ratification of the Constitution was a pretty bitterly fought battle.
And it was revised.
Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union.
After the Convention, the Congress could have prevented the recommendations from going to the states but didn't. The two situations are not comparable.
Now, getting back on topic, you keep on harping on how the Honduran constitution says that not only is there a term limit on the executive, but that the term limit is immutable and to push for the change of the term limit can cost you your citizenship. I posit that such laws are fundamentally undemocratic, as they say that the people have a limited right to determine how they are governed, and severely punishes them for attempting to do so.
So?
The Bill of Rights is fundamentally "undemocratic." Constitutions exist in large part to limit the power of various elements of society. Some portions restrict the power of an individual leader or faction, some restrict the power of the mob. A provision that prohibits any attempt to eliminate term limits is not inherently illegitimate, except on free speech grounds and those grounds are routinely violated in other parts of the world (laws prohibiting Nazism in Germany or hate speech elsewhere). The President seemed to clearly be in violation of the law and seems to have met the standard for forfeiting his citizenship.
And as has been stated earlier restrictions on what you can change in Constitutions is routine and exist in the US Constitution.
Nope. All states had to ratify an amendment. The Constitution took effect when 2/3 of the states ratified it. According to the constitution, what they were doing was basically a coup.
Having been without internet access for several days, I have just caught up on this. So far it seems like the constitution is crap, the president should be able to run for more than one term, the president violated both legislative and judicial orders, the supreme court was within its rights to kick him out, and this could easily end very badly. Also, fuck Michael Jackson.
The president of Honduras violated the constitution of his country and was kicked out. Seems like a legitimate removal of a law breaking leader to me and I won't be giving any sympathy to that bastard at all. I just hope for a smooth transition of power to a new president, one that won't do something so reckless.
PantsB, a simple question - do you believe that the people (either by themselves or through representatives) have the right to define the rules by which they are governed? If you answer yes, then you'll see why making it a crime to try to change a part of a constitution sort of runs counter to that.
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited July 2009
It's funny how not only some people in this thread, but also the US and UN are defending an asshole's despotic aspirations. And also de facto approving of his breaking the law of the country in question... Seriously, what the fuck?
It's funny how not only some people in this thread, but also the US and UN are defending an asshole's despotic aspirations. And also de facto approving of his breaking the law of the country in question... Seriously, what the fuck?
So, do you believe that all laws are good? Also, where are you getting that Zelaya has "despotic aspirations"?
Again - it is no sin to oppose a bad law, and it is no virtue to defend it.
Last Saturday night, when President Manuel Zelaya went to bed in his official residence, he must have felt at least an inkling of the loneliness of power.
(From left to right): Cuban President Raul Castro, ousted Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in Nicaragua. Photo: 29 June 2009
Mr Zelaya has found some powerful regional supporters
In the few days previously, the Supreme Court had twice accused him of acting illegally. His attorney general had said he should stand down. He had sacked his chief of defence staff. The heads of the army navy and air force had all resigned.
Despite all that, he apparently slept well.
But not for long.
He was rudely awoken before dawn as masked soldiers entered the private quarters of the man that still, at that stage, was officially their commander-in-chief.
Now the soldiers were giving the orders. The president was marched out of his house and taken to a nearby military airport. Still in his pyjamas, he was forced to board a plane.
By the time it took off, he still had no idea where he was being taken, or what his fate might be.
The destination was Costa Rica, and enforced asylum.
'No hero's welcome'
It might have seemed like his darkest hour. But President Zelaya has instead found himself an unlikely hero with some powerful champions.
He [Mr Zelaya] is the democratically elected president of Honduras. He was kidnapped by criminals
Paulina, teacher in Tegucigalpa
"President Zelaya was democratically elected. He has not completed his term," stated US President Barack Obama.
"This is a coup against us all," said Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez, who has vowed to do what he can to restore the sometime cattle rancher to power.
Mr Zelaya now says he will be returning to his home country on Thursday.
If he is expecting a hero's welcome, he might be disappointed.
The new Honduran government, which remains unrecognised by any country in the world, has said the exiled president is now a regular citizen and should expect to be arrested and imprisoned if he returns.
Popularity plummeted
But what of the Honduran people?
Recent events in Tegucigalpa, with hundreds of protesters chanting the president's name have proved that he has his fanatical supporters.
An Honduran soldier stands guards in front of the National Telecommunications Institution which has been occupied by the military following the removal of President Manuel Zelaya
Troops stormed the president's home at around dawn on Sunday
"He is the democratically elected president of Honduras. He was kidnapped by criminals," said Paulina, a primary school teacher, as she hurled insults at the soldiers currently occupying the presidential palace.
But in the weeks before he left the country, Mr Zelaya's popularity was in fact plummeting. One survey put it at about 30%.
"We saw this coming around six months ago," said Miguel, a lawyer as he watched protesters build a barricade of burning tyres in the centre of the capital.
"Zelaya, for some reason, became a radical," he said.
'Expertly planned'
Perhaps seeking inspiration from President Chavez in Venezuela, Mr Zelaya, who said Honduran democracy grossly favoured the country's wealthy elite, began to turn his attention to the constitution.
It currently allows presidents to only sit for one term of four years. Mr Zelaya's presidency was due to expire next January.
His efforts to alter the situation would appear to have been relatively modest.
Last Sunday, he was attempting to push what was in effect a referendum about whether a future referendum would take place on rewriting the constitution.
But Mr Zelaya's enemies it seemed, wanted to stop the process in its inception. And they had powerful institutions on their side: the Supreme Court, the Congress, the army.
The removal of President Zelaya was expertly planned and orchestrated.
Yet, for its proponents, it might have been disastrously mistimed.
They are now left in nominal charge of a country. Their nemesis has been turned into a symbol of Central America's long, unhappy, struggle against military dictatorship.
And questions remain as to whether, assuming it was his intention, he really could have altered the Honduran Constitution in order to prolong his rule.
Even highly popular leaders, such as Hugo Chavez, have discovered that such an undertaking is not always successful.
Might the generals and judges and politicians who decided that Manuel Zelaya had to go, now be wondering whether they would have been better off doing nothing?
PantsB, a simple question - do you believe that the people (either by themselves or through representatives) have the right to define the rules by which they are governed? If you answer yes, then you'll see why making it a crime to try to change a part of a constitution sort of runs counter to that.
I think California has provided that answer to that.
PantsB, a simple question - do you believe that the people (either by themselves or through representatives) have the right to define the rules by which they are governed? If you answer yes, then you'll see why making it a crime to try to change a part of a constitution sort of runs counter to that.
A universal rule like that won't work, its self-defeating.
Let's assume arguendo that limiting the ability of the people to determine the rules by which they are governed is inherently invalid:
I. A rule is a member of set X if it limits the ability of the people to define the rules by which they are governed
II No rule that is a member of set X should be enacted and/or is invalid
III. Rule II is itself a member of X.
IV. Therefore Rule II should not be enacted and/or is invalid.
And no I don't believe the right of the people to define the rules by which they are governed is an absolute right.
While I think Zelaya was likely in the wrong with his recent actions, removal by the military and exile is quite heavy handed. Of course, if it can even be termed a military coup - he has certainly been removed from power by the military, something I don't like, but the military hasn't formed the new government - Micheletti was next in the line of succession and even hails from his own party (but of course that doesn't rule-out a military coup initiated because the guy they wanted in power was next in line).
In all, the international response to this is a choice between two evils - on one hand there do appear to be some serious constitutional questions to ask before making a knee-jerk declaration that it is a coup (though in the end it might still be an accurate characterisation), but on the other it might be far more important to use this opportunity to condemn such use of the military in domestic politics. No matter what Zelaya has done, or is alleged to have done, it likely doesn't justify the interference of the military (whether on its own or at the behest of other institutions). Sure, one guy's alleged violations of his country's constitution might go overlooked if he is reinstated, but a strong international stance against military government will probably do more good in the long run.
While I think Zelaya was likely in the wrong with his recent actions, removal by the military and exile is quite heavy handed. Of course, if it can even be termed a military coup - he has certainly been removed from power by the military, something I don't like, but the military hasn't formed the new government - Micheletti was next in the line of succession and even hails from his own party (but of course that doesn't rule-out a military coup initiated because the guy they wanted in power was next in line).
In all, the international response to this is a choice between two evils - on one hand there do appear to be some serious constitutional questions to ask before making a knee-jerk declaration that it is a coup (though in the end it might still be an accurate characterisation), but on the other it might be far more important to use this opportunity to condemn such use of the military in domestic politics. No matter what Zelaya has done, or is alleged to have done, it likely doesn't justify the interference of the military (whether on its own or at the behest of other institutions). Sure, one guy's alleged violations of his country's constitution might go overlooked if he is reinstated, but a strong international stance against military government will probably do more good in the long run.
But in cases where someone won't leave power because of social pressures, military intervention becomes necessary. Having the army depose an unlawful leader is vastly preferable to simply leaving them in their position because they refuse to leave on their own.
Whatever the problems with theHonduran constitution, this was in no way a coup. He did something for which citizenship is automatically revoked, so he lost the Presidency. He violated an existing law, and was punished for that according to the terms of that law. Again, disregarding any ethical problems, that cannot possibly be a coup.
Nope. All states had to ratify an amendment. The Constitution took effect when 2/3 of the states ratified it. According to the constitution, what they were doing was basically a coup.
The Constitution took effect after being ratified in 9 states, but only in those states in which it had been ratified. The Articles were also in effect until all states had ratified the Constitution.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It's funny how not only some people in this thread, but also the US and UN are defending an asshole's despotic aspirations. And also de facto approving of his breaking the law of the country in question... Seriously, what the fuck?
So, do you believe that all laws are good? Also, where are you getting that Zelaya has "despotic aspirations"?
Again - it is no sin to oppose a bad law, and it is no virtue to defend it.
No, I don't believe every law is good. But I do believe that having someone try to become president for life is extremely dangerous; if there is also a constitutional law preventing this I will call that a "good law".
Posts
So they plastered on a legal band-aid after they ejected him from the country. From reports, the vote you're referring to occured on Sunday night, in other words well after Zelaya was ejected from his nation. If we tried that here, with ANY President, there would be riots in the streets, and for good reason.
Oh, and for people who keep claiming "But the Supreme Court!", from the State Department's report on Honduras:
WSJ - Honduras Defends Its Democracy
Provides a good narrative of what happened, though clearly to make the case that this is all on the up and up. Would be interesting to see if anything contradicts this. My view - the president was in the wrong, but Honduran institutions (Congress, courts, military) also went about this the wrong way, at least assuming that his exile was involuntary. If he had violated the constitution he should have been arrested and tried for doing so.
Also, some media are reporting that one legislator was killed, but apparently that is not the case.
There might be defenses to the whole military-expulsion business, but the "nation of laws" argument is pretty hollow to begin with and even more so when you consider the origins of these particular laws.
The only problem is that there are no impeachment laws in Honduras. Instead they have constitutional articles that automatically terminate an official's service if he does certain things. The Supreme Court made a ruling that what the president was doing was unconstitutional and ordered him to stop. When he ignored that order, the law was carried out based on that original ruling.
- John Stuart Mill
UN Resolution on Honduran Situation
When did we pass this law? Hasn't the US been aiding and organizing military coups for decades?
I bolded the pertinent part you may have missed.
Again, this is very similar to what happened with Chavez back in 2002, and with what happened in Iran just recently. The actions of the coup are showing the lack of legitimacy of their move.
The problem with shutting down a populist coup is that you have to do many of the same things that you would do if you were instigating the coup. Rather than actually look at the situation, CNN, Reuters, AP and the rest have been parroting the line that this was a military coup. So far as I know, none of them have published any articles that actually look at Honduran law or the Constitution. So, the government now has several news agencies falsely reporting a coup to people who are probably not well versed in their own Constitution (as is the case with most countries). Not only does this violate several of the same laws that got Zelaya booted out, but it is also an incitement to riot. Their other option is to allow the broadcasts to be aired, further destabilize the country. This is not Iran. People would not be dying in defense of their rights; they would be dying in a misguided attempt at allowing a criminal to piss all over the Constitution.
- John Stuart Mill
You keep on acting as if the Honduran constitution is something that shouldn't be pissed on. This is something that is questionable.
Oh, and do you actually understand that "populist coup" is an oxymoron?
And you seem unwilling to accept the possibility that it isn't.
For reasons that I and others explained, and which you seem unwilling to address. I'm sorry, but one of the aspects of democracy is that the people have the ability to write the rules of how they are governed, up to and including being able to say "fuck it, let's start over." Quite a few nations have done this throughout history - including the United States. Saying that pushing for changes to the laws is a crime is a quintessentially anti-democratic action.
How? Everyone keeps on saying that it's only the limitation on terms that prevents a leader from staying in power, but I don't really buy that. Our own term limit system is a matter of historical happenstance, and only continues for two reasons:
Our country didn't collapse because FDR won four terms. Personally, I see the term limit clauses as yet another means to assert military primacy (as is the apparent ability of the Honduran Supreme Court and National Assembly to assert control over the military), worked in with the assistance of the Reagan Administration to make sure that the "right" people always had their hands on the reins.
Newsflash: Mob rule is not the pinnacle of democracy!
Much like our Constitution, the Honduran one has a democratic process for reform. Much like our Constitution, it does not permit a convention to be called by popular vote. If a US president were to take steps toward calling such a convention, he would be in violation of our Consitution. If they had proceeded with those steps, they would have been impeached, which is the legal recourse for such violations in the US. In Honduras, the legal recourse automatically removes the person from power.
- John Stuart Mill
You...you do realize that the reason our Constitution exists is because guys like Ben Franklin and John Adams did what you're condemning, right?
Yeah I know, I couldn't find any cites so I thought a little hearsay from someone very close to the issue is better than trying to make blind judgements about this guy. That's really just my two cents worth.
What are you saying, that the US doesn't have a history of despotic dictators? Didn't we know that already?
And the fact that the elected Congress and the Congressionally-appointed judiciary exercise control over the military is evidence of military primacy? What are you talking about?
Because when you say "the military can take orders from any branch", what happens is that they can play the branches off one another. They don't like what the executive is doing - they just go to the legislative branch and ask them to give them a legal order to do what the executive won't let them do. Or they go to the courts. Which is why in the US, military command is vested in the executive alone, with requirements that actions beyond a specific scope laid out have to be authorized by the legislative.
You knowledge of English law appears to be as in-depth as your knowledge of Honduran law. Many of the grievances that precipitated the Revolution involved violations of the rights detailed in the documents that form the British Constitution.
Also, as long as we are throwing around the views of founding fathers, both Franklin and Jefferson believed term limits were necessary to the continuance of democracy. Adams held similar views until an abrupt about face during his second term as VP (go figure).
- John Stuart Mill
If you're the product of modern American schooling, I weep for our nation. Google "Articles of Confederation" sometime. We scrapped the underpinnings of our original governmental system because it dawned on us that it wasn't working. And they didn't even have a vote as to if they should or not.
And yet many nations (and many states in the US) don't term out their executives, and are yet quite stable. And term limits didn't make it into the Constitution until the 1940s, so that tells you how contentious the issue was.
Actually, they did. Congress voted to call the Constitutional Convention, which proposed the new Constitution. Congress then voted to submit the document to the state legislatures for ratification. Because the Articles stated that any changes required the agreement of Congress and the approval of all state legislatures, they were still legally in effect until the Constitution was ratified in Rhode Island in 1790. Unless you are suggesting that the delegates were obligated to vote on what could be suggested at the Convention, which was by no means the case; they were free to make suggestions and only had to vote on what should be sent to Congress.
Also, I learned enough to know that John Adams had no part in drafting the Constitution; both he and Jefferson were in Europe at the time. Now, if you are done kicking my ass with your legal and historical expertise, can we put this thread back on topic?
- John Stuart Mill
No, Congress voted for what became the Constitutional Convention for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confereration. It was only once the Convention had convened that its members decided that the Articles were fatally flawed and needed to be scrapped, not revised. So while Congress voted to convene the Convention, it was never their intent for the Convention to do what it did. And this was one of the reasons why the ratification of the Constitution was a pretty bitterly fought battle.
Now, getting back on topic, you keep on harping on how the Honduran constitution says that not only is there a term limit on the executive, but that the term limit is immutable and to push for the change of the term limit can cost you your citizenship. I posit that such laws are fundamentally undemocratic, as they say that the people have a limited right to determine how they are governed, and severely punishes them for attempting to do so. I also posit that it is no sin to oppose a bad law, and no virtue to defend one. I also point out that the Honduran constitution is of questionable origin, and that it is structured not to protect democracy, but to keep democracy chained in such a way as to make it impossible for the democratic structures to challenge either the military or more importantly business interests both foreign and domestic.
The Bill of Rights is fundamentally "undemocratic." Constitutions exist in large part to limit the power of various elements of society. Some portions restrict the power of an individual leader or faction, some restrict the power of the mob. A provision that prohibits any attempt to eliminate term limits is not inherently illegitimate, except on free speech grounds and those grounds are routinely violated in other parts of the world (laws prohibiting Nazism in Germany or hate speech elsewhere). The President seemed to clearly be in violation of the law and seems to have met the standard for forfeiting his citizenship.
And as has been stated earlier restrictions on what you can change in Constitutions is routine and exist in the US Constitution.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
So, do you believe that all laws are good? Also, where are you getting that Zelaya has "despotic aspirations"?
Again - it is no sin to oppose a bad law, and it is no virtue to defend it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8125726.stm
I think California has provided that answer to that.
A universal rule like that won't work, its self-defeating.
Let's assume arguendo that limiting the ability of the people to determine the rules by which they are governed is inherently invalid:
I. A rule is a member of set X if it limits the ability of the people to define the rules by which they are governed
II No rule that is a member of set X should be enacted and/or is invalid
III. Rule II is itself a member of X.
IV. Therefore Rule II should not be enacted and/or is invalid.
And no I don't believe the right of the people to define the rules by which they are governed is an absolute right.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
In all, the international response to this is a choice between two evils - on one hand there do appear to be some serious constitutional questions to ask before making a knee-jerk declaration that it is a coup (though in the end it might still be an accurate characterisation), but on the other it might be far more important to use this opportunity to condemn such use of the military in domestic politics. No matter what Zelaya has done, or is alleged to have done, it likely doesn't justify the interference of the military (whether on its own or at the behest of other institutions). Sure, one guy's alleged violations of his country's constitution might go overlooked if he is reinstated, but a strong international stance against military government will probably do more good in the long run.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The Constitution took effect after being ratified in 9 states, but only in those states in which it had been ratified. The Articles were also in effect until all states had ratified the Constitution.
- John Stuart Mill
No, I don't believe every law is good. But I do believe that having someone try to become president for life is extremely dangerous; if there is also a constitutional law preventing this I will call that a "good law".