Comments on: Why is Zelaya’s Constitutional coup attempt ignored by the world?

By: Devils autopsies | Killersquad

Devils autopsies | Killersquad — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 01:22:25 +0000

[...] Why is Zelaya’s Constitutional coup attempt ignored by the world? «June 29, 2009 … -President calls for a vote on having a referendum to allow his reelection … -Supreme Court and Assembly say it is illegal and Court rules so. Military warns that the law should be obeyed. Constitution actually says even promoting reelection is illegal. [...]

By: Tomas

Tomas — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:04:39 +0000

When I saw Hugo Chavez’ Shiny red farm tractors rolling down the middle of downtown San Pedro Sula last year with big ribbons on them I said to myself “oh no Hugo is up to something” my little voice was right again.

Hey does anyone know if Zelaya’s pajamas can be found anywhere I want to sell them on E-bay!!!!

Did they really have Micky Mouse all over his PJ’s ?

By: An Interested Observer

An Interested Observer — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:23:03 +0000

Jeremy, thanks for that clarification – I had read somewhere that the Honduran Constitution doesn’t allow for impeachment, and that there was another procedure, but had no idea what it was.

That said, I can’t tell from that sentence what process would be necessary to determine that. Obviously, Zelaya doesn’t agree that he ceased to perform his functions. There needs to be a clear, proper decision (does the Constitution say who should make that determination? I would think that would fall to the Supreme Court, at least eventually), which should be enforced by authorities. The Hondurans skipped those steps and went straight to good old-fashioned methods, which understandably raises serious red flags.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:29:12 +0000

NICK, the Honduran constitution makes it clear that intent matters, as in the promotion of an act designed to change the presidential limitations. It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t binding. It was still illegal and he knew it. He was told by anybody and everybody in the Honduran government. He also violated a law passed by congress that banned any government polls, non-binding or otherwise, 180 before a national election.

INTERESTED OBSERVER, Article 239 of the Honduran constitution states than any government official who violates the prohibition on presidential limitations, including only promoting the idea, immediately ceases to perform his duties in the government. There is no impeachment needed, as Mel effectively resigned.

JUSTIN SIMMS, what????

By: Debi

Debi — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:19:04 +0000

Lots of good commentary.

By: moctavio

moctavio — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:59:45 +0000

Yes and the only driver was to rewrite the Constitution so he could run again. And it was illegal, even if non-binding.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:23:26 +0000

Your first statement is false. it was a (non-binding) poll for a constitutional assembly. why do u publish such things? its hard to believe somebody when there argument is full of fallacies. i couldnt even make it past the second line.

By: An Interested Observer

An Interested Observer — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:50:01 +0000

What’s the difference? Do ends justify the means, Miguel?

By: Miguel Octavio

Miguel Octavio — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:33:00 +0000

But he refused to stop the illegal vote, that is why he was removed. Yes, they could have done it in a more organized fashion, but the vote was like an impeachment and succession follows what the Constitution says. Wha’s the difference in the end?

By: An Interested Observer

An Interested Observer — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:28:39 +0000

“It was done as properly as you can in my own opinion, I don’t think they needed a letter of resignation. Let me give you a comparison: CAP was impeached”

So why didn’t they just impeach him? The possibly-fake resignation letter (since disavowed, which raises enough doubts about either its authenticity or whether it was signed under pressure to disqualify it in my mind – Presidential changes, whether by election or not, need to be above reproach), along with the quick removal from the country are both so reminiscent of an old-school coup, that it’s hardly surprising that anyone should draw any conclusions of similarity. The fact that the VP hadn’t been sworn in yet, so couldn’t take office, doesn’t help at all.

Miguel, you laid out very nicely the basic potential grounds for impeachment. And had they simply stopped the election (though that would definitely not have been as easy as simply saying it, given how Zelaya was forcing the issue) and started the formal impeachment process, then there would have been some whining, but no real grounds for true complaints. No one at the OAS (except Venezuela) would have invoked the Democratic Charter, for example.

Let me put it this way: just like nothing the prior Presidents of Venezuela did or didn’t do can justify any action by Chavez, nothing Zelaya did justifies other Hondurans putting away the Constitution for the sake of convenience.