I don't know, legalese can be interpreted enough ways in English.

Do you know Spanish?

__________________
January 21, 2013: The End of an ERROR.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
---Benjamin Franklin

Kind of a bizarre "coup" where the general never claimed power and the elected Congress voted in a replacement (from the same party, apparently).

The whole School of the Anericas thing is just a red herring here. Let's look at what has actually happened. It's less fun for the fringe like goober and the aptly-named rude boy, but far more useful.

Matt

No idea. What do you make of the item in the article you quoted where the Honduran Supreme Court said it ordered the removal? It seem to me that this alludes to at least the possibility that they did, in fact, have that authority, no?

As you say, legalese is a tricky. I'm not used to it in Spanish so reading the constitution is a bit onerous. However, from what I can make of the duties/powers of the judiciary, removing the president is not in their job description.

__________________
Nothing to see here.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of "powers" that the supreme court of this country never had until they decided that they did.

__________________
Nothing to see here.

It still seems like an odd coup to me - the congress and supreme court both said no-go to Zelaya's referendum, and when he ignored them he was removed unharmed to another country. Then the military, instead of taking over, steps aside and the elected legislature named a replacement. And the country's highest court says it directed the removal.

Definitely not your average "coup".

The institutions, the courts and legislatures, are just a facade. How do the people there feel about this and who were this President's friends and enemies? What interests stand to profit and to lose? This is the warp and weft of politics everywhere, but especially in CA.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Well the supreme court and the legislature told him no to his referendum. If there is a check and balances in their constitution, 2 of 3 authorities ruled out his bid to even attempt another referendum under the terms of the powers apportioned by the const. He tried to do it anyway.

The army helps conduct logistics of voting during regular voting and had seized the ballots he had flow in from Venezuela ( btw). They told the army to seize the ballots.

Zelaya led a mob who ransacked an army post to seize the ballots and distribute them against the SC ruling law. Then fired the general who was acting on orders from their SC. Sounds like a Nixon move to me.


As others have said the leg. has appointed an interim pres. and will go ahead with the pres. vote in Nov. minus Zelaya.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

The supreme court has no authority over the military. The president does.

I would like to know under what justification the court and the legislature determined that such a non-binding referendum was illegal, other than that they didn't like it.

__________________
Nothing to see here.

Do you have a source for the Honduran laws which say that?

Matt

Uh, no. Other than reading part of the Honduran constitution, I'm generally unfamiliar with the nuances of Honduran law, as is everyone on this board.


Which is why I asked.

__________________
Nothing to see here.

Right - me, too - which is why I asked if you had a source so I could learn about it.

My understanding is that the Honduran Supreme Court had merely ordered the military not to take part in what it had ruled was an unconstitutional referendum.

Well, I think there have been many military coups that were in and of themselves justified, the problem was not with the overthrow of the existing regimes by the military, but rather the military failing to turn over power to a democratically elected body thereafter. Which is apparently what the Honduran military has done in this case (the legislature has appointed an interim President)

Because he wasn't trying to legally change the constitution, he was doing it illegally. Apparently, like in our country, the executive branch has absolutely no power to initiate a constitutional amendment. He was trying to order a referrendum on his own authority, and the courts ruled it was illegal.

Hmmm, this reasoning, applied to the U.S. would leave us in a quandry if the President ordered the military to arrest every member of the Congress. Under separation of powers, the Courts would have no power to compell any member of the military to disobey an order of the President, and under our Constitution, the courts have no power to remove the President from office, and without a Congress in place, the President could continue on in power legally.

Furthermore, my guess is that "binding" or not, the President of Hondorus has no power to order a referendum PERIOD.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Right after the section giving the President the power to order referrendums (binding or not)

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Actually no.
The Congress must initiate impeachment proceedings, but the military is sworn to uphold the Constitution, as defined by the SCOTUS, and is NOT answerable to the president as the highest authority.

Just as the military is required to disobey an unlawful oder by a superior in the armed forced, it is also required to disobey unlawful oders by the predisent, CIC.

This is why the unitary executive argument is so important.
If one were to accept the unitary executive argument, then the president would be the final word on what all members of the executive did.
But that has never been the case in the past.
In fact, after the Civil War, Congress was directing the military directly, and was by passing Andrew Johnson.