An Administration Win on Honduras
Unfortunately, foreign policy achievements have a way of not getting noticed if they don’t involve killing anyone with high explosives. This is too bad, since finding ways to resolve conflicts that don’t involve killing anyone with high explosives is generally preferable to approaches based on death and destruction.
So let’s take a time out to note that the Obama administration’s approach to Honduras looks to be paying off in the form of a deal that will temporarily re-instate President Zelaya in advance of new elections to be held in January. The US has an unfortunate history of backing coups in Latin America and an unfortunate history of heavy-handed involvement in Latin American domestic politics, so threading the needle between heavy-handed involvement and coup-backing was difficult. But they got the job done, and as Tim Fernholz says the results are likely to be appreciated throughout the region.
74 Responses to “An Administration Win on Honduras”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 30th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
So, in other words, Zelaya gets back in power with essentially zero repercussion in spite of the fact that he was removed from power constitutionally by the Honduran Supreme Court, and then replaced by the Honduran Congress by his constitutional successor. That TAPPED article is unintentionally hilarious, by the way – how exactly is it “reinforcing democratic government” to ignore a country’s constitutional provisions on it?
October 30th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
The elections are in just under one month, November 29th, and there been rumors of deals numerous times already. I would wait to see how this plays out before commending the Obama administration. Further, the US has been far behind the rest of the region in pushing for this to happen, they have blocked efforts in the OAS for stricter measures to be taken and lobbied behind the scenes to recognize elections. This is a win for the progressive forces in Latin America that pushed the US to action, not a concerted effort on the US’ part. Not to mention the gross human rights violations which the US failed to even mention for the first 3 months of the coup, and still have only tepidly denounced.
The root of the problem in Honduras is that a majority of Hondurans want a constitutional assembly, something that Zelaya had put in motion. Contrary to the critics this was not a power-grab, but a concession to the vibrant social movements in the country. One of the parts of the agreement is stopping plans to have a vote on reforming the constitution, without this vote the struggle in Honduras will continue, and the underlying problems that caused the conflict will not have been addressed.
October 30th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
[...] Will Think of the Explosions? Jump to Comments Yglesias: Unfortunately, foreign policy achievements have a way of not getting noticed if they don’t [...]
October 30th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
As usual, the Obama Administration rejected the democratic order and placated the authoritarian Chavezista left wing. As nonpartisan outfits like the Library of Congress and the advisors to the UN’s Department of Political Affairs have found, the removal of ex-President Zelaya from office was entirely within the Honduran Constitution. Obama, of course, hates the idea of any left-wing leader being removed pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution, and loves the idea of violating the constitution in order to serve more terms than permitted under the Constitution. Hence, he supported the blatantly unconstitutional actions of Zelaya.
That said, this is still subject to the approval of the Honduran Congress. Which, together with the Honduran Supreme Court, approved Zelaya’s removal from office in the first place.
October 30th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Zelaya gets back in power with essentially zero repercussion in spite of the fact that he was removed from power constitutionally by the Honduran Supreme Court, and then replaced by the Honduran Congress by his constitutional successor.
You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about, do you?
October 30th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Al,
In response to the Law Library report, it contains serious factual errors which Senator Kerry and Rep. Berman pointed out in a letter to the Library and has also been pointed out by numerous international lawyers.
Your criticisms of Obama are simply delusional.
You are right that there is the chance Congress does not reinstate Zelaya, which is why even if we get that far, this plan will most likely be a failure. It is simply a way of letting the US recognize elections, and will prove a dangerous precedent in a region plagued by military coups. This is not a win for Zelaya but a devastating blow to the resistance, organized by the United States.
October 30th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Zelaya was not removed constitutionally by the Honduran courts. The courts do have the authority to order a President detained and arrested and put on trial, but they do not have the authority to remove a sitting President — no matter their excuses about ‘avoiding bloodshed’.
The Honduran Congress, for its part, has no Constitutional authority — and yes, we’re talking the shitty, military dictatorship imposed Constitution of 1982 which somehow magically forbids its own people from changing certain basic elements of it — to either remove or replace a sitting President.
Had the courts followed the actual legal procedure, Zelaya would have been arrested and charged and put on trial; in the meantime, his VP would have taken over, as is the line of succession.
In reality, Zelaya rashly and without planning confronted the military-oligarch establishment, and did so in defiance of several court orders (whose legality themselves should have been subject to the natural process of disputes & appeals, particularly that the Electoral Tribunal did not rule that all referenda as Zelaya proposed were illegal, just Zelaya’s) the military led a coup, got its Congressional allies to rubber-stamp it post hoc, and then the new pretend President Micheletti apparently thought no one would have any problems with that.
If it were any other nation and this was carried out by left-wing military officers and Congressional allies, we might question the confidence of any legislature vote endorsing a military coup after the coup had taken place.
This was a military coup with a thinly veiled court & Congressional validation, and this exact scenario has replayed itself out repeatedly throughout Honduras’ history of military coups.
Even the right wing, Chavez-despising governments of Colombia and Mexico couldn’t abide by this — else they’d be looking over their shoulders in nervous monitoring of any uppity military leaders who could make use of an accused un-Constitutional action on their part.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Re: Chavezista left wing.
It’s “Chavista”, idiot. And even if it weren’t, it would be “Chavecista”. Spanish ‘Z’ changes to soft ‘C’ before E and I. If you must be a horsef*cking @$$hole spouting fake Spanish to sound cool and hip, then at least be grametically correct in so doing.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Let’s also remember how Obama’s other big foreign policy successes turned out.
Liek, say that, big agreement with Iran to get Iran to send its uranium out of the country to France? OOOOPS!
And Obama’s big success in getting Russia to support Iran sanctions? Where Matthew claimed Obama’s appeasement of Russia was “paying dividends“? OOOOOOOPS!
Plus, how’s that Israel/Palistine diplomacy working out? Has Obama’ favorable rating in Israel gone down from 4% to 2%?
And a great job on Afghanistan’s elections – pulled them off without a hitch, just like Bush. Oh, wait, Afghanistan’s elections went smoothly and successfully under Bush and were an utter disaster under Obama.
Obama’s foreign policy has been a disaster so far.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Al-bot is frustrated this morning.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
If you must be a horsef*cking @$$hole spouting fake Spanish to sound cool and hip, then at least be grametically correct in so doing.
Tu madre.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
“Unfortunately, foreign policy achievements have a way of not getting noticed if they don’t involve killing anyone with high explosives.”
That’s not true. Sniper fire will also do the trick.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Meanwhile, the Al-bots need to gear up to condemn the cowardly anti-Semite surrendercrats in the Israeli government:
Get ‘em, Al!
October 30th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Zelaya was not removed constitutionally by the Honduran courts. The courts do have the authority to order a President detained and arrested and put on trial, but they do not have the authority to remove a sitting President — no matter their excuses about ‘avoiding bloodshed’.
Removed *from office*, El Cid. The “from office” was there for a purpose. (As was the “ex-” before the word President.) I agree with you on the banishment from the country; he should have been arrested and jailed.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
As usual, one of the better informed folks when it comes to América Latina is Al Giordano, who believes the celebration is premature.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Re: Tu madre.
It’s telling that this is the first Spanish phrase to come to Al’s mind. No doubt like his buddy Steve Sailor, he thinks that Spanish speakers tend to be shiftless gh*tto unemployed people who spend their time drinking and insulting each other’s mothers.
Go f*ck an orang-outang, Al.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Meanwhile, the Al-bots need to gear up to condemn the cowardly anti-Semite surrendercrats in the Israeli government:
I haven’t criticized the deal. It would be an acceptable deal. If, you know, the Iranians hadn’t rejected it.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
he thinks that Spanish speakers tend to be shiftless gh*tto unemployed people who spend their time drinking and insulting each other’s mothers.
I happen to be married to a Spanish speaker – in fact, someone with a Ph.D. in Spanish literature.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Excellent. Then we agree — the elected administration was removed illegally, and the purported replacement had no legal and international standing.
I hope that as soon as possible, not only is civilian governance restored in Honduras, but fundamental reform of the Constitution becomes possible, including the complete dismantling of the notoriously coup-prone and death-squad military, and that the same occur in neighboring Guatemala.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Excellent. Then we agree
We agree that Zelaya was constitutionally removed from office and is therefore no longer the President of Honduras, but that after being constitutionally removed from office, the military should not have exiled him but rather should have arrested and jailed him? Great!
October 30th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
In equally important news, Obama’s shit was a little more beige and chunky this morning compared to yesterday. Now maybe he can figure out what to do about something important, like the two middle eastern wars he promised to end when he was campaigning.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Dr. Rosie Mano Izquierda is also an adventurous and giving lover
October 30th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
He would only have been constitutionally removed from office had he been detained, charged, and convicted.
In the case of a conviction, Zelaya would have no longer been President. As we know, not only was there no conviction, there was no trial.
The analogy would be had the U.S. Congress voted to declare Joe Lieberman President because of the impeachment charges against Bill Clinton and the army shot their way into the White House one early morning and forcibly put Bill Clinton on a plane to Switzerland. I know this is a fantasy of many Republicans, but it wouldn’t have been legal.
If the courts charge the restored Zelaya with criminal charges, and if he is convicted, then, presuming this all takes place within the remaining weeks, then Zelaya would no longer be President.
Arresting and charging Zelaya would not have removed him from the Presidency. He was, and is, still the only Constitutionally recognized President of Honduras. Until such time as he is tried and convicted of serious criminal charges, that will remain until such time as his term expires.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Re: including the complete dismantling of the notoriously coup-prone and death-squad military,
El Cid,
The ideological complexion of a country’s military is not necessarily a fixed constant. Peru’s military was on the right in 1930 and on the left in 1968, just as the French military was on the ideological left in 1805 and on the right in 1905.
Haiti abolished its military some time ago, but that didn’t prevent it from falling victim to an exceptionally bloody right-wing coup in 2004, backed by the George “DUmbya” Bush, which left thousands of people dead in its wake.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Al probably j*cks off to the pictures in “The Canadian Journal of Small Ruminant Husbandry”. Or perhaps the video footage of Dr. Galdikas and her orang-outan studies.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Hector: As you may suspect, I’m in favor of the substantial dismantling of an armed force which is capable and likely to overthrow the elected government. In Haiti, you had functional police and security and paramilitary forces which duplicated the subversive and repressive functions of a national army. I realize this is a fundamental disagreement with your hopes for a leftist and religious military administering Latin American societies, but at least give me credit for wanting what I want with a formal reality and not simply being an administrative or rhetorical disagreement.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
He would only have been constitutionally removed from office had he been detained, charged, and convicted.
In the case of a conviction, Zelaya would have no longer been President. As we know, not only was there no conviction, there was no trial.
But that’s not how the Honduran constitution works. There was, in fact, a judgment of the Honduran Supreme Court that Zelaya breached the provisions of the
Honduran constitution applicable to term limits. And, under the terms of the Honduran constitution, he automatically forfeited the Presidency as a result.
You apply the Constitution you have, not the Constitution you might wish to have. (And some politician or another might have once said.)
October 30th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Dr. Rosie Mano Izquierda is also an adventurous and giving lover
In Mexico she is known as Manuela LaZurda…
October 30th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Right, we sided with the proto-Chavez who wanted to do an end-run around the Honduran Constitution and have himself made President for Life.
Getting him reinstated is an achievement of sorts, but hardly a positive one. It does tell us a lot about what sort of govt Obama likes.
I anxiously await the left’s response if Zelaya makes another power grab “to save the country”.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
This is one of the silliest most made-up assertions I’ve encountered in the entirety of this debate.
The Honduran Supreme Court can rule all day long that Zelaya not only breached the Constitution but raped and murdered it. There is no provision in the Honduran Constitution allowing for the Supreme Court to declare the Presidency “in forfeit”, just as there is no such provision in this country.
Judges can run around all day in black robes with big signs on about how they are SUPREME, but it doesn’t give them the authority to do anything they want.
Likewise, if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. President had violated the Constitution, under what provision of the U.S. Constitution would this meant that the office had been vacated? You mean Sammy Alito and friends can vote 5-4 any time they want that Obama’s not Preznit no more? Cool!
There is indeed a Constitutional procedure to remove a President in the United States, and even given varying and disputing aspects of the Honduran Constitution, this isn’t different.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
The referendum proposed by Zelaya would neither ask for Zelaya’s term to be extended nor to allow him to run for office again.
Again, no matter what your opinions on Honduran term limits (or Colombian ones, for that matter, given that Uribe’s gearing up to run for a 3rd term in a nation whose Constitution held that 1 term was the rule), nothing in Zelaya’s proposed referendum would have either extended his term nor allowed him to run again.
Not to mention that a hypothetical Constituent Assembly to change the (desperately in need of changing) Honduran Constitution would have taken place long after Zelaya had been replaced by his elected successor.
And Obama didn’t just side with “Chavez”, he also sided with the right wing, Chavez-hating governments of Colombia (the U.S.’ closest foreign policy and military aid recipient in the hemisphere) and Mexico in recognizing the Honduran coup for what it was.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
If you must be a horsef*cking @$$hole spouting fake Spanish.
Hector says cool shit sometimes. I think the vulgar hipsters are wearing off on him. The other day he told someone to get his nuts licked by a leprous orangutan! The only problem is that he keeps putting this @$@# shit in, which ruins it. He comes across like a little kid. He didn’t even type “licked.” It was “l*ck@d” or something. What is the point of that? When you write, “f*ck,” everyone can tell you mean fuck. So why not write “fuck.” If you have a problem with saying “fuck,” you should have a problem saying “f*ck.” What difference does it make?
October 30th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
There is no provision in the Honduran Constitution allowing for the Supreme Court to declare the Presidency “in forfeit”,
You are incorrect. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution provides exactly that.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Again, this is a particular charge of violating the law, in particular, the Constitution — and a charge of violation of the law requires trials, evidence, and conviction, as would be required in article 89 of that same Constitution.
Substantively, again, it might be relevant to point out 2 things:
One, even the proposed referendum said nothing of Zelaya’s term being extended, nor his capacity to run for re-election, and would have had no effect until long after he had run for office. So, personally I think the Court rather cheesily exposed themselves as shallow and lazy allies of the oligarchy on this one.
Two, even though they are on the SUPREME COURT, they aren’t wizards and magicians, and don’t get to decree by fiat anything they want. Someone can charge that Obama violated the Constitution, but our Supreme Court can’t just issue a decree that he did and order him removed from office.
If they want to charge Zelaya with violating the Constitution, then charges must be brought in the appropriate venue, Zelaya arrested and tried. Even though they are the SUPREEEEME COOOOOUUURT, they don’t get to just make decrees on people being in violation of the law or Constitution without a trial being submitted to the appropriate lower Courts.
The Court, by the way, admitted as much — in their decrees, they charged Zelaya with violating the laws of the Republic and ordered his arrest. It was the Congress which invented the notion that it had the authority to remove and replace the elected President before his term was up.
Again, this is silly and obvious. Courts, even in this country, don’t just up and declare people guilty of stuff and order them removed from office. Stop pretending it’s all different in Honduras just ’cause Zelaya did a few left wing things.
Finally, if Hondurans want to change their Constitution so as to permit multiple terms or multiple runs for office, or to dissolve their military and disallow it from ever acting with enforcement authority over the civilian government, no Constitution, particularly those imposed by a previous century’s military rulers, has the magic power to prevent the people from doing so.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
This issue really shows how right wingers will say anything to justify a right-wing coup. The Republicans are indeed still the party of Reagan. Some people learn from 8 years of disaster (and then a more recent 8 years of disaster jr.), others dig in…
October 30th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Honduras: figleaf restitution, not real democracy
October 30th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
From Honduras Coup 2009’s post on Efrain Moncada Silva’s editorial in La Tribuna:
[Emphasis added]
Yet 239 in complete isolation has become an “Article” of faith amongst right-wing bloggers who couldn’t have told you that Honduras was in Central America before the Honduran military provided them a way to vicariously indulge their own fantasies of illegally overthrowing a wicked leftist president.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Jesus Christ, Al, hasn’t it ever occurred to you to wonder why no one has recognized the Micheletti government? It’s because the rest of the world isn’t sucking down the bullshit you think is news, which has gotten you so thoroughly humiliated here. I’ve been watching moron Al clone after moron Al clone all over the internet today, marching blissfully into the buzzsaw of facts on this issue, spouting the same bizarre talking points right up to the moment of their doom.
Speaking as someone who is also married to a native Spanish speaker, and who knows what that culture expects from its men, I pity your wife.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
El Cid:
This was a military coup with a thinly veiled court & Congressional validation, and this exact scenario has replayed itself out repeatedly throughout Honduras’ history of military coups.
Even the right wing, Chavez-despising governments of Colombia and Mexico couldn’t abide by this — else they’d be looking over their shoulders in nervous monitoring of any uppity military leaders who could make use of an accused un-Constitutional action on their part.
I agree with El Cid, it was a coup, if not your stereotypical putsch. Just as there was a coup in Iran, where the incumbent committed massive vote fraud and violently put down the resulting protests.
Obama was been a “realist” about all of this and tries not offend other sovereign nations (where might makes right and those that come out on top like Saddam Hussein are the sovereign). I’m not suprised and I wish he’d be a little less of a realist and more of dreamer.
His speeches in Cairo and in Berlin and at the UN were good though.
TO those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.
“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
October 30th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Again, this is a particular charge of violating the law, in particular, the Constitution — and a charge of violation of the law requires trials, evidence, and conviction, as would be required in article 89 of that same Constitution.
Article 89 applies to criminal charges. The proceedings involved were not criminal in nature, and thus this provision would not apply.
Of course, the Supreme Court of Honduras already held this. You may disagree with what the Honduran Supreme Court held, but it is not up to you or me to interpret the Honduran Constitution, it is up to the Honduran Supreme Court to do so. And they did. (That’s no different than in the US – you may think that X, Y or Z is unconstitutional, but if the US Supreme Court holds differently, then the law is not what you think, but is rather what teh Supreme Court holds.)
I note further, that the distinction between criminal law and law relating to forfeit of office is not different here in the US – impeachment trials in the US are not held to the same standards as criminal trials (among other things, the verdict in an impeachment trial need not be unanimous). Similarly, there is no reason to think that all of the provisions applicable to criminal trials in Honduras apply to the question of whether Article 239 was violated.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Speaking as someone who is also married to a native Spanish speaker, and who knows what that culture expects from its men, I pity your wife.
My wife is not a native Spanish speaker; she grew up in the US and English is her first language.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I note, BTW, El Cid, that Edmundo Orellana was Zelaya’s Minister of Defense. Not exactly a credible analyst. It’s citing Dick Cheney on the question of whether George Bush is a war criminal.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Impeachment trials indeed are not held to the same standards as criminal trials in the U.S. The reason there are different standards is the same as that in Honduras — the Honduran Congress claimed that a Supreme Court degree was the equivalent as a criminal finding of guilt, and thus invented a non-existent procedure by which to remove the only Constitutionally recognized President and replace his administration with a Congressional vote, an authority the Honduran Congress does not possess.
That is why the analogy held — the U.S. Supreme Court may declare a particular action in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and may declare that they are the sole possessors of authority in interpreting the Constitution, but they cannot order the removal of the Executive nor sanction his replacement when such is obtained by non-Constitutional means. There are procedures for impeachment and trial and removal in the United States, and there are in Honduras, and none of them were followed in the latter case.
The Supreme Court, though, did not mention that particular article in any of their rulings or decrees; and neither did the Honduran Congress in their attempt to claim the power to remove and replace a President.
Again, you or I may agree with or disagree with the Honduran Supreme Court, but no process of charging, trying, convicting, and removing a President from office was followed. The point of view that whatever a Supreme Court might do is fine because it’s their ‘authority’ to interpret the law is a questionable one, and it’s how you get your nation’s acting powers to be universally recognized as a coup d’etat and face international sanctions.
It’s certainly an important argument, and one which should have been carried out in legal fashion in Honduras, rather than carrying out a military coup and expecting this to be recognized as legal simply because it was declared to be.
Otherwise, you’d have the silly conclusion that every coup in Latin American history was legitimate as long as a Supreme Court declared it so.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Al, you’re a dumbass. Edmundo Orellana was indeed Zelaya’s Defense Minister — but he has been a high official in Honduran politics for decades and admired by all sides in this debate. The leader of the de facto government, Micheletti, has repeatedly expressed his admiration for Orellana, despite their differences on the nature of governance.
Zelaya picked Orellana to benefit from his reputation — not the other way ’round.
The guy resigned his office so as not to get into a dispute between the courts and the Administration. He’s one of the few decent and reliable figures throughout this entire crisis who actually seems to give a damn about both the formalities of Honduran law and the basic nature of a legal civilian government.
This was a guy who thought that both the courts and Zelaya were wrong.
The comparison with Dick Cheney is even more nit-witted than the “but the Supreme Court said so” point.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
The funny thing about this particular idiot wingnut meme is that they’re explicitly endorsing a scenario in which a novel interpretation of the Honduran constitution, unsupported by any precedent or evidence of the framers’ intent, provides a flimsy pretext for activist judges and the military to overthrow a democratically elected President and crack down on free speech.
But give them a flimsy pretext for a military coup against a democratically-elected leader they don’t like, and they’ll parrot pro-military-dictatorship talking points like cult followers. It’s almost like their respect for democracy, law, strict constitutional interpretation, and individual liberty goes out the window when they lose an election, or something.
I guess it’s a good thing that no one on the American right is trying to gin up any transparently phony reasons to claim that Obama’s election should be invalidated on some bullshit technicality. Oh, wait…
October 30th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
but he has been a high official in Honduran politics for decades … Zelaya picked Orellana to benefit from his reputation — not the other way ’round.
Same with Dick Cheney.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
There are procedures for impeachment and trial and removal in the United States, and there are in Honduras, and none of them were followed in the latter case.
This is incorrect. There are no procedures for impeachment of a President under the Honduran Constitution.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
[...] post is from here. Visit the link to read more.So, personally I think the Court rather cheesily exposed themselves as [...]
October 30th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Except, can anyone imagine a scenario under which Dick Cheney would have resigned had some Bush Jr. policy had been found to be illegal in the courts?
Oh, wait, Dick Cheney had no formal functions and wasn’t an Administration official, he was a magical member of the FOURTHBRANCH of government, and therefore no one could touch him because he possessed the mystical powers of both the Executive and Legislative branches, and he argued that per the UNITARY EXECUTIVE theory, Bush Jr. could do anything he wanted.
Dude, in this scenario, Bush Jr. would be Zelaya, or Chavez, and Dick Cheney would be one of the officials who didn’t resign. Pffft.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
This is correct under the interpretation of ‘impeachment’ being a direct parallel to the U.S. system in which charges are brought by the legislature. The Honduran Congress indeed has no authority to impeach.
However, the case in which the President is fairly tried for violating the law and convicted and sentenced means that he is (a) literally unavailable to serve his office (or if he fled & didn’t return, or just disappeared) and (b) deprived of his political rights as a citizen, so it is what counts as the Honduran analogue.
It’s not a direct parallel, but there are in fact legal procedures by which Presidents may be removed from office in both nations. And outside those procedures, removal would not be recognized.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
However, the case in which the President is fairly tried for violating the law and convicted and sentenced …
Again, that’s the case for criminal proceedings. Which are inapplicable here.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Exactly. Which is why I’ve been agreeing with those arguing that the President was not legally removed. There are legal procedures for removing a President in Honduras. They weren’t followed. That a substitute mechanism was created is not some sort of improvement.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I am rather shocked that people are still claiming that somehow Zelaya was illegally removed, when both the Library of Congress and the UN research capacities have emphatically deemed his removal to be perfectly within constitutional remit.
It is truly a brave new world when left-liberals, not having learned from their pre-war sympathies for Stalin’s Soviet Union, are proclaiming their judgment to be wiser and better-informed than the Library of Congress or the United Nations.
I should not be surprised that the same people who have cheered Zelaya today, turn out to cheer for Chavez if (and this is hypothetical) he makes himself president-for-life in Venezuela. After all, what can you expect from the same crowd that cheered Stalin’s Soviet Union?
From George Orwell:
“About the end of the nineteen-twenties you get a book like Edith Sitwell’s book on Pope, with a completely frivolous emphasis on technique, treating literature as a sort of embroidery, almost as though words did not have meanings: and only a few years later you get a Marxist critic like Edward Upward asserting that books can be ‘good’ only when they are Marxist in tendency.“
October 30th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
It’s citing Dick Cheney on the question of whether George Bush is a war criminal.
I’m pretty sure that Cheney knows that Bush is a war criminal.
Same with Dick Cheney.
Uh, no. A narrative rose up that Cheney was this statesman admired by Democrats and Republicans, but that’s a load of shit. The reports he produced in Congress, his vote on various racial issues, show him to have been outside of even the norm of the wingnut party. Read Colin Powell’s autobiography: even sensible Republicans didn’t respect him.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Myles SG, there are many things in the world which will prompt reflection and thought, but “what Myles SG is shocked by” is not among them. If only Honduras were as democratic as Dubai. Although bonus points for your quoting George Orwell in your personal crusade to appear among the only few left concerned with Quality.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
On a related note, I will bookmark conservatives’ newfound respect for the Library of Congress and studies it produces and sponsors.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Myles SG, there are many things in the world which will prompt reflection and thought, but “what Myles SG is shocked by” is not among them.
I should imagine a variation of the above typified the sort of responses one expected from a Stalin- and Soviet-sympathizers in the 30’s.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
I should imagine a variation of the above typified the sort of responses one expected from a Stalin- and Soviet-sympathizers in the 30’s.
It’s more akin to how everyone reacts to “ideas” expressed by LaRouche, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and other malevolents and cranks.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Uh huh. Dubai fanboi says I’m a Stalinist, so, QED, democracy, whiskey, sexy.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
It’s more akin to how everyone reacts to “ideas” expressed by LaRouche, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and other malevolents and cranks.
I shouldn’t think your list of cranks and malevolents include the Library of Congress and the UN?
But of course, Chavez himself does not need such niceties.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I shouldn’t think your list of cranks and malevolents include the Library of Congress and the UN?
But of course, Chavez himself does not need such niceties.
We were talking about how one responds to your nonsense, dumbass, and your coup-loving misinterpretation of this situation.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
El Cid, the U.S Congress also has provisions that cannot be changed. Each state gets two senators, and that may not be amended.
The analogy to Joe Lieberman is wrong. Michelleti was head of Congress and the Vice President had resigned in 2008 to run for President.
Iran may have had vote fraud, but I don’t think that constitutes a coup. Not every stolen election is a coup.
Regardless of whether Zelaya was lawfully removed from office, I think this is the none of the U.S business and we need to stop meddling in the politics of Latin America (and elsewhere). I agree with Obama that it is quite ironic for people who normally complain about our interference there to change tunes when the shoe is on the other foot.
Regarding Cheney: I remember after the vice presidential candidates debate in 2000 some in the media (I think Newsweek) expressing the view that they wished the tickets had been reversed. It sounds hilarious now, but back then among people who didn’t follow politics that closely the vice presidential candidates were seen to lend more gravitas.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
One more nitpicky note: the theory of the “unitary executive” is not about the scope of the powers of that branch, merely their unitary nature (when Andrew Jackson was impeached for firing a cabinet member, his impeachers must have rejected the unitary theory). It is distinct from the “imperial executive” (an apt term even if its defenders don’t use it), which is completely indefensible in constitutional terms.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Whoops, forgot to add this. It is ridiculous to say that Cheney is part of some unknown branch of government and therefore doesn’t have to abide by any rules. Given Cheney’s contempt for the rule of law, he may well have argued that, I didn’t follow that debate closely enough. However, the argument that the Vice President is distinct from the president in that he is a member of the legislative rather than executive branch is defensible. The vice president is charged with presiding over the senate and casting tie-breaking votes. Bush’s delegation of executive authority to him could actually be unconstitutional, though again I don’t know enough to be sure.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Really? What if we went through the process of ratifying a Constitutional amendment to change that? What would happen? Who would stop it? Under what authority? And what mechanisms would be employed to prevent it? I’m curious.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
[...] post is from here. Visit the link to read more.So, personally I think the Court rather cheesily exposed themselves as [...]
October 30th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Wow, the wingnuts are really taking this hard, aren’t they?
October 31st, 2009 at 12:16 am
Re: I should not be surprised that the same people who have cheered Zelaya today, turn out to cheer for Chavez if (and this is hypothetical) he makes himself president-for-life in Venezuela
Personally, I would cheer if Chavez were granted emergency state-of-siege powers lasting long enough to suppress the oligarchofascist opposition once and for all. I would not imagine that would take Chavez’ whole lifetime, but if he decides that it does, then I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. The late-capitalist oligarchs must not be allowed to overthrow Venezuelan socialism, and they must be combated by hook or by crook.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:22 am
Re: TO those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
‘
What a bunch of jingoistic bourgeois U.S. imperialism, worthy of the late and unlamented segregationist George C. Wallace. The only ones on the wrong side of history are hipster idiots like Poptarts who believe that progress consists in making the world safe for Pot, P*rn, Playstations and the other accoutrements of the late-capitalist American West.
Obama, like the rest of his country, needs to learn the virtue of humility, and that means stopping meddling in other countries internal affairs. It is none of Obama’s business how Venezuela, Iran or Cuba chooses to run their show, and Obama needs to stop delivering fluffy and meaningless speaches and put the US domestic house in order before any foreign nation can or should take him seriously.
October 31st, 2009 at 1:26 am
[...] post is from here. Visit the link to read more.So, personally I think the Court rather cheesily exposed themselves as [...]
October 31st, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Now, it is obvious to anyone who looks at Honduras’ economic stats that they have suffered from the first by the rule of a greedy oligarchy, aided and abetted by U.S. corporation interests. Real reform in Honduras should go much further than the mild reforms instituted with firebreathing rhetoric by Chavez in Venezuala. Honduras should seek the opening that exists to make alliances with Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina and Ecuador to form a block that could operate to raise the living standards of the mass of people – in particular, they should definitely take advantage of the loosening of the American grip, as the real trading power in Latin America shifts to China.
Zelaya was certainly not up to that – indeed, until the last oouple of years, he was just another bootlicker of the Yankees and the small group of the rich. But who knows, perhaps this will get people out to elect a true socialist to run the poor country – and deposit the elite in Miami.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Lafollete: “The funny thing about this particular idiot wingnut meme is that they’re explicitly endorsing a scenario in which a novel interpretation of the Honduran constitution, unsupported by any precedent or evidence of the framers’ intent, provides a flimsy pretext for activist judges and the military to overthrow a democratically elected President and crack down on free speech.”
This is a surprise? Substitute U.S. constitution, and you have the program by which the Bush campaign stole the 2000 election. Although that was more egregious – even in Iran, the winner pretended that he got more of the popular vote. But our Mullahs, aka the Republican supreme court, didn’t even care.
October 31st, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Re: Real reform in Honduras should go much further than the mild reforms instituted with firebreathing rhetoric by Chavez in Venezuala
Don’t be absurd. Chavez is not a milk-toast reformer, he is engaged in a thoroughgoing transformation of Venezuela along Socialist lines.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
El Cid, Article Five lays out the process of amending the Constitution and prohibits some kinds of amendments. The first prohibition was set to end in 1808, so now only the Senate is left. Article 5 does not forbid changes to article 5, so your method is possible. The question of “who would stop them” is a good one, seeing as how the Constitution is violated all the time.
roger, the 2000 election did not hinge on any novel interpretation of the Constitution. All parties agreed that it is the electoral college rather than popular vote which is determinate. The Supreme Court decision did not matter either, because the recounts requested by Gore were later done and he still came up short. There were versions of the recount in which Gore would have won Florida, but they are not the ones he requested.