"The Supreme Court and the military combined to eject Zelaya when he proposed a controversial referendum designed to extend his power"

This is utter nonsense, it is a golpista talking point and nothing more. In all the of the supreme court documents that allegedly provided the basis for his ouster, term limits, and article 239, the article of the constitution that bars re-election, are not mentioned one single time.

Not to mention that the proposition supported by Zelaya was to have a public opinion poll on the possibility of having a ballot box in the general elections in November. The question would be about support for a constitutional assembly to reform the constitution, with absolutely no mention of term limits. Regardless, and even if the majority of Hondurans supported this, a new president would have been elected at the same time.

You should issue a correction on this misleading statement.

Sigh. The "controversial" referendum may have been eventually intended to allow multiple Presidential runs for office, but the actual referendum ("cuarta urna") was not focused on changing Zelaya's term nor his ability to run for re-election, rather it blandly asked citizens of Honduras if they approved the notion of fundamentally changing the (military dictatorship imposed 1982) Constitution.

Had the referendum been approved and taken place, it would not have had any effects during the few months remaining in Zelaya's term.

It's a simple fact and it's the kind of thing which needs some simple fact checking. And that's true whether or not you agree or disagree with the legality or even the notion of holding such a referendum. It would not have either extended Zelaya's term nor allowed him to run again.

All these facts are not only commonly available but discussed daily in the Honduran press.

Please research and correct this.

This is a sad day for the rule of law -- a small country forced by U.S. pressure to reinstate an authoritarian ruler who trashed his country's constitution.

The ex-president was validly removed pursuant to articles 239 and 272 of the Honduras Constitution.

Many lawyers have noted that the ex-president's removal was legal, including former secretary of state James Baker, Dan Miller, and Octavio Sanchez.

Many law professors have criticized the Administration's pressure on Honduras, like Jim Lindgren and Jon Adler.

The ex-president systematically violated his own constitution, by refusing to submit a budget so he could spend money on his cronies, pressuring public employees and citizens to support his unconstitutional acts with the threat or termination or cut-off of services, and using mobs to intimidate his opponents.

He was a danger to democracy way bigger than Nixon.

The President was not validly removed from office.

The Honduran Constitution holds that if the President is not only detained and arrested and charged with criminal activity, but convicted, then he would no longer be President and the office would pass via the line of succession to his Vice President.

No such Constitutional process was followed, no matter what parade of U.S. right wingers and South Florida nutballs say.

Zelaya was never really arrested (having the army shoot its way into the Presidential palace and throw you onto a plane to Costa Rica is not the same), he was never tried, and he was never convicted.

Thus, under the Constitution, until such time as he is tried and convicted, he is the only Constitutionally recognized President throughout the end of his term.

Furthermore, the Honduran Congress has no Constitutional authority -- none whatsoever, not the slightest echo -- to either remove a Constitutionally elected President nor his line of succession nor vote to choose a replacement.

The "promotion" of Micheletti as new President by a Honduran Congress affirming the actions of a military coup after the coup had taken place is not only Constitutionally imaginary but entirely laughable. In no other circumstance would be take seriously a legislative vote to recognize the achievements of a military coup after that coup had taken place and the military was on the streets running the country.

Zelaya is the sole Constitutionally recognized President of Honduras throughout the end of his terms (a few remaining weeks) and until such time as he is not only arrested & detained but tried and convicted of serious criminal charges, he will remain so.

Hans has it absolutely right.

The Obama administration conducted itself like thugs to benefit another thug. I figured leftists who whine about America interventionism would hypocritically approve of what the administration has done. Obama has become a gringo, and so have his supporters.

What's interesting is how Obama is willing to appease the Iranian thugocracy despite the use of (real) torture and murder to install Ahmadinejad as "President" of Iran.

El Cid, quit lying.

It wasn't just "Obama" who recognized the Honduran coup for what it was -- it was also the incredibly right wing, virulently anti-left, anti-Hugo Chavez governments of Colombia and Mexico.

And it's pretty clear why: if you want to establish the precedent once again in Latin America that a military-backed establishment can throw out an elected civilian government as long as they have a friendly court or legislature, then you're going to have a whole lot of Latin American leaders who will have to look carefully over their shoulder to see if any aspiring military officer will find 'Constitutional' cause to overthrow them, too.

Colombia's and Mexico's governments couldn't have been happier if Zelaya had truly been legally removed and replaced with some more acceptably right wing functionary. But not even they could miss the significance of the block-headed danger of yet another Honduran military coup.

Wow, some comeback, SteveAR. How about you go read the Honduran daily newspapers, and get back to me?

El Cid:

How about you go read the Honduran daily newspapers, and get back to me?

Would those be Honduran versions of Pravda?

Why don't you read something legitimate, like this? Part III on page 6 says why the removal from office of Zelaya was entirely constitutional. They are critical of the military's exiling him, but that is a different matter.

El Cid, a conviction implies an impeachment. If you read the Honduran Constitution, impeaching a President is not allowed. But the Congress is allowed to interpret the Constitution in such a way that can't be vetoed by the President. Ergo, if they say they have the power to remove the President based on the various articles of the Constitution, it is legal.

Get over it.

No, they wouldn't be "Honduran versions of Pravda", they'd actually include a range of newspapers including coup-supporters.

(In the Honduran press, the same newspapers often publish pro-coup and anti-coup opinions, on any given day -- if only we had that sort of balance in our newspapers.)

And I read people who really are familiar with Honduran law and the Constitution, like Edmundo Orellana, not some nitwit hacks at the U.S. Library of Congress:

...The Constitution of the Republic confers on the National Congress the ability to censure the conduct of the Executive Power, Judicial Power, Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Superior Tribunal of Auditors, Attorney General of the Republic, National Commission of Human Rights, Public Minister, and other institutions.

Censure refers to the conduct of the organ, not to the conduct of the tenured head of the organ. The Congress neither may nor should censure the conduct of a particular public official.

Censure of the conduct of the President of the Republic, of a Secretary of State, of a Magistrate, of the Supreme Court of Justice, of the Electoral Tribunal or of the Court of Assessors, or the manager of a decentralized entity is not envisioned...

...Under our Constitution, only the Judicial Power holds jurisdiction to administer justice (Art. 303, first paragraph) and to apply the laws in specific cases, to judge, and to carry out the law (Art. 304). If the President had violated legislation and had disobeyed judicial resolutions, it would be up to the Judicial Power, and specifically to the penal authority, which is responsible to judge his behavior and to determine if he actually was involved in an illicit act. It would not be up to the National Congress.

In characterizing as illicit the supposed acts of the President, and by declaring him guilty of having committed them, the National Congress therefore arrogated unto itself authority exclusive to the Judicial Power. That is to say, it usurped functions which the Constitution attributes to another Power of the State...

...The [case of] suspension is created when a competent judge decrees a prison sentence for any crime which may deserve a greater penalty, because in this case it is envisaged in the Constitution that citizenship would be suspended (Art. 41), a status that carries with it the recognition of political rights, among which are those of electing and being electing, and conducting public duties (Art. 37). The suspension is provisional, because the definition of his/her situation shall only obtain until the respective sentence is pronounced, for which he/she might declare his/her innocence. What matters is the return to exercise of the post...

...The Constitution contains no standard by which the removal or impeachment of a President, Congressman, or Judge may be authorized. Therefore, no tenured head of a Power of the state may be removed from his post before he completes the period for which he was elected...

...All the organs of state, including the Supreme Court, argue, even in their written statements, that on June 28 there was a "presidential succession"[.]

This language, strangely coinciding between all the organs of state, has a serious problem: it is not constitutional. In fact, no constitutional provision uses the term "succession" to describe the change of chief executive power in the cases studied, nor in any other case.

"Succession" is a term used in private law to refer to the transfer of property, rights or charges of a deceased person to his chosen heir. Succession, therefore is the process of the transmission of assets that occurs with death, either by will or intestate.

In public law, the term "succession" also involves transmission, but it is referred to in the sense of "succession to the throne". In this case, what is transmitted is the crown, a constitutional body representing the State and its unity. It is the word used in monarchies to designate the hereditary transmission of the crown following the death or abdication of the king to a person determined by the line of succession recognized in the Constitution (eldest son and, failing that, those who remain in line or sequence) to have inheritance rights and guarantee the royal dynasty, as in Spain, where the mention of the Constitution to "historic dynasty" is an unambiguous reference to the House of Bourbon, so that presumably only the successors to the Royal House are linked with inheritance of Spanish Crown.

Honduras is a republic not a monarchy. From birth as an independent country, the founders excluded from their vocabulary the word "succession", precisely because they were such ardent supporters of the idea of a Republic. Consequently, the word "succession" does nor pertains to our system of government nor fit within our constitutional framework.

What our Constitution does recognize is the Alternation in the office of the Presidency as the normal means of transmitting the powers of government of a constitutional period to another and implies that general elections are carried out and declare formally elect the new President of the Republic. In this case, one could, in principle, speak of "succession" because there is no break between the periods of democratic, representative and republic Government.

Alternation will not exist, however, in the office of President if the elected President is replaced, still adhering to the Constitution, by another person before his term ends (Appointed President, Chairman of the National Congress or President of the Supreme Court of Justice) or if at the end of this period someone assumes the presidency who has not been elected in general elections by direct popular vote (as is the case of the Council of Ministers)...

...What was carried on June 28 by the National Congress is not a succession, as recognized by all branches of government and other public bodies, nor is it a Promotion, precisely because the Decree vainly attempts to remove President Zelaya, nor is it a Replacement because the appointment of the supposed substitute was not carried out as mandated by the Constitution of the Republic.

The National Congress, therefore, violated the Constitution of the Republic. It simply removed, without the constitutional powers to do so, the President of the Republic, ignoring his appointment to the office legitimized by the direct vote of the Honduran people in democratic elections held and accepted as legal by the National Electoral Court. Therefore, the appointment of the President of Congress to exercise the executive power is the product of a violation of the Constitution of the Republic.

In conclusion, there occurred a supplanting of popular sovereignty and the usurpation of a Constituted Power because the President of the Republic was removed from office, even though the people had elected him for a term of four years, they arrogated to themselves powers which the Constitution does not grant by appointing the President of the National Congress as his replacement and he, in turn, exercises executive power with an unconstitutional investiture.

This is definitely a coup.

Edmundo Orellana resigned as Defense Minister shortly before the coup, since even though he thought the court's particularistic ruling against Zelaya's referendum (without declaring all such referenda illegal) was unjustified, neither did he wish to be in the position of defying a court order.

Orellana is also an Administrative Law judge, an appellate magistrate, a practicing attorney, former foreign minister, currently elected (though not attending due to his personal protest against the coup) legislative deputy, and a long-time, universally respected figure in Honduran politics.

He has a great deal more experience with Honduran law and the Constitution than a rent-a-rightie at the U.S. Library of Congress who relied primarily on the insights of yet another right winger.

One more promising foreign policy achievement by the Obama administration. I wonder if Jim DeMint and Lanny Davis are still proud of playing footsie with military juntas.

El Cid:

And I read people who really are familiar with Honduran law and the Constitution, like Edmundo Orellana, not some nitwit hacks at the U.S. Library of Congress...

You'll forgive me if I don't accept a leftist's notion of who is familiar with a particular nation's Constitution (U.S. or Honduran, in this case). Your own statement damns Orellana:

Edmundo Orellana resigned as Defense Minister shortly before the coup, since even though he thought the court's particularistic ruling against Zelaya's referendum (without declaring all such referenda illegal) was unjustified...

He's a Zelaya stooge who was trying to save his own bacon.

You'll have to do better than that.

"You'll forgive me if I don't accept a leftist's notion of who is familiar with a particular nation's Constitution"

No, actually, we won't "forgive" you that. You can refuse to accept reality all you want, but unlike you, El Cid is actually informed and backing up claims with facts. All you have in return is a bit of pithy sneering and attempts to twist people's words.

That, alone, means you lose the debate.

El Cid, how can anyone justify the administration's gringo intervention in Honduras while lauding the administration's completely hands-off approach to the murderous thugs running Iran, just so he can say he tried diplomacy before letting the mullahs develop nuclear weapons?

Oh wait, I forgot. Obama is an infallible God to you hypocrites.

bugemot:

That, alone, means you lose the debate.

What debate? I'm right, El Cid and you (and Fernholz) are wrong. That is the reality.

El Cid doesn't have facts; he has the opinion of one of Zelaya's former stooges. Understanding that El Cid is a leftist, I can understand why El Cid would agree with this guy, and why he would say what the guy says are facts. It's much easier to lie and redefine words to fit a narrative than it is to engage in reality, as I've done.

He's a Zelaya stooge who was trying to save his own bacon.

Feel free to spout whatever you feel, but Orellana has been a high Honduran official for decades, no "Zelaya stooge", and is universally respected by all sides in this conflict.

Good grief, Micheletti -- leader of the 'de facto' government himself -- requested that Orellana be re-incorporated into the Honduran Congress (he was an elected deputy who had assumed a Cabinet position) upon his resignation as Defense Minister.

He publicly disagreed with his own President about who could determine the legality of the referendum and how, and based his comments specifically in arguments centered upon Honduran law and the Constitution.

His position was pretty simple and pretty respectable -- as long as the orders he received from the President were legal in the sense that they were legally binding upon his office (this was before various decisions by the Electoral Tribunal against the referendum), he and other functionaries would comply with their office, and yet contrary to Zelaya's assertions, the legality of any referendum would be determined by the Honduran Congress.

And since he wasn't in the position of judging the legality of the overall effort (despite having served as an Administrative Law judge and appellate magistrate), meaning as Defense Minister it wasn't his job, he left it to the Courts. When, in fact, the Courts ruled (in rulings in which he found fault, but nevertheless) that the referendum could not be held, then he resigned so as not to be acting in conflict to a court ruling.

This is no mere functionary or stooge. If only more Bush Jr. "stooges" had acted with this sort of dignity...

None of your types care what's going on or not. You just want to shout "Commie! Commie! Commie!" and "Chavez! Chavez! Chavez!" and "Castro! Castro! Castro!" at every prompt.

I not only have the facts, I cite them, and I can quote as many sources as you want -- it's just that English language sources are dominated by right wing nitwits.

Yeah, the OAS, the UN, the Colombian government, the Mexican government, they're all just stooges of Zelaya and Chavez. There are no facts unless they are emitted by an acting government put in place by a military coup.

Face it El Cid Gringo, you're a hypocrite. You have no problem with U.S. intervention of a leftist slug, especially in the thuggish manner done by Obama administration, but would chastise as interventionist an American administration that supports free Latin American nations.

When, in fact, the Courts ruled (in rulings in which he found fault, but nevertheless) that the referendum could not be held, then he resigned so as not to be acting in conflict to a court ruling.

In plain language, Orellano didn't want to get arrested for treason. I read the time line. That's the conclusion that I came away with.

El Cid wins.

SteveAR, you apparently think people ought to disbelieve everything that is said by those whom you deem "leftists." While this would be an unreasonable position to take in any forum, it particularly lacks persuasive value when offered in the comments section of a progressive blog.

Bring facts, or sod off.

Face it SteveAR, gurgle flap slug dog COMMIE traitor FREEDOM. I came to these conclusions on my own.

Can't Tapped even get the very basic facts of this Coup correct.

" he (Zelaya) proposed a controversial referendum designed to extend his power, leading to chaos, violent street protests, and waves of concern across Latin America."

Zelaya proposed a non binding referendum asking if a constitutional assembly should be called to revise the constitution. Since he would not have been in power when the constitutional assembly would have been convened, he could not have benefited personally from the referendum to extend his term. Please see The Field blog for a complete and accurate description of the referendum. I am shocked that Tapped didn't do a better job of reporting the facts related to the ouster of Zelaya.

Great topic, they are more attractive than others,

thank you for share, nike air max 90/95 on new models.

All you have in return is a bit of pithy sneering and attempts to twist people's words.