I've been trying to understand the Zelaya issue

I see the President refer to the situation in Honduras as a coup and that Micheletti is simply "de facto" president rather than de jure.

However, from what I read by the Law Library of Congress ( HONDURAS:CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ISSUES ) it seems that the provisions laid out in the Honduran Constitution were followed, except for the military putting President Zelayas on an airplane out of the country.

I've read that the Honduran Constitution is viewed as flawed. What is the basis for this view? If the Constitution is flawed, how was the government viewed as legitimate in the first place?

I am no lawyer or Constitutional scholar. I am not asking this to start a flame war, but only wish to understand the reasons why our government (and just about everyone here at DU) states that this is a coup when it seems to me from reading that report, it the basis for removal from office was legal even if the execution process was flawed, and merit prosecution of the decision makers and hopefully not some poor Soldado or Sergento.

(Practicing my Run, Duck, and Cover, Just in Case!)

Then, they claim the Congress did it when 1)Congress doesn't have that power and 2) They did the paper AFTER they did the kidnapping -- up to and including a forged letter of resignation "signed" by Zelaya. :)

the sticking point for me was that it all started with ZELAYA's attempting a (referendum?), even if it was NON-binding, to change the constitution to allow him to run for re-election, which echoes Huguito and the others, which in MY lexicon translates to "president for life."

Then the version of the news that further stuck for me was that the CONGRESS voted him to be removed and the Supreme Court approved it, and then military carried out the orders.

I'm SURE I'll be "corrected".


But my old thing I can't dislodge is that changes to governing principles ---such as pay raises, and these changes of term limits--- ought to take effect EXCLUDING anybody who was involved in making the changes. On these grounds I highly disapprove (big woof) of BLOOMBERG's having changed the limits on HIS running--and for that matter, the changes in Massachusetts last time AND this time regarding appointing senators.

I also don't see that the ZELAYA supporters here mention his being a timber harvester, only that he's supported by Huguito et al.

But also floating around in my mind is the vaporous conviction that SOVEREIGNTY means IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS: If Iraq wanted or let happen Saddam, then WE STAY OUT!1

to get the thread in LatAm where a bunch of international lawyers evaluate the case.

The problem with your objection (imho) is that what Zelaya wanted to do is legal, didn't mention him or term limits and is largely popular in Honduras. The process takes 2-4 years and he'd be long gone by the time it was done.

Their constitution was handed to them by Rayguns and doesn't really give the people a lot of room to participate in their own democracy.

All this stuff about terms limits was jacked up by the right wing who got mad when Zelaya did stuff like start very modest land reforms, upped the minimum wage a little and gave a few cents to education. That apparently made him Hugo Jr. in their universe.

Edit: This is one of the articles that discusses the findings of these legal experts:

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/2132/1/

Zelays's proposed poll was about holding a national assembly to consider a new constitution. It included nothing about any proposals for extended or additional terms for the Presidency. That was simply what his opponents speculated (or actually misrepresented) that he wanted. This in spite of the fact that he repeatedly and clearly stated he had no interest in additional time in office.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This Congressional Law Library report seems to have been ideologically spawned... but hey, the Wall Street Journal likes it...

Here's a solid refutation...

http://carneconfrijol.blogspot.com/2009/09/norma-c-gutierrez-incredibly-flawed.html

Norma C. Gutierrez' incredibly flawed "research" on the legality of the Honduran Coup

Mary O'Grady, in a recent article in the WSJ supporting the Coup in Honduras, quoted a new study put out by the Law Library of the Library of Congress and authored by Norma C. Gutierrez. Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock also referenced this study to push for a recognition of the Coup government.

But the problem is, the study not only has major flaws, but more critically, makes conclusions in opposition to what the author's own legal analysis shows.

-snip

The author dryly covers over the most contentious portion of the whole debate by simply stating that "http://carneconfrijol.blogspot.com/2009/09/norma-c-gutierrez-incredibly-flawed.html">the process at the Supreme Court did not continue due to the events that occurred after Zelaya's arrest" and elsewhere notes that "after his arrest, on June 28, the military, acting apparently beyond the terms of the arrest warrant, took Zelaya out of the country."

No, Ms. Gutierrez, I'm sorry. The Constitutionally mandated procedure was never completed by the Supreme Court, and Mr. Zelaya's right of Due Process was hence denied because he was violently removed from the Country at gunpoint. This seems simple. I am not a lawyer, but for her to go on about a multitude of decrees and articles, and not to bring up this simple point goes beyond all benefit of the doubt. Lives have been lost, and an incredible toll has been inflicted because a large majority of Hondurans resist the idea that someone's personal right to Due process can be simply taken away, and thus, an electorate's right to have their vote respected through representation by their chosen leaders can be taken away that easily and according to Ms. Gutierrez, legally.

http://carneconfrijol.blogspot.com/2009/09/norma-c-gutierrez-incredibly-flawed.html">Plenty more here...

So to me: this means the process had began; the appropriate legal measures were taken; and then it all went south.

Mr. Zelayas is indeed President. De facto is an appropriate description of President Micheletti. Had the process run to its completion, then however it came out would have been legal, but not this 60% - 40% mess that appears today.

Thank you, Truth2Tell (as well as the other posters here) for my edification.

You know, "democratic"?

that you object to? :shrug:

shut down the media, started beating people up who protested--and invading homes and hunting down leftists, and jailing and torturing people, and using live ammunition on peaceful protest crowds, and murdering people, and on and on and on. Currently, they have decreed ALL CIVIL RIGHTS suspended for 45 days (ahem, until their rigged election!).

There is something terribly wrong with this picture, don't you think, if what they did to Zelaya was "legal"? WHO has ripped up the Honduran Constitution? WHO?! NOT Zelaya, who just wanted an ADVISORY vote of the people on a Constituent Assembly to discuss, rewrite and propose a vote on all aspects of the Constitution--a process of reform that takes years. This proposal came from labor unions and grass roots groups, and he championed it, because he was trying to be a GOOD president and listen to the people!

The "ten families" and corporados who run Honduras don't want such a reform process, so they trumped up charges against Zelaya, exiled him (a plain violation of the Honduran Constitution--NO Honduran can be exiled!) and are now brutalizing the Honduran people to stop their reform movement.

The slander that Zelaya was trying to lift his own term limit is brought to you by the same fucking liars who brought you the Iraq War, Great Depression II and an insurance corporation-written health bill!

Wake up!

The poster you are replying to is quite awake I assure you. He knows what is actually true he just doesn't allow any of that truth to leak into his posts. You could go on trying to convince him with sound argument but you won't get anything for your troubles except snarky replies.

You know, typical Latin American "democracy" courtesy of US trained fascist goons.