• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya Is Deposed

apdst said:
If the President of The United States broke into the registrar's office to steal ballots and hold an illegal election, do you believe that he should be arrested?
Click to expand...

Yes, but the question is WOULD he? He would have to be doing it PERSONALLY, ON TAPE or he would squirm out of it... Hel, Nixon almost got away with it if he wasn't his own worst enemy...
 
Sturmrabe said:
Yes, but the question is WOULD he? He would have to be doing it PERSONALLY, ON TAPE or he would squirm out of it... Hel, Nixon almost got away with it if he wasn't his own worst enemy...
Click to expand...

WOULD he? Probably not the way the Hondos did it. SHOULD he? Most definitely.

Zelaya attempted to stage a coup of his own and got busted. The government didn't stage a coup. They enforced the law. The best instrument for them to enforce the law with, was the army.
 
apdst said:
WOULD he? Probably not the way the Hondos did it. SHOULD he? Most definitely.

Zelaya attempted to stage a coup of his own and got busted. The government didn't stage a coup. They enforced the law. The best instrument for them to enforce the law with, was the army.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The army was operating on the orders of the Supreme Court. Civilian supremacy over the military was never violated.

Ergo, not a coup.
 
celticlord said:
Exactly. The army was operating on the orders of the Supreme Court. Civilian supremacy over the military was never violated.

Ergo, not a coup.
Click to expand...

Not only that, the government wasn't overturned and the military didn't take control of the government.
 
What is Obama thinking? Can one of the liberals tell me? The Honduran government is just adhering to their own Constitution. It says plain as day in Article 239 of their Constitution...

Article 239 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Zeleya cleary did so, and so I just can't understand why Obama would consider this a coup.
 
CriticalThought said:
What is Obama thinking? Can one of the liberals tell me? The Honduran government is just adhering to their own Constitution. It says plain as day in Article 239 of their Constitution...



Zeleya cleary did so, and so I just can't understand why Obama would consider this a coup.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Dear Leader takes his marching orders from Chavez these days.
 
CriticalThought said:
What is Obama thinking? Can one of the liberals tell me? The Honduran government is just adhering to their own Constitution. It says plain as day in Article 239 of their Constitution...



Zeleya cleary did so, and so I just can't understand why Obama would consider this a coup.
Click to expand...

That IS pretty cut and damn well dried...

Celtic: Really? :roll:
 
celticlord said:
Perhaps Dear Leader takes his marching orders from Chavez these days.
Click to expand...

Dictatorships do tend to be easier to do business with than Constitutional Republics. Maybe Obama is just sore that Zeleya was unable to supersede the Honduran Constitution.
 
CriticalThought said:
Dictatorships do tend to be easier to do business with than Constitutional Republics. Maybe Obama is just sore that Zeleya was unable to supersede the Honduran Constitution.
Click to expand...
Obama is an african-socialist, and therefore does not believe in any constitution established under colonialism.
 
American said:
Obama is an african-socialist, and therefore does not believe in any constitution established under colonialism.
Click to expand...

Hey, we kind stopped being a colony when we got the constitution...

The kinda thing you are talking about would have been if England GAVE us it and wrote it for us...
 
apdst said:
If the President of The United States broke into the registrar's office to steal ballots and hold an illegal election, do you believe that he should be arrested?
Click to expand...

There is a constitutional procedure when a President commits crimes. That procedure should be followed. In the U.S., that could lead to removal from office and even criminal prosecution.

That is not what happened in Honduras. While an impeachment would have been appropriate, he had not been impeached. Nor was he arrested and then tried. Rather, he was expelled from the country.

FWIW, in no way do I support his actions. In fact, I strongly believe that he should have been impeached for his conduct and prosecuted for such crimes as he might have committed. My single point of contention concerns the integrity of the constitutional process, not whether or not Mr. Zelaya should govern. Unfortunately, the constitutional process was cut short with the coup.
 
donsutherland1 said:
That is not what happened in Honduras. While an impeachment would have been appropriate, he had not been impeached. Nor was he arrested and then tried. Rather, he was expelled from the country.
Click to expand...

Have you read Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution?

Article 239 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court ruled that what Zelaya was doing was unconstitutional and since he did not cease his functions as President, they were forced to remove him from office.

By the Honduran Constitution, there is no impeachment process for what Zeleya did.
 
It's about time that Mr. Obama come out in support of the new Honduran Govn. but then again what do you except for the Closet Commie.
 
The post about the military Junta writing the constitution there is the best argument about how this is all a gray area of gobbledygook...

But Zelaya's actions only helped make this happen, so its really hard to say when you want to start bring "what were the real underlying motivations" arguments into this...
 
donsutherland1 said:
There is a constitutional procedure when a President commits crimes. That procedure should be followed. In the U.S., that could lead to removal from office and even criminal prosecution.

That is not what happened in Honduras. While an impeachment would have been appropriate, he had not been impeached. Nor was he arrested and then tried. Rather, he was expelled from the country.

FWIW, in no way do I support his actions. In fact, I strongly believe that he should have been impeached for his conduct and prosecuted for such crimes as he might have committed. My single point of contention concerns the integrity of the constitutional process, not whether or not Mr. Zelaya should govern. Unfortunately, the constitutional process was cut short with the coup.
Click to expand...

The Congress may not have believed that there was time to go through the legal red tape, fearing that Zelaya would engage his own military forces--whoever that may have been--and seize power.

I'm sure there was a legal process by which to remove alot of the dictators of modern times, but most of us can agree that it wouldn't have been a bad thing if a military coup had succeeded in overhtrowing people like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.
 
Scorpion89 said:
It's about time that Mr. Obama come out in support of the new Honduran Govn. but then again what do you except for the Closet Commie.
Click to expand...

What new Honduran government? It's the same government, minus the old prez.
 
Red_Dave said:
The referendum was colsolative and non binding so I cant see how Zelaya was an immediate threat. Still how is changing the constitution "disobeying" it? Were all 27 amendments to the United States constitution examples of the government "disobeying" the consitution? Should the presidents responsible have been overthrown as well?
Click to expand...

I don't believe that Honduras has an impeachment procedure much like Chile under Allende who, also, had a referendum against him in the Chamber of Deputies and an injunction against him by the Supreme Court of Chile, if you think about it, it actually sounds like Zelaya refused to appear before the impeachment procedure. No POTUS has ever done that so yes they should have been overthrown but not by the military, a U.S. President would step down.
 
CriticalThought said:
Have you read Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution?
Click to expand...

Several points:

1. Article 239 does not mandate expulsion from Honduras.
2. President Zelaya had yet to hold the referendum.
3. President Zelaya had made no proposals to change Article 239.

Until an actual proposal was made or the referendum was held, there was no violation of Article 239. Furthermore, Article 239 only states that when that article is violated, the person "will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years." Nothing in Article 239 calls for expulsion. Moreover, no provision in the constitution mandates expulsion.

Hence, even as President Zelaya had yet to violate Article 239 until he had carried forward the referendum or submitted a proposal to change Article 239, those who expelled him took liberties that have no constitutional basis.

Given the facts of the case, I doubt that the U.S. or Honduras' neighbors will recognize the post-coup government.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Several points:

1. Article 239 does not mandate expulsion from Honduras.
2. President Zelaya had yet to hold the referendum.
3. President Zelaya had made no proposals to change Article 239.

Until an actual proposal was made or the referendum was held, there was no violation of Article 239. Furthermore, Article 239 only states that when that article is violated, the person "will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years." Nothing in Article 239 calls for expulsion. Moreover, no provision in the constitution mandates expulsion.

Hence, even as President Zelaya had yet to violate Article 239 until he had carried forward the referendum or submitted a proposal to change Article 239, those who expelled him took liberties that have no constitutional basis.

Given the facts of the case, I doubt that the U.S. or Honduras' neighbors will recognize the post-coup government.
Click to expand...

There was a violation of Article 239:

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.
Click to expand...
Calling the referendum with an eye towards rewriting the Constitution--in particular to remove the restrictions on Presidential re-election, printing ballots in Venezuela, attempting to steal the ballots after the army refused to distribute them--backed the Supreme Court, it should be noted--are at the very least indirectly supportive of Zelaya's stated desire to violate Article 239. That's all it takes.

It is inaccurate and inappropriate to call Zelaya's removal from office on the orders of the Supreme Court a coup. It was not.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Several points:

1. Article 239 does not mandate expulsion from Honduras.
2. President Zelaya had yet to hold the referendum.
3. President Zelaya had made no proposals to change Article 239.

Until an actual proposal was made or the referendum was held, there was no violation of Article 239. Furthermore, Article 239 only states that when that article is violated, the person "will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years." Nothing in Article 239 calls for expulsion. Moreover, no provision in the constitution mandates expulsion.

Hence, even as President Zelaya had yet to violate Article 239 until he had carried forward the referendum or submitted a proposal to change Article 239, those who expelled him took liberties that have no constitutional basis.

Given the facts of the case, I doubt that the U.S. or Honduras' neighbors will recognize the post-coup government.
Click to expand...

He attempted to carry out an illegal referendum of the Constitution in order to allow himself to be el presidente for life, when the current Honduran Constitution only allows for the Congress to call for an amendment to the Constitution. And FYI the post-coup government is the government more than Zelaya is IE the Chamber of Deputies and the Supreme Court. Sorry but President =/= Dictator nor does it = the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom