Coup in Honduras? Nonsense. - Jay Maynard

> Recent entries
> Calendar view
> Friends page
> User info
> Jay's web page

Friday, 3 July 2009


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
0751 - Coup in Honduras? Nonsense.

Ever since the Honduran government replaced its president, I've been watching as they were criticized as ignoring the rule of law to overthrow a democratically elected leader.

Horseshit and hogwash. They weren't ignoring the rule of law. They were upholding it. Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer and a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras, explains in this Christian Science Monitor column that, by insisting on his referendum, former President Zelaya removed himself from office immediately, with no impeachment required:

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], 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."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."


Zelaya got a mob together to force the military to turn over the ballots to be used to hold his referendum. By doing so, he demonstrated that he was not willing to follow the Honduran Constitution. The Supreme Court and legislature agreed that he'd forfeited his office, and mandated his replacement.

The change in power in Honduras was a proper, legal response to an unconstitutional abuse of power. Obama and Clinton show their true colors in siding with Chavez and Castro against it. For all of the screaming about interfering in other governments' internal affairs, we sure are doing a lot of it in this case.

location: 56031
current mood: [mood icon] cranky

(5 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:howardtayler
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Good analysis, Jay. Thanks!
[User Picture]
From:thecanuckguy
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Zelaya is probably pro-US and they feel they can't work with the new guy. Pure politics.

(Has GW Bush (being the most recent president, and therefore possibly knowledgeable about the situation and US-Zelaya relations) weighed in? (I know being an ex-prez he doesn't have to but it would be good insight. Haven't heard one peep out of the man since Obama took over, what'd he do, move to France?))
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Zelaya's as pro-US as Hugo Chavez.

GWB has held his peace since leaving office, on the premise that Obama deserved a chance to do his job without Bush's muddying the waters.
[User Picture]
From:pharwarner
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I couldn't have said it better myself.
[User Picture]
From:kazriko
Date: - 0000
(Link)
What's depressing to me is just how one-sided every mainstream media story has been on this.

And what's with everyone hopping directly in with condemnation. Especially when they are operating within the bounds of the law. Is it really that important that they would take immediate action to a degree not seen in other recent crises like Iran? Is it because this is throwing their entire template of a People's Democratic Socialist Republic of the Americas into doubt?

Is Obama worried that if he allows his friends to get removed legally and doesn't make a fuss that he might be next when people realize how unconstitutional his actions will end up being?

> go to top
LiveJournal.com