Honduras Defends Its Democracy: Fidel Castro and Hillary Clinton object

[Ron]

Honduras: What was on the referendum ballots printed in Venezuela

UPDATED
See 4:45PM update below

I have not seen the ballots printed in Venezuela that were to be used in last Sunday’s referendum that Mel Zelaya had contrived, however, Honduran daily La Prensa reports the referendum question,

    ¿Está de acuerdo que en las elecciones generales de 2009 se instale una cuarta urna en la cual el pueblo decida la convocatoria a una asamblea nacional constituyente? = Sí…….ó………..No.
    (my translation: If you quote it, please credit me and link to this post)
    Do you agree that a fourth ballot box be installed through which the people will decide to convene a constitutional assembly? Yes…….or………..No.

This is in direct violation of the country’s Constitution, which forbids the President from calling for changes to the Constitution. Articles 373 and 374 of the Honduran Constitution specifically state that ammendments to the Constitution be approved by 2/3 of the votes in Congress AND specifically forbid any President of the country from extending term limits. The Constitution also says these two articles can not be ammended.

The same article at La Prensa states that Zelaya prepared a decree ordering all institutions of the State to bring about the project, which Zelaya deemed “an official activity of the Government of the Republic”. This means that the notion that Zelaya’s referendum was non-binding is false. Zelaya clearly meant to make his Sunday referendum official and binding. La Prensa says the decree, dated June 26, was published Saturday June 27.

Many reports in the media make it sound like Zelaya came up with this project with short notice, and was removed with even shorter notice. La Prensa has a lengthy article (in Spanish) itemizing the timeline of Zelaya’s process of trying to bring about the Sunday referendum. Mel Zelaya first brought up “the fourth ballot box” idea on February 17th this year during a parade showcasing several tractors gifted by Hugo Chávez, two days after Chávez’s own referendum extending indefinitely his term in Venezuela.

The article is very interesting and has a great deal of information. For instance, in June, while the Tribunal Superior de Cuentas, TSC (Superior Tribunal for Accounts) was being asked to investigate where Zelaya was getting money for the “fourth urn”, Zelaya was denounced at the Public Ministry for not submitting a General Budget to Congress. The Congress vice-president accused Zelaya of diverting 5.5 billion lempiras to finance the fourth urn campaign. Bureaucrats who participated in a demonstration favoring the referendum admitted that they had received 300-500 lempiras for attending. By April the country’s institutions had warned Zelaya that what he was attempting to do was not only unlawful but also would be considered a coup d’etat.

Latest news as of 1:30PM Eastern
Roberto Micheletti was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal:

    He promised the country would hold presidential elections as scheduled in November, and that he would step down in January, when Mr. Zelaya’s term was due to end.

    Mr. Micheletti called for “understanding” from other nations, especially the U.S. “If [the U.S.] does not recognize us, it would be condemning to failure the aspirations of Hondurans,” he said. Comparing Mr. Zelaya to former U.S. President Richard Nixon, he added, “At least Mr. Nixon had the courage to resign after breaking the law.”

http://faustasblog.com/?p=13740

[De Selby]

Okay, how does a ballot box saying "would you agree that in 2009...." constitute an amendment to the constitution, or a violation of the process of amendment?

The initiative wouldn't amend the constitution, and does not say how the constitutional assembly will be constituted, nor how it would be passed.  So where's this "direct violation" noted in the article? 

[Scout26]

Okay, how does a ballot box saying "would you agree that in 2009...." constitute an amendment to the constitution, or a violation of the process of amendment?

The initiative wouldn't amend the constitution, and does not say how the constitutional assembly will be constituted, nor how it would be passed.  So where's this "direct violation" noted in the article? 

This is in direct violation of the country’s Constitution, which forbids the President from calling for changes to the Constitution.

Ummmm, right there......

[makattak]

Oh, but you see, the president wasn't calling for a change in the country's constitution, he was just checking to see if the people wanted to call for that change. In a vote where he made certain he had total control.

Also, I will note that SinS is staying true to a lefist principle:

No ememies to the left.

[Jamisjockey]

The record, its broken.

[MicroBalrog]

No ememies to the left.

Who are ememies?

Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Repubican.

[Balog]

Who are ememies?

Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Repubican.

Nitpicking a typo is beneath you Micro.

I've not heard that saying before, but given the regularity that the Rpublicans eat their own I'd say it's not overly accurate.

[makattak]

Who are ememies?

Ememies.

Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Repubican.

Not sure who said that, but given my disdain for McCain, Snow, Specter (no longer (R)), inter alia, I'd say I don't follow that line of reasoning.

I do note who were first to support Zeleya: Castro, Ortega, Chavez. Hmmmm....

[MicroBalrog]

I've not heard that saying before, but given the regularity that the Rpublicans eat their own I'd say it's not overly accurate.

It's ostensibly a Reagan quote.

[De Selby]

This is in direct violation of the country’s Constitution, which forbids the President from calling for changes to the Constitution.

Ummmm, right there......

Does it? All I've seen referenced so far are probhitions on changing term limits for the president, not on having non-binding votes on establishing a constitutional convention.

[De Selby]

And look at what's changing since Zelaya was removed....does this change anyone's opinion about the wisdom of military takeovers?

http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/julio/01/mundo2014221.html

Tegucigalpa. El Congreso hondureño aprobó esta tarde un decreto para suspender cinco garantías individuales de los ciudadanos de ese país.

Dicho decreto fue remitido al Congreso poco después del mediodía por el poder Ejecutivo hondureño, liderado ahora por Roberto Micheletti.

Las derechos afectados son la inviolabilidad del domicilio, el derecho a protestar pacíficamente, derecho de asociación, extender por más de 24 horas el arresto de un particular sin presentársele cargos y la libertad de movimiento en el país.

So the congress just abolished by decree the constitutionally protected rights of security in the home, the right to peaceful protetest, the right to free association, the right to be free from arrest without being presented with charges, and the right to move freely about Honduras.


These are the guys who were supposedly "Defending democracy".   

[Matthew Carberry]

Context?

For how long and under what justification?

For example, it is perfectly Constitutional even in this country for the government to abrogate certain rights for certain periods of time should the Constitutionally-designated authority deem conditions meet the Constitutional standard for such action.

Likewise, the Honduran Legislature's action, note it is the action of the representatives of the people not a wanna-be President-for-life,  may in fact be a perfectly Constitutional response to an attempt to subvert the Constitution by the Executive and threats of intervention and/or invasion such as those made by Chavez.

Again, Zelaya created the issue by not abiding by the Constitution he was (I assume) sworn to uphold).

The means to call a Con Con were laid out therein, he had no right nor rational basis to do anything but (perhaps) opine that such method should be followed.

His duty on this topic, his only duty per the Con, was to do nothing.  The minute he acted in a means beyond that explicitly laid out in the Con he immediately proved his own disregard for it and provided perfect justification under said Con for his removal.

[De Selby]

Without even progressing to the constitutionality of the Legislature suspending constitutional rights, it does not bode well for the country that they can't peacefully protest and that they can now be detained without charge.  What possible "law and order" purpose is served in a democracy by those things?

I do not agree that it's by any means clear that Zelaya's initiative violated the constitution (as it didn't call a convention - it asked whether one should be voted on in the future).  In any case, these most recent measures only make sense for a Government that has lost the support of its people, and that needs to tightly control information and public movements in order to remain in power. 

[MicroBalrog]

Exactly why are people so hung up on this conflict?

I mean, neither of the sides seem to be great angels. Neither of them seem to be particularly right-wing or left-wing. Is there a reason to support one of the sides, either from the standpoint of justice or raw partisanship?

[De Selby]

Exactly why are people so hung up on this conflict?

I mean, neither of the sides seem to be great angels. Neither of them seem to be particularly right-wing or left-wing. Is there a reason to support one of the sides, either from the standpoint of justice or raw partisanship?

I support limited government and the strictest adherence to American style civil rights around the world.  This coup is a flash-back to a time in Latin America where it was the worst of both worlds: no payouts from the government like communists to at least prevent starvation and give some basic welfare, and no liberties of any kind like in America that would allow for people to develop their own economies. 

Supporting Zelaya against the coup means that people will have a chance to vote on the controversy, but more importantly, it means that the military and courts will have learned that they can't get away with unilaterally changing the government and stripping the population of its political rights.

[Matthew Carberry]

If the Constitution says a Con Con may be called by, say, the citizenry mailing a certified letter to their Rep. requesting one and that receipt of 60% of such constituent letters from each district will constitute the triggering event then that is that; there is simply no lawful way to call for a Con Con other than that one method of certified letters.  

So if the Con. does not explicitly say that "a nationwide referendum, however non-binding, may be held at the desire of the Executive to request a Con Con" then holding one, or even asking for one, is expressly unConstitutional.  You have to follow the one rule as written.

The moment anyone in government proposes a different method, no matter how democratic or fair it may seem, they are by definition acting extra-Constitutionally and may rightfully trigger repercussions from those who uphold the Constitution and consider it the law of the land.

In Zelaya's situation, apparently the Constitution says that any extra-Constitutional action by the executive requires the citizenry to resist.

That is exactly what happened.

Step 1)  Zelaya calls for an extra-Constitutional ballot on holding a Con Con rather than going through the proper, Constitutionally-defined, method of doing so.

Note he did not simply call for such a change to be considered via the proper Constitutional method, he demanded the Army act according to his wishes to hold his own self-created system.

Step 2)  He was informed by the Army, who had sworn to support the Constitution, that such an action was extra-Constitutional, he was also so informed by the Judiciary AND the popularly elected Legislature.

Step 3)  He persisted in his extra-Constitutional attempt and was resisted per the demands of the Constitution.

Step 4)  After being removed from office for his extra-Constitutional actions he appealed to outside forces to force his reinstatement and support him in violating his own Constitution.

What part, exactly, makes his actions, not anyone elses reactions or motives, proper from step 1?

That is the first question that must be answered before he can be rationally or properly defended.

[Matthew Carberry]

Note again.

He acted first, with no authority to do so and no documentable public support for his actions.

He wasn't "bravely resisting a coup", he instigated a fight by seeking to evade a Constitutional process, for motives which certainly appear to be despotic.

He started it by not playing by the rules for his own personal benefit.

That should be an immediate disqualifier for the support of anyone who believes in the rule of law and the primacy of the Constitution in a Constitutional system.

[makattak]

That should be an immediate disqualifier for the support of anyone who believes in the rule of law and the primacy of the Constitution in a Constitutional system.

Yeah, it SHOULD be.

That is, if they were actually worried about the constitution or the rule of law and not promoting and agenda allied to their own. (See Castro, Ortega, Chavez...)

[Matthew Carberry]

Good discussion (as usual) at Volokh's site.

http://volokh.com/posts/1246464903.shtml

From poster Don miller

Because I can not read spanish, I am relying on others to give me correct information.

My understanding is that the Supreme Court of Honduras removed the President after he proposed removing term limits from his office. The translation I saw said that immediate removal from office is the constitutional remedy for this offense.

The same blogger that provided that information also mentioned that the Honduran Constitution had a glaring omission. It didn't have an impeachment process for removal of someone from office who violated the rules.

If there was no impeachment process, and the President refused to leave office as the Constitution, the Supreme Court and the Legislature said, what other options were available to them?

From poster autolykos...

Not only that, but it looks to me like they're even going a step farther. This whole tempest seems to be based on the idea that it's inappropriate for a country's military to remove an elected leader, no matter what the law says. It strikes me as a very odd conception of democracy.

From poster "The Unbeliever"

You know, for a bunch of fascists perpetrating a brutal military coup, they seem to be overly concerned with legalities and preserving the pre-"coup" rule of law:

[New foreign minister Enrique Ortez] said the interim government would seek to show that Zelaya was removed through a legal process...

Ortez dismissed the OAS warning over suspension and said a group of four member countries of the organization -- Colombia, Mexico, Guatemala and Canada -- would send representatives in a mission to observe the situation.

He said he had asked for an opportunity to defend the move to depose Zelaya.

However, in Washington, an OAS spokesman said that he was unaware of any plans to send a mission this week.

"We are going to show them all the evidence," Ortez said. He said the OAS would not throw Honduras out because Zelaya was ousted following a legal procedure.

"We're sure that we are not going to be expelled because we have done everything in a legal way."
I don't have a desk reference guide for Coups In 10 Easy Steps, but isn't it traditional at this point in the coup timeline to be talking about purging the enemies of the State, restoring order through military force, and seizing the property of some scapegoat group?

Maybe Ortez is just spinning, and maybe the top army lawyer was making it up when he waved around "a stack of legal opinions and said "A coup is a political move... It requires the armed forces to assume power over the country, which didn’t happen, and it has to break the rule of law, which didn’t happen either." But given the link to the Honduran Constitution above, and given the lack of legalese cites contradicting their position, I'm finding it hard to believe these guys are your typical military junta kicking out a political opponent just for the heck of it.

[Matthew Carberry]

Further info.

The VP of Zelaya's party, which is also the party in the majority of teh pro-"coup" Legislature, had resigned to run for President.

That is why the Speaker (also of Zelaya's party) was assigned as acting President until the election is held, as is planned to occur as usual.

The government is not in the hands of the military, it is in the hands of the legitimate Constitutional authority who is maintaining the rule of law.

Also, there were brief power and broadcast interruptions but those have apparently been restored.  astonishingly the media complaining about them are Venezualan.  The rest of teh media seems to be functioning, including the media of the party of the President (which, as stated above remains the party in legitimate power).

The facts are clear, Zelaya wanted to subvert the rule of law and become a Chavez/Castro-style President for life and Honduras' legitimate governmental bodies followed the rule of law, given the mechanisms available within their Constitution, to prevent him.

[ShortTimer]

Not to sidetrack the discussion or anything, but some more stories & photos from Honduras:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/07/honduran-democracy-protesters-lash-out.html







http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/07/video-proof-us-media-is-propping-up.html

Apparently there are massive anti-Zelaya protests, as the people of Honduras know he is what he seems to be (a leftist thug), and are supporting their own govt.

--
Also:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_drug_allegations

I forget if it was mentioned on an earlier page of this thread or not, but it looks as though Zelaya was smuggling drugs through Honduras.  Note the Honduran govt also states that the DEA knows about this.

--
One more piece:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html

A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense.
Don't believe the myth. The arrest of President Zelaya represents the triumph of the rule of law.
By Octavio Sánchez
from the July 2, 2009 edition

Print this Letter to the Editor Republish E-mail newsletters RSS
Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.

That is nonsense.

In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.

To understand recent events, you have to know a bit about Honduras's constitutional history. In 1982, my country adopted a new Constitution that enabled our orderly return to democracy after years of military rule. After more than a dozen previous constitutions, the current Constitution, at 27 years old, has endured the longest.

It has endured because it responds and adapts to changing political conditions: Of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed.

It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions – one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.

During these 27 years, Honduras has dealt with its problems within the rule of law. Every successful democratic country has lived through similar periods of trial and error until they were able to forge legal frameworks that adapt to their reality. France crafted more than a dozen constitutions between 1789 and the adoption of the current one in 1958. The US Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1789. And the British – pragmatic as they are – in 900 years have made so many changes that they have never bothered to compile their Constitution into a single body of law.

Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

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."

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.

Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.

I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law.

Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer, is a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras.