"Coup d'etat" in Honduras

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Is him trying to amend the constitution in question?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Yes. er, Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Is him? I normally don't mention grammar, but I think the constitution says the President is removed from office if he says "Is him").

He called for an *opinion*, non-binding vote, not a vote to make any change.

No, it isnt, thus he is immediately ceases to be president and in essence comits treason.

The judicial and legislative branch both orderd him out due to breaking the constitution. Flying him to Costa Rica is a near non-factor.

Ah yes, I recall the constitution saying that. 'Fly the President out of the country, it's a near-nonfactor'. Good thing we have constitutional scholars like you to help on that.

And I dont think anybody will say he wasnt trying to amend the constitution.

How does a non-binding opinion vote try to change the constitution? Whether the vote comes back 100% or 0% in favor, the constitution isn't changed one word.

Is it a *political* problem? Sure. If the US Congress passed a non-binding resolution that they'd like to throw the right-wing Supreme Court Justices out of office for being radical ideologues who vote badly, it's awkward, because it politicizes them and expresses a wish that is unconstitutional - but it doesn't actually have any effect on the Justices having their positions, and so it's not the same as Congress voting on a bill saying they are removed, which is unconstitutional.

What is the problem? Cant stand another nation tossed a leftist out on his ass and we cant do anything about it?

Weak. You can't stand that another nation *elected* a leftist?

As for not doing anything about it, I saw nine countries withdrew their ambassadors, the OAS has suspended Honduras' membership and the US cut off all direct government aid.

All following *their* laws about how to deal with a coup.

Hopefully, the Hondurans will have their constitution improve the process for determining guilt of violations and the process for the removal of the President.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Their country has their rules. No one has shown that those rulse were not followed.
It is that those rules may not jive with the US sense of fair play.

What is being asked by those observers is that additional options that do not exist be granted to him to satisfy a sense of fair play.

Show me the rules in the constitution allowing the actions that happened - the powers granted to the Attorney General, the legislature, the court, for the votes they took, the power for arresting the president in these conditions, the process for removing him from office - much less flying him out of the country.

'No one has shown that those rules were not followed'.

Nice shift of the burden of proof - you don't need to have any idea what the constitution says, you can just demand that any act be assumed constitutional until proven otherwise.

For you to even refer to 'those rules', you should have some idea what 'those rules' are.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

They already had a trial before he was exiled

A trial or a vote? Was he represented? Was the trial a process the constitution authorized?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

They already had a trial before he was exiled

A trial or a vote? Was he represented? Was the trial a process the constitution authorized?

The evidence was presented that he was in violation of the constitution.
Whether he chose to challenge the evidence has not been stated.
With boxes of illegal ballots shipped in from Venezaula; it would be difficult to challenge the evidence.


If you can not trust your Supreme Court to clarify the legality of laws in your country; then what is the use of the court. t\There, the court was not stacked by his opponents; it ruled on the letter of the law.

How the result was implimented demonstrates a problem for any system where the person that breaks the law refuses to abide by it.

They handled it one way. We might handle it a different way.
Where in our laws is it stated how to remove someone from office that should not be there?

Those are situations that are not anticipated and a how to manual does not exist - it is expected that people at such levels of power will obey the law.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

They already had a trial before he was exiled

A trial or a vote? Was he represented? Was the trial a process the constitution authorized?

The evidence was presented that he was in violation of the constitution.

Great, there was a prosecutor. Was there a defense attorney?

Whether he chose to challenge the evidence has not been stated.

Oh, who cares, all you really need is a prosecutor. Oh, and whether the 'trial' was constitutionally authorized as a process? You did not answer that, either.

With boxes of illegal ballots shipped in from Venezaula; it would be difficult to challenge the evidence.

Well, maybe that's why a defense attorney is useful, because he could point out the issue you missed that this was a vote to get OPINION, not a vote to change anything.

Oops.

If you can not trust your Supreme Court to clarify the legality of laws in your country; then what is the use of the court. t\There, the court was not stacked by his opponents; it ruled on the letter of the law.

Thanks for your carefully analyzed conclusion. I sure feel that with you providing this assurance, we really don't need to know anything about what the constitution says.

And we should only leap to conclusions aboutht e President being corrupt, not ask any about the behavior of any other branch. If it's al liberal president, that is.

How the result was implimented demonstrates a problem for any system where the person that breaks the law refuses to abide by it.

They handled it one way. We might handle it a different way.

But it's too much to ask for you to actually check what the constitution says before endorsing that they followed it.

Where in our laws is it stated how to remove someone from office that should not be there?

Well, it's actually there in the constitution how we try and remove a president from office.

As I said, you can get to the point of a constitutional crisis when people don't follow it, but there are a lot of questions about the Honduran situation short of saying that happened.

You are just happily posting all kinds of conclusions without much of any idea of the law behind your statements.