There have been such coups, and ones that also did turn over such power afterwards, e.g., the coup in Guatemala in 1993:

Jorge Serrano Elías - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________

IMO, it boils down to who is actually really attempting a coup, El Presidente or the military. That's a very tough call here IMO. If the military and others are trying to prevent someone from effectively carrying one out, then it's a defensive action of the Constitution and laws. Zelaya wasn't playing by the constitutional rules in what he was seeking to do, which was actions intended to assist him to remain in power in violation of the Constitution.

__________________

This is the 16th constitution of Honduras, written under military rule as they came out of the last military government in 1982.
Generally the constitution describes three equal branches of government, in practice there is the executive branch, and two less than equal branches.
There was a provision added that says that supplanting popular sovereignty is a crime of treason against the Fatherland.

The question is, by refusing to hold a referendum, was the Supreme Court and the Congress trying to supplant popular sovereignty.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Now we have Pres Obama saying it wasnt legal.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...cle=1&catnum=0

IMO, power resides with the people. If they feel the law isnt serving them, then they have the right to change it through force. The military appears to side with the people.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

IMHO, it's really not our business to declare who is or is not the President of Honduras.

Matt

And actually, after reading some more, it kinda seems like the people want Zelaya back. I wonder if they really know whats going on. Im on the fence given stuff like this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/lates.../idUSN29399379

UPdate: and i find it crazy that Honduras has a law which says its illegal to even propose doing away with term limits. In a way, I wish we had that kind of thing here. Any politician who even thinks about being relected goes to jail.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

sadly OBAMA seems to be alligned with Castro and Chavez on this issue...

__________________
http://www.BHOCOUNTDOWN.com



"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers." -Ronald Reagan

So, according to your reasoning, it would be perfectly Constitutional for the SCOTUS to issue an order to members of the military to foreceably remove the President from office?

Could the Court, absent a law by Congress, order the Treasury Department to collect a new tax of the Courts design?


But neither of the other branches may, of its own authority, order anyone in the executive branch contrary to the orders of the President. The branches are "seperate but equal". If a member of the Executive Branch, at either the order of or the acquiesence of the President were to ignore an order by the court, the Court has absolutely no Constitutional power to compell compliance. The Constitutional rememdy would be for the Congress to impeach the lawless President, thus removing the Executive Branch from their power.

And it was utterly unconstitutional, then, as it would be now. Congress has no authority to issue orders to the military.

I love how some people seek to deny the Executive Branch powers clearly vested in it by the Constitution blindly failing to recognize that in doing so they are granting powers to the other branches that are not granted them.

__________________
"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

Im not sure an oath is legally enforceable. You have to have a law backing it up. In our case, the military has to follow the Presidents orders before anything else. Congress does have the power to make laws regarding how the President executes that power. Their power of course also is in removing the president from power, which could be done pretty quickly.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

As I have said, it is up to Congress to initiate impeachment, not the SCOTUS.
The court can only rule on existing laws, executuve orders, etc.
So the courts can prevent oders from being carried out by the military or any member of the executive, but not give any new ones.

The branches are separate but equal, but the President only presides over the executive, not be its sole authority.
For example, no member of the executive can be compelled to follow an illegal order givern by a president. All members of the executive, including the military, are required to disobey all illegal presidential orders.
And the courts can tell the executive which orders are illegal.

And no, Congress does have legislative power to order the military directly.
Ultimately the Constitution gives all decision making power to the legislative.
Impeachment is not necesassary in order to enforce compliance by the military. For example, in the Civil War, it was by the consent of Congress that troops were able to be used on donestic soil, so were under congressional control also. Another example would be if Congress were to enact treaties, etc. The military must comply with all Congressional laws, even when against presidential orders.
Otherwise all presidents would be dangerous dictators, who could never be impeached if they did not want to be.

Not true.
The President can not order any member of the military to violate US law or treaties ratified by Congress.
That means the military must obey Congress over the President.
That is true with all levels of the executive.
All members are required to disobey any illegal oders by superiors.
And yes, Congress does have the power to make laws regarding how the president executes that power.
The War Powers Act is a good example.
The draft was another.
The president can not execute contrary to Congressional legislation.

You're understanding of separation of powers is utterly non-existant.

Congress cannot in any way shape or form order the military to do anything. It may appropriate funds and establish the legal framework within which the President may subsequently order them to do things, but Congress cannot of its own authority execute such orders.

As you stated, Congress can make laws regarding how the president may execute his powers in certain areas, but it has no independent power to execute those powers on its own authority.

The War powers is not at all an example proving your point. The War Powers act (which no other Branch has recognized the constitutional legitimacy of) suffers from what has become a fundamental misunderstanding of what the power to declare war comprises. In modern times, through sheer ignorance, the power to declare war has been treated as synonymous with engaging in military hostilities, but it is not. The President has never required a formal declaration of war in order to initiate military action. A declaration of war at the time of the founding had very little to do with the military part of war, and mostly involved granting the executive the power to suspend commerce with those parties named and their allies, triggering of treaty obligations, and suspension of diplomatic relations (i.e., when we declare war on someone, under international law we are no longer required to recognize diplomatic immunity for their diplomats in our country).

The draft is not an example of the Congress issuing orders to the military. In fact, the Congress cannot draft anyone, all it can do is authorize the executive branch to do so.

The President can and should if that legislation is itself contrary to the Constitution and its separation of powers (hence the fact that the war powers act has never been treated as a legally binding requirement by any President)

__________________
"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

Where does it say this in the constitution?

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Not quite true either. The congress has the power to raise an army, and make rules for its regulation. If they do, the president is the commander of it.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

But Congress cannot order the military to do anything in particular, on the President can. Congress could not, for example, order the Joint Chiefs to send troops into a country because Congress is displeased with something going on there.

__________________
"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