According to the post above, it appears that the deportation of Zelaya was, in fact, a lawful action undertaken by the Honduran Supreme Court and the Military.

Their legal system apparently doesn't require an impeachment, and what was done was the lawful way to remove him.

Matt

This is why most coups are not bloodless.

__________________
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

I would strongly doubt that their legal system does not require some kind of a check , for example a possibility to appeal such a decision, because otherwise it is a recipe for continued instability. ( which is the case though in Honduras)
At least also many people inside Honduras question the legality of this action.

I agree it seems an odd way to do it. However:

(from the article cited above)

Matt

I dont know. Im just saying what I would do. I dont pretend to understand everything that goes on there. I just dont beleive in playing games.

__________________
"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 both sides are playing games in that case. Zelaya was basically doing something that president of Uribe of Colombia ( a staunch american ally) also did : Change the constitution to secure a third trem for himself. ( the most notable difference is that Zelaya is a left-winger and Uribe a conservative.
If the military and Zelayas enemies in the judicial branch had been sure that he would loose the referendum, why would they have deposed him like that ?
This move only makes sense if they are afraid of his supporters inside the country, that want Zelaya to stay. And that makes their own democratic legitimacy regardless how you would twist the story questionable, to put it mildly.

My understanding is that proposing the referendum was against the law, and Zelaya was warned and continued to press forward.

Why should the court allow Zelaya to break the law even if they think he will fail?

Matt

Because then he would dig his own political grave whith the world watching ? Because he couldn´t credibly claim to be speaking for the people if he just been defeated in a referendum, right ? In that case Zelaya would have had to go anyway, without provoking a regional crisis.

So the rule of law should be ignored?

I don't see that as a better choice.

Since we couldn´t establish yet, what exactly IS the law in Honduras, that is a speculative question. But that rule of law was the ONLY motive for the coup, seems rather unlikely.

It was established. You can read their constitution yourself. It says proposing changing term limits is unconstitutional and will result in impeachment. The legislature and court impeached him, and the military backed it. Its settled.

__________________
"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

And I suppose to depose him at night to another country without the possibility to appeal is also written in the constitution ? You surely have a link to that in this case.
And I am not defending the person Zelaya, he seems to be a crook like most latin american leaders. I have strong reservations about the "rule of law" that was allegedly restored in Honduras ( a country that wasn´t exactly famous for it before ) and that has a long history of coups ,though.
After all it is remarkable that the landowners and wealthy business people who had every reason to feel endangered by Zelayas leftist policies seem to be backing the coup, while the poor largely back the ousted president.
If the majority of Hondurans wishes an amendment to the constitution, that abolishes term limits for presidents than that is THEIR business, right ?
And they should have the right to push for it WITHOUT the military stepping in, right ?
Anyway, the cleanest way out seem to be new elections with none of the contenders allowed to run in it.

Its not for us to decide. Zelya was removed by the Supreme Court, the Legislature, and the Military. The people appear to support the action. Case closed. They plan an election at the next legal opportunity.

__________________
"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

are you saying that Uribe changed the consitution illegally? Sorry, that won't fly.

Colombian leader Uribe allowed to run for new term
Posted on: Friday, 11 November 2005, 20:24 CST

By Jason Webb

BOGOTA, Colombia (Reuters) - Colombia's Constitutional Court cleared the way on Friday for right-wing President Alvaro Uribe, popular for tough policies against Marxist rebels, to run for a second term in May's election.

The green light for Uribe, who is Washington's closest Latin American ally, came when the court voted 7-2 to approve a law meant to prevent incumbents abusing their powers to unfair electoral advantage.

Without the Electoral Guarantees Law, Uribe could have been barred from contesting the election, which early polls predict he would win by a landslide.

Uribe, who has secured a steep decline in violence and kidnapping since he took office in 2002, has a 70 percent approval rating.

The Constitutional Court last month approved a constitutional amendment allowing presidents to serve more than one four-year term, and politicians and analysts had widely assumed it would give Uribe the final electoral go-ahead.

"The Constitutional Court today declared the statute Electoral Guarantees Law constitutional," the court's president, Manuel Jose Cepeda, told a news conference.



Colombian leader Uribe allowed to run for new term - International News - redOrbit

__________________

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

so why bother having laws at all? Why did he break into a wharehouse and steal the ballots? Is he allowed to steal gov. property too and decide to have his own referendum?

Maybe if Bush would have rightwingers break broken into the warehouses where all those voting machines sit between elections and printed his own ballots, then set them up in wal marts that would have worked too? I suppose you would have been on board with that?

I mean come on......

__________________

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