[excon]

Ex, the way I read it is that he was thrown out by the Court. The military forces obeyed their orders as determined by the courts. Our armed forces do the same thing, like in Alabama several decades ago.

Hello Cat:

Our president is the Commander in Chief. The military does NOT take orders from the Courts. IF they did follow an order by the court to take control of the country and dump Obama in Canada, it would be a coup, and I don't care what you want to call it.

The Honduran military was not dispatched to maintain order as in Alabama. It was dispatched to take control of the country. That's a coup. I don't care WHAT you want to call it.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello Cat:

Our president is the Commander in Chief. The military does NOT take orders from the Courts. IF they did follow an order by the court to take control of the country and dump Obama in Canada, it would be a coup, and I don't care what you wanna call it.

The Honduran military was not dispatched to maintain order as in Alabama. It was dispatched to take control of the country. That's a coup. I don't care WHAT you wanna call it.

excon

In our system, there are checks and balances. If the President oversteps his legal authority, it is the resposibility of the Judicial and the Legislative Branches of government to stop him.

If the President uses the military to get his way in violation of the law, the PRESIDENT is the one committing a military coup.

If the Judiciary and the Legislative Branches use the military to STOP the President from doing so, they are NOT committing a coup, they are obeyinbg the law.

If the government strips power from the President IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, that would constitute a coup.

But that is not what happened here. The law was clear. Zelaya violated it, or tried to, and was stopped.

The only question is this: was Zelaya trying to take power in violation of the Constitution of Hunduras. The answer to that question is unequivocally YES. There is no other interpretation to what he was doing... trying to set up a popular coup, attempting to force an illegal election, and strongarming his way into power in violation of Constitutionally established term limits. He was attempting a coup, and he was stopped.

The government stopped him, and used the military to do it. Therefore the actions of the government were not a coup, they were enforcement of the law.

Elliot

[tomder55]

Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, 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.

Looks like the Hondurans who wrote the Constitution were sensitive to the possibility of a tin pot dictator's attempt at the classic despotic 1 vote 1 time scenario .The problem of presidents who never leave power is all too common among undeveloped countries, so a very strict prohibition against multiple terms of office is prudent there and in my view gaining legitimacy here
.
Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution makes the actions of the court and legislature and the military constitutional .

[excon]

In our system, there are checks and balances. If the President oversteps his legal authority, it is the resposibility of the Judicial and the Legislative Branches of government to stop him.

If the President uses the military to get his way in violation of the law, the PRESIDENT is the one committing a military coup.

If the Judiciary and the Legislative Branches use the military to STOP the President from doing so, they are NOT committing a coup, they are obeyinbg the law.

Hello again, Elliot:

Let me be perfectly clear about this... There is NOTHING in our law that says anything remotely similar to the right wing claptrap your spewing... You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our laws, and how our country works. You haven't a clue. You can no longer be taken seriously.

excon

[Catsmine]

Hello Cat:

Our president is the Commander in Chief. The military does NOT take orders from the Courts. IF they did follow an order by the court to take control of the country and dump Obama in Canada, it would be a coup, and I don't care what you wanna call it.

The Honduran military was not dispatched to maintain order as in Alabama. It was dispatched to take control of the country. That's a coup. I don't care WHAT you wanna call it.

excon

I disagree. The Military was dispatched to arrest and deport a criminal politician, as determined by the courts. They then took steps to maintain order when the criminal's supporters started a riot in front of the Presidential palace.

[excon]

Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution makes the actions of the court and legislature and the military constitutional .

I disagree. The Military was dispatched to arrest and deport a criminal politician, as determined by the courts. They then took steps to maintain order when the criminal's supporters started a riot in front of the Presidential palace.

Hello guys:

I see where you say the president broke the law... I don't know whether he did or not. THAT is not the issue. What I want to see is the document that says the military works for the court.

I suggest that you cannot present such a document. Therefore, the military was acting on its OWN or on the behalf of the courts. Either way, it's a coup.

excon

[tomder55]

Art. 313 of their consititution gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in matters relating to high public officials.

I'll pull up the exact text in a moment

[speechlesstx]

I see where you say the president broke the law... I don't know whether he did or not. THAT is not the issue. What I want to see is the document that says the military works for the court.

That was established in my OP:

"Today's events originate from a court order by a competent judge. The armed forces, in charge of supporting the constitution, acted to defend the state of law and have been forced to apply legal dispositions against those who have expressed themselves publicly and acted against the dispositions of the basic law," the country's highest court said.

I guess you think their supreme court is lying or don't understand what "in charge of" and "forced to apply legal dispositions" means.

[ETWolverine]

Hello guys:

I see where you say the president broke the law... I dunno whether he did or not. THAT is not the issue. What I want to see is the document that says the military works for the court.

I suggest that you cannot present such a document. Therefore, the military was acting on its OWN or on the behalf of the courts. Either way, it's a coup.

excon

Do you remember saying this when you entered the military?

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The oath is to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION against all enemies, foreign and domestic, not to follow the President or the Court or the Legislature.

That means that the military works for the CONSTITUTION. If the President violates the Constitution, then the military works for whoever is PRESERVING the Constitution. That's the oath.

I am fairly sure that Honduras has a similar oath of office for their military. But I don't speak Spanish, so I can't find their military oath. I suspect that theirs is similar to ours.

In any case, there's your documentation that the military works for whomsoever is upholding the Constitution... in the case of Honduras, that was the Court and the Legislature, not Zelaya. The Court and the Legislature were within their rights to call for the military to back them up in upholding the Constitution.

But I'm quite sure that you're still not convinced.

Elliot

[tomder55]

ARTICULO 313.- “Los Tribunales de Justicia requerirán el auxilio de la Fuerza Pública para el cumplimiento de sus resoluciones; si les fuera negado o no lo hubiere disponible, lo exigirán de los ciudadanos.
El que injustificadamente se negare a dar auxilio incurrirá en responsabilidad.”
(translated )
ARTICLE 313.- “The court require the aid of Public Force for the fulfillment of its resolutions; it aid is denied or is not available, they will demand it from the citizens. Anyone who unjustifiably denies such aid will incur in responsibility."

The military ( Public Force) of Honduras OBEYED an order dictated by the Judicial Branch; therefore, they did not coup. The court REQUIRES the aid of public force. In other words article 313 of the Honduran constitution empowers the supreme court to use the military to carry out its rulings.

[excon]

That was established in my OP.. I guess you think their supreme court is lying or don't understand what "in charge of" and "forced to apply legal dispositions" means.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't think it WAS established, Steve.

Oh, and I BELIEVE the supreme court when they say what they say. Maybe I don't understand what "in charge of" means. Do you? I'm sure they can issue the "legal dispositions" they do.

What I question is whether you can produce ANY verbiage saying the courts can ORDER the military to action. In THIS country, there can be a LOT of institutions who are "in charge" of lots of stuff - the CIA, the Pentagon, the Supreme Court, the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT among others.

NONE of them, contrary to what the Wolverine thinks - absolutely none of them, no matter how much POWER the term "in charge" connotes, can order the military to action. Our Constitution is clear. The President is the Commander in Chief.

excon

[speechlesstx]

I think the ball is in your court, ex.

As in see tom's last post.

[speechlesstx]

He did it, he cut off aid to Honduras and Zelaya is meeting with Hillary at the State Department.

The State Department announced this afternoon that it will terminate "a broad range of assistance" to Honduras in response to the June 28 coup.

The announcement comes on the day that ousted President Zelaya is at the State Department to meet with Hillary Clinton.

The statement below from spokesman Ian Kelly says the restoration of aid to Honduras will depend on Honduras returning to "democratic, constitutional governance."

The U.S. is pressing for "legitimate" elections to take place in November.

Full statement below:

The Department of State announces the termination of a broad range of assistance to the government of Honduras as a result of the coup d'etat that took place on June 28. The Secretary already had suspended assistance shortly after the coup.

The Secretary of State has made the decision, consistent with U.S. legislation, recognizing the need for strong measures in light of the continued resistance to the adoption of the San Jose Accord by the de facto regime and continuing failure to restore democratic, constitutional rule to Honduras.

The Department of State recognizes the complicated nature of the actions which led to June 28 coup d'etat in which Honduras' democratically elected leader,

President Zelaya, was removed from office. These events involve complex factual and legal questions and the participation of both the legislative and judicial branches of government as well as the military.

Restoration of the terminated assistance will be predicated upon a return to democratic, constitutional governance in Honduras.

The Department of State further announces that we have identified individual members and supporters of the de facto regime whose visas are in the process of being revoked.

A presidential election is currently scheduled for November. That election must be undertaken in a free, fair and transparent manner. It must also be free of taint and open to all Hondurans to exercise their democratic franchise. At this moment, we would not be able to support the outcome of the scheduled elections. A positive conclusion of the Arias process would provide a sound basis for legitimate elections to proceed. We strongly urge all parties to the San Jose talks to move expeditiously to agreement.

I guess the Obama administration hasn't read the Honduran constitution. No surprise, they don't read anything before foisting their will on others. Maybe Zelaya can hang around a while and we can have a nice little party for him, Qaddafi and the Mahdi Hatter.

Story here.

[excon]

That means that the military works for the CONSTITUTION. If the President violates the Constitution, then the military works for whoever is PRESERVING the Constitution. That's the oath.

But I'm quite sure that you're still not convinced.

Hello again, El:

Oh, you're right about that... I'm NOT convinced... That's cause I can READ!!

Let me get this straight. You think, that in times of strife OUR military is to refuse to take orders from the Commander in Chief, but instead, the generals are to DECIDE for themselves from whom to take orders?? They should look around for "whoever is PRESERVING the Constitution" and take orders from them?? OUR MILITARY decides who's orders they're going to follow?? Did I get it right??

You really believe that claptrap?? Nahhh. Even a right wing nut like you can't believe that pile of garbage. What planet do you ordinarily reside on??

excon

[excon]

The military ( Public Force) of Honduras OBEYED an order dictated by the Judicial Branch; therefore, they did not coup. The court REQUIRES the aid of public force. In other words article 313 of the Honduran constitution empowers the supreme court to use the military to carry out its rulings.

Hello again, tom:

Like the misreading of the "death panel" stuff, I refuse to believe that a Constitution written by adults would give the military the ability to decide who it took orders from.

I speak Spanish. They have a word for military. They COULD have used that word if they wanted to. They didn't. I don't know what a "public force" is, do you?

excon

[tomder55]

I guess the Obama administration hasn't read the Honduran constitution

I refuse to believe that a Constitution written by adults would give the military the ability to decide who it took orders from.

And Excon is still framing his argument on his understanding of our system also.
Because if the President and Excon had read the Honduran Constitution he would see that Zelaya forfeited his right to rule under Article 239 , which bans presidents from holding office if they even propose to alter the constitutional term limits for presidents. And the Honduran military, which acted on orders of the Honduran supreme court, expressly had the right to remove the president for seeking to alter the constitutional term limit, under Article 272 of the Honduran Constitution.
In other words ; the Honduran constitution does not provide a civilian mechanism for removing a president from office after repeated violations of the law, such as impeachment in the U.S. Constitution. But it does provide provisions for the President's immediate removal for violating the constitution.
Honduran lawyer and former Minister of Culture Octavio Sanchez concurres with this opinion.
A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense. | csmonitor.com

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.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

Like the misreading of the "death panel" stuff, I refuse to believe that a Constitution written by adults would give the military the ability to decide who it took orders from.

I speak Spanish. They have a word for military. They COULD have used that word if they wanted to. They didn't. I dunno what a "public force" is, do you?

excon

You're reaching for straws, excon, and you know it. Tom gave you chapter and verse, and you can't deny what it says in the Honduran Constitution.

Actually you can. You do it all the time with the Health Care bills. But it doesn't make you right.

As for our Constitution, again, it says what it says. If the President violates the Constitution to take power that is not legally his, the military is REQUIRED to protect and defend the Constitution, not obey the President. And if Congress and SCOTUS are the ones following the Constitution, the military is required to follow the LEGAL CIVILIAN AUTHORITIES... not the illegal ones.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

I would assume "public force" would include all security forces such as military and police. It's not that hard to understand, ex.

[excon]

and Excon is still framing his argument on his understanding of our system also.

Hello again, tom:

At least I got you to admit that Elliot is a nut...

Look. I'm not a lawyer. I for sure, don't know Honduran law. It doesn't change my mind that you're able to find a right wing Honduran lawyer to say what the military wants him to say... We have lawyers like that here too, remember?

So, I really don't know what the LAW is, and neither do you. You have your INTERPRETATION, and Obama has his. Given your interpretation of the laws on torture, I don't trust your interpretations very much... In fact, I trust my SENSES, to the degree, that I'll repeat my earlier statement... I don't believe that ANY Constitution written by adults would give the military of ANY country the ability to decide who it took orders from.

Besides that, Obama IS a lawyer. HE says it was a coup. He was able to define torture, and you're not. That's good enough for me.

excon

[tomder55]

Obama's a lawyer.. . you can look long and hard to find a case he was on or a legal opinion he authored . You can't even find anything he wrote while he was editor of the Harvard Law review. I don't trust lawyers who have such thin resumes. I certainly would not hire him to write my living will