Zelaya Back in Honduras!

[The_pantless_hero]

Please explain how he was attempting to change the constitution to allow for a third term. The referndum he proposed said absolutely nothing about a third term, so I'm forced to wonder what your reasoning is.

The referendum including an attempt to invoke a constitutional assembly, ie rewrite the constitution. The opposition argued (highly plausibly) that this was to remove the unchangeable restrictions in the constitution outlining term limits. Attempting to do that is unconstitutional.

Okay. So what you're saying is that he didn't actually try to change the constitution?

And that the only connection this has with a third term is that it may have been possible if this assembly decided to change it? Did anyone ever show that Zelaya had any control over that? Could it have changed anything before his term was up?

You see how the facts are vastly different from the claim that he tried to change the constitution to get a third term.

Why, then, propose a constitutional assembly?

[Risottia]

The referendum including an attempt to invoke a constitutional assembly, ie rewrite the constitution. The opposition argued (highly plausibly) that this was to remove the unchangeable restrictions in the constitution outlining term limits. Attempting to do that is unconstitutional.

1.Rewriting the Constitution is something that most Constitutions allow anyway, and it's not anticonstitutional. And a new constitutional assembly is the only way in any jurisdiction to write a new Constitution. As in republics the power is held by citizens, and they would have to vote in a referendum (and then for the composition of the new constitutional assembly), it's nowhere against a democratic Constitution.
2.Allegations by the opposition =/= proof.
3.No if you do that via a constitutional assembly, see above.

[Gift-of-god]

All of which is fine, except that both the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court ruled that Zelaya's actions in pushing the referendum were uconsitutional. Also, he ordered the Army to organize and run the voting, which the Army command refused to do, so he fired the Army commander, which the Supreme Court also declared illegal. According to this NY Times article:

The army had resisted participating in a nonbinding referendum on constitutional changes that Mr. Zelaya continued to push after both Congress and the courts had labeled the president’s move unconstitutional. Army lawyers were convinced that Mr. Zelaya was moving to lift a provision limiting presidents to a single term in office, Colonel Bayardo said.

When the army refused an order to help organize the referendum, the president fired the commander of the armed forces, Gen. Romeo Vásquez. He was reinstated by the Supreme Court, which found his removal illegal.

The detention order, signed June 26 by a Supreme Court judge, ordered the armed forces to detain the president, identified by his full name, José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, at his home in the Tres Caminos area of Tegucigalpa, the capital. It accused him of treason and abuse of authority, among other charges.

Now, Zelaya had a point in saying that they should have hauled him into court rather than hauling him out of the country, but from what I can tell, the Army, the Congress and the Supreme Court all acted properly, within the law.

How convenient that the Honduran Congress and the Army who are now running the country were able to decide for themselves that they were acting legally, with the help of the Supreme Court. One could even argue that their actions were so legal, they didn't even need to put Zelaya on trial. To argue that they were acting legally, one would have to ignore the parts of the Honduran constitution that Free Soviets pointed out, as well as ignore the fact that not a single nation has recognised the current junta as a legitimate government.

[Free Soviets]

I would like everyone please note that the act was unconstitutional (ie, the Honduran constitution) according to everyone in the world except the Honduran judiciary and legislature.
I find that a hard pill to swallow.

we don't need to take anyone's word on it. there are actual documents to be seen and arguments that have been made. the side behind the coup just so happens to not have any that even hint at plausibility.

[Farnhamia]

All of which is fine, except that both the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court ruled that Zelaya's actions in pushing the referendum were uconsitutional. Also, he ordered the Army to organize and run the voting, which the Army command refused to do, so he fired the Army commander, which the Supreme Court also declared illegal. According to this NY Times article:

The army had resisted participating in a nonbinding referendum on constitutional changes that Mr. Zelaya continued to push after both Congress and the courts had labeled the president’s move unconstitutional. Army lawyers were convinced that Mr. Zelaya was moving to lift a provision limiting presidents to a single term in office, Colonel Bayardo said.

When the army refused an order to help organize the referendum, the president fired the commander of the armed forces, Gen. Romeo Vásquez. He was reinstated by the Supreme Court, which found his removal illegal.

The detention order, signed June 26 by a Supreme Court judge, ordered the armed forces to detain the president, identified by his full name, José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, at his home in the Tres Caminos area of Tegucigalpa, the capital. It accused him of treason and abuse of authority, among other charges.

Now, Zelaya had a point in saying that they should have hauled him into court rather than hauling him out of the country, but from what I can tell, the Army, the Congress and the Supreme Court all acted properly, within the law.

How convenient that the Honduran Congress and the Army who are now running the country were able to decide for themselves that they were acting legally, with the help of the Supreme Court. One could even argue that their actions were so legal, they didn't even need to put Zelaya on trial. To argue that they were acting legally, one would have to ignore the parts of the Honduran constitution that Free Soviets pointed out, as well as ignore the fact that not a single nation has recognised the current junta as a legitimate government.

Just pointing out the argument for the ouster. And it is an amazing coincidence that the entire Honduran Government, plus the Army (which is not involved in running the country, by the way), decided that the president had acted illegally. I suppose they should first have appealed to the international community to see if what they proposed would be okay. Silly Hondurans.

[The_pantless_hero]

How convenient that the Honduran Congress and the Army who are now running the country were able to decide for themselves that they were acting legally, with the help of the Supreme Court. One could even argue that their actions were so legal, they didn't even need to put Zelaya on trial. To argue that they were acting legally, one would have to ignore the parts of the Honduran constitution that Free Soviets pointed out,

I counter:
Article 239: No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or a designated person. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

as well as ignore the fact that not a single nation has recognised the current junta as a legitimate government.

Circular reasoning at best: it is illegitimate because we say it is illegitimate.

Everyone is breaking the law. Hurray!

[Gift-of-god]

Just pointing out the argument for the ouster. And it is an amazing coincidence that the entire Honduran Government, plus the Army (which is not involved in running the country, by the way), decided that the president had acted illegally. I suppose they should first have appealed to the international community to see if what they proposed would be okay. Silly Hondurans.

I don't think that the entire government and military support the ruling junta. So far, we have only really heard from Micheletti and his cabinet in government, and the Army lawyers for the Armed forces.

The fact that Zelaya was able to make it to the Brazilian embassy undetected by the junta suggests that some members of the government and/or military are still supporting Zelaya.

I think we can agree that the Honduran congress, if it had felt that Zelaya was acting in an unconstitutional manner, should have impeached him. There is no need to go outside the nation and appeal to the international community. However, there is a need to abide by the very constitution that the junta is supposedly defending.

[The_pantless_hero]

I think we can agree that the Honduran congress, if it had felt that Zelaya was acting in an unconstitutional manner, should have impeached him.

Political posturing made it impossible.

[Risottia]

Related readings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituti ... nstitution

http://www.webcitation.org/5ihsd7i7W

expecially title VII (de la reforma y la inviolabilidad de la consituciòn)
which, in art.373, clearly states that the constitution cannot be changed by a referendum, but only by the parliament (both in the current and in the next term): and, as a matter of fact, the referendum that Zelaya was asking for would have placed NO obligation whatsoever on the parliament itself (a consultive referendum).

[Gift-of-god]

I counter:
Article 239: No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or a designated person. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

Yes. But as you already pointed out to me, Zelaya was not actually attempting to serve for another term.

Circular reasoning at best: it is illegitimate because we say it is illegitimate.

In international law, the approval of other nations is a necessary factor for being considered legitimate. The current junta can claim it is legitmate, but if other nations don't respect their treaties with Honduras because they do not recognise the current junta as legitimate, then the junta can do nothing about it.

[Risottia]

I counter:
Article 239: No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or a designated person. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

Exactly! Now, we have only the word of the junta claiming that Zelaya was going to ask that. So?

[Gift-of-god]

I think we can agree that the Honduran congress, if it had felt that Zelaya was acting in an unconstitutional manner, should have impeached him.

Political posturing made it impossible.

I thought it was the junta's grab for power (by exiling the elected president) that made it impossible.

[The_pantless_hero]

I counter:
Article 239: No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or a designated person. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

Yes. But as you already pointed out to me, Zelaya was not actually attempting to serve for another term.

The article is sufficiently robust. What possible reason could Zelaya have for calling a referendum to modify the Constitution?

In international law, the approval of other nations is a necessary factor for being considered legitimate.

Taiwan? Not legit.

The current junta can claim it is legitmate, but if other nations don't respect their treaties with Honduras because they do not recognise the current junta as legitimate, then the junta can do nothing about it.

It is still circular. And I imagine it will get even more so in November.

[The_pantless_hero]

I think we can agree that the Honduran congress, if it had felt that Zelaya was acting in an unconstitutional manner, should have impeached him.

Political posturing made it impossible.

I thought it was the junta's grab for power (by exiling the elected president) that made it impossible.

I thought you would bother to research the subject before claiming to know everything about it?

[Gift-of-god]

The article is sufficiently robust. What possible reason could Zelaya have for calling a referendum to modify the Constitution?

Taiwan? Not legit.

It is still circular. And I imagine it will get even more so in November.

There are an infinite number of possible reasons for changing the constitution. Unless you can show evidence that Zelaya was going to change the part dealing with numbers of elected terms, the possible reasons are irrelevant.

I don't really care if you think that international law uses circular reasoning. I would suggest to you that you educate yourself more clearly on circular reasoning and international law, though.

[Gift-of-god]

I think we can agree that the Honduran congress, if it had felt that Zelaya was acting in an unconstitutional manner, should have impeached him.

Political posturing made it impossible.

I thought it was the junta's grab for power (by exiling the elected president) that made it impossible.

I thought you would bother to research the subject before claiming to know everything about it?

You seem to be suggesting that my only possible reason for disagreeing with you is ignorance.

Let us pretend this is true, instead of simply an indirect insult, as I am always happy to learn more.

Can you provide some sort of 'research' that indicates that political posturing made it impossible for Zelaya to be impeached?

[The_pantless_hero]

There are an infinite number of possible reasons for changing the constitution. Unless you can show evidence that Zelaya was going to change the part dealing with numbers of elected terms, the possible reasons are irrelevant.

There are never infinite number of reasons a person takes an action.

[The_pantless_hero]

Can you provide some sort of 'research' that indicates that political posturing made it impossible for Zelaya to be impeached?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduran_c ... referendum

[Gift-of-god]

There are an infinite number of possible reasons for changing the constitution. Unless you can show evidence that Zelaya was going to change the part dealing with numbers of elected terms, the possible reasons are irrelevant.

There are never infinite number of reasons a person takes an action.

Again, this is irrelevant. The claim is that Zelaya was going to use this as a way of changing the number of terms. There has yet to be any evidence shown that this was, in fact, his motive.

Moreover, even if such a motive could be shown, there is no evidence that he could have accomplished this before his term ended anyways.

Just as there is an utter lack of evidence that he would have been able to make the refendum anything other than non-binding, that he would have had control over a constitutional assembly, that such an assembly would have had the power to enact constitutional changes, or any of the other steps that Zelaya would have had to do in order to actually serve another term.

[Gift-of-god]

Can you provide some sort of 'research' that indicates that political posturing made it impossible for Zelaya to be impeached?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduran_c ... referendum

Quote the relevant text, please.

[The_pantless_hero]

Can you provide some sort of 'research' that indicates that political posturing made it impossible for Zelaya to be impeached?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduran_c ... referendum

Quote the relevant text, please.

There are a handful of paragraphs in that section. They are all relevant. Spent 2 minutes.

[Gift-of-god]

Can you provide some sort of 'research' that indicates that political posturing made it impossible for Zelaya to be impeached?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduran_c ... referendum

Quote the relevant text, please.

There are a handful of paragraphs in that section. They are all relevant. Spent 2 minutes.

In other words, I have to do your work for you.

Fine.

Do you know who Carlos Roberto Flores is?

[The_pantless_hero]

Again, this is irrelevant. The claim is that Zelaya was going to use this as a way of changing the number of terms. There has yet to be any evidence shown that this was, in fact, his motive.

No one has posited his motive and changing the rules to run again in the future has the most evidence.

Moreover, even if such a motive could be shown, there is no evidence that he could have accomplished this before his term ended anyways.

He could run again in the future with the change.

Just as there is an utter lack of evidence that he would have been able to make the refendum anything other than non-binding, that he would have had control over a constitutional assembly, that such an assembly would have had the power to enact constitutional changes, or any of the other steps that Zelaya would have had to do in order to actually serve another term.

At least two of those don't make sense.

[The_pantless_hero]

In other words, I have to do your work for you.

No, I expect you to read he given information. Not only did I cite you the page, I cited you the relevant section. All parts thereof are relevant.

[Gift-of-god]

Again, this is irrelevant. The claim is that Zelaya was going to use this as a way of changing the number of terms. There has yet to be any evidence shown that this was, in fact, his motive.

No one has posited his motive and changing the rules to run again in the future has the most evidence.

Moreover, even if such a motive could be shown, there is no evidence that he could have accomplished this before his term ended anyways.

He could run again in the future with the change.

Just as there is an utter lack of evidence that he would have been able to make the refendum anything other than non-binding, that he would have had control over a constitutional assembly, that such an assembly would have had the power to enact constitutional changes, or any of the other steps that Zelaya would have had to do in order to actually serve another term.

At least two of those don't make sense.

You posited his motive. You claimed (or posited) that his motive was to run for more than one term. So has the current junta. And I would like to see this evidence.

The rest of my post that you apparently had trouble understanding was merely to point out that even if this was the first step towards dictatorship, he would have had to do a whole bunch of other things too. There is no evidence that he was planning on doing these other things.

In other words, I have to do your work for you.

Fine.

Do you know who Carlos Roberto Flores is?

No, I expect you to read he given information. Not only did I cite you the page, I cited you the relevant section. All parts thereof are relevant.

So, you don't know who he is. If you don't know who he is, you can't speak knowledgeably about the supposed political posturing.

He was the one who decided to exile Zelaya instead of putting him on trial. Do you know why?