Barry Obama said he was "deeply concerned" by Zelaya's expulsion and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the arrest should be condemned. The Honduran Supreme Court said it supported the military action, which it said was aimed at defending the constitution. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/lt_honduras_referendum Barry Obama needs to stop meddling in Honduran affairs. There's one less leftist President that Jimmy Carter and Barry Obama can suck up to . Don't worry Barry you still have Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Bolivian President Evo Morales, and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega to shake hands with. The leftist President Manuel Zelaya, an ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, was detained today by the Honduran Army. The Honduran Army move against Zelaya was prompted by Zelaya's illegal attempt to change the Honduran Constitution to allow hime to stay in office. This is a similiar to what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela. Troops took Zelaya from his residence to an unknown location, Eduardo Reina, the president's private secretary, told Reuters. He said shots were fired during the incident, but that could not be independently confirmed. Congratulations to the Honduran Military that couragely acted against the threat to democracy in Honduras. El presidente Manuel Zelaya detenido en Tegucigalpa Un grupo de militares arrestó hoy al presidente de Honduras Manuel Zelaya, informó su secretario privado, en un aparente intento de golpe de Estado. http://www.laprensa.hn/
I'm not sure why Barry Oblahma thinks he is a higher authority on Honduran law than the Hunduran Supreme Court. Luckily for Honduras, Barry is a little dog with a big bark. He barks and barks, but if you snarl at him he wimpers and crawls home.
Barry Obama wants to be one of the cool leftist kids and has joined the leftist dictactors of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and Raul and Fidel Castro. The U.N. General Assembly voted today to demand Zelaya's immediate restoration. Zelaya plans to return to Honduras on Thurday. Honduran Attorney General Luis Alberto Rubi said Zelaya would be seized "as soon as he sets foot on Honduran soil" and face 20 years in prison on charges that also include abuse of authority and drug smuggling charges. “No al chavismo, no a Cubaâ€, claman miles de hondureños" - Thousands of Honduran came out in support of the removal today of ex-Honduran President Zelaya.
Those ladies are all headed for "reeducation camps" as soon as Obama's communist ally is forced back upon the Honduran people. The first thing he's going to have to do, of course, is get rid of the Honduran Supreme Court. It was the judiciary that got him exiled, not the military. It will be interesting to see how the Honduran people decide between the pain of economic sanctions imposed by Venezula, Nicaragua, Cuba, and the United States vs. the pain of living under a communist dictator.
The Honduran democracy seems to be working fine at the moment, without intervention. The Supreme Court of Honduras managed to get rid of another collectivist yahoo who was trying to destroy the democracy and become dictator for life. Now let's just hope the leftists in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, and the U.S. aren't powerful enough to destroy the will of the people of Honduras.
Breaking News: US will not extend Millennium aid in Honduras http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110106/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_us_aid_2 The U.S. has decided to end a $215 million aid program for farming and infrastructure in Honduras. The decision is because of corruption that occurred under the government of former President Manuel Zelaya, who was expelled from Honduras. Zelaya was planning a "Chavez" style socialist coup. Obama Backs Zelaya and the Tea Party lead by United States Senator Jim DeMin support the Democracy in Honduras.
The President, who was the Commander-in-Chief of the military, attempted to infringe on the Honduran Constitution, which prohibited him from attempting to extend his term limits. Not only did the civilian Honduran legislature protest Zelaya's unconstitutional actions, but the civilian Honduran court system ordered his removal from office. The subordinate military removed their commander, to comply with the order of the civilian court. You would describe enforcing a Supreme Court order against a Commander-in-Chief who violates the Constitution as a military coup?
Law-Dude: You would describe enforcing a Supreme Court order against a Commander-in-Chief who violates the Constitution as a military coup? What was prevented (by the coup) was a vote by the citizens of Honduras for a national referendum to repeal the "articulos petreos" by means of a Constitutional Convention. Removal of the democratically elected President from office that suported a popular referendum and initiated by political persuasion and expediency using military means is indeed refered to as a coup and is so adressed by the UNGA, OAS and UNASUR.
Article 374 of their Constitution states that the term limits clause cannot be changed. Please explain how they could have a "Constitutional Convention" which was unconstitutional. The military did not unilaterally remove the former president. The Supreme Court ordered him removed as the military's Commander-in-Chief and the military complied. Article 237 of their Constitution clearly stated that whoever proposed the reform of the term limit could not be President. The President proposed that, and he rendered himself ineligible to be President under the Constitution. The UNGA, OAS, and UNASUR are not the Constitution of Honduras. Referring to them does not address my statement about the completely proper constitutionality of removing Zelaya. The military's upholding of the Supreme Court's ruling on a constitutional case is not a coup, because it's not in any way an unlawful overthrowing of the government.
Article 237 of their Constitution clearly stated that whoever proposed the reform of the term limit could not be President. The above article 237 makes clear a Constitutional Convention to be permissible and ridiculous not to suggest Zelaya only supported the process proposed as a referendum or delegated its proposal for the very reason to satisfy Article 237. The Supreme Court could have nullified the referendum under law but has no authority to instruct the military exclusive of the Executive.
Firstly, I accidentally said Article 237 when I meant Article 239. You claim that Article 237 says that a Constitutional Convention over term limits is permissible. This would be in contradiction of Article 374 if true. Please point out which wording in 237 says anything about a Constitutional Convention: Hell, I'll even throw in 239 and ask you to show me where it mentions a Constitutional Convention, just to give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you were referring to the same clause I meant to refer to: And, of course, there's Article 374, which explicitly prohibits the any constitutional amendments which would affect term limits: And there's Article 373, which states the permissible method of reforming the Constitution, which is for the Honduran Congress to vote 2/3 in favour of the amendment, two regular sessions in a row: This doesn't even apply since the Constitution cannot be amended regarding term limits, but it shows just how far out to lunch your defense of the constitutionality of a national referendum is. In short, this Zelaya character violated or attempted to violate the Honduran Constitution on at least three grounds: 1) Article 239, in that he was not permitted to hold office after proposing changes to the term limit in the Constitution. 2) Article 373, in that he proposed an unconstitutional method of amending the Constitution. 3) Article 374, in that he proposed to amend the term limits clause, which the Constitution prohibited from being amended. Yet, you continue to defend him, and claim that the civilian high court and the civilian legislature joining in their support to have his subordinates remove him(Zelaya himself was the highest officer in the military), is somehow a military coup. It would be a military coup if the head of the military, Zelaya, had stayed in power after breaching or attempting to breach three articles of the Constitution and after being ordered removed by the civilian court system.
Your first sentence states a proposed reform was possible, just not to be initiated by the elected President of the country..... My response As stated, the Supreme Court has the authority to nullify the referendum but not the Executive branch of the gov't. ........ Ok Dude - why not give the American interpretation of the Spanish Language pertaining to the appropriate Articles???? - or where it says the court may collude with the military against the Executive rather than an order to cease the referendum.....etc. etc.
There's already been leftist power grabs by Hugo Chavez, Bolivian President Evo Morales, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and Leftist Rafael Correa in Ecuador. Once the leftists are elected they stay in office in spite of term limits rigging the system. http://el-gringo-nica.com/blog/?p=183
And Columbia, Peru, Argentina, Brazil etc. etc.....whos kidding who???? South America with the newly elected leaders at least have won elections over coup et coup infinitum. And taking out the President using the military rather than voiding the referendum as an example of bogart Democracy in modern S. America as the path to the future.....let freedom reign.