rahrah, please read the news for comprehension. An aspiring communist dictator attempts to illegally change the Honduran constitution (Article 239)(Article 384) despite rulings from the country's supreme court and its democratically-elected congress. The military, operating with a court order issued by the Supreme Court, relieved him of his duties.
So, rahrah, now you're against a democratically elected government abiding by their own Constitution? Oh, of course, I forgot...you're an Obamamaniac, and think the Constitution is not relevant anymore.
I have found nothing indicating anything untoward in the 2005 election of Manuel Zelaya. If you have something showing otherwise, please provide it.
If you can't, the only conclusion is that you support the undemocratic usurpation of power by force in Honduras.
You're either a supporter of universal democracy or you're not. It's blatantly hypocritical to demand free and fair elections in Iran while welcoming the exile of a democratically elected leader in Honduras.
Zelaya was democratically elected as President in 2005 to serve a term from 2006-2010. By all accounts the referendum to extend constitutional term limits would have been illegal. It has not yet taken place.
Instead of negotiating or pursuing legal strategies to continue to prevent the referendum, the military decided to take power by force. This is decidedly undemocratic, and I'd venture to guess as illegal as the referendum itself.
The fact still stands that Zelaya was elected. If he was doing something illegal, his opponents should pursue the Honduran equivalent of impeachment.
Dude, rahrah, go read Honduras Constitution Article 239 and Article 384. Zelaya violated the Constitution in such a way as to require his removal from office. The Supreme Court took constitutionally sanctioned action, as is their duty.
"Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution reads: Article 239 — 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."
My fault on the other Article, it's Article 374. Article 374 bars any amendments regarding the length of the presidential term.
I wanted you to know that I do want to examine this more closely with you, *possibly* to admit error, but it may be a day or two. I had a small surgery earlier today and the pain medicine really takes away my ability to do more than make snide comments. Don't want you to think I'm cowering in defeat or trying not to be accountable for what I say.
it appears that the ousting was likely legal (making me wrong). I don't think it was necessarily right or handled in the best way, nor do I think the restrictions in the Honduran Constitution are particularly democratic concerning this issue. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be followed. If anyone would like me to expand on what I mean, just ask. Otherwise I don't feel like typing somethin.g no one will read.
Summary though, the H. Const. seems to have been served well, democracy...not so much.
rahrah, I've traveled quite a bit and I've come to understand that "our" brand of democracy is not necessarily identical to the "democracy" practiced in other countries. I also lived in Honduras for a year or so and learned that it has a very corrupt government. That said, I stand by their right to enforce their own Constitution and applaud their efforts in defiance of the left-leaning dictators (and wannabees, such as Obama) shouting for them to throw it out and join the Communist cabal.
I just think a Constitution that precludes even suggesting something be changed isn't so great. I also know that I'd be uncomfortable living in a nation where the Supreme Court could direct the military to remove the President in the wee hours of the morning.
The difficulties of governing a third world (or even a second world) country are often much different than those faced here in the U.S. I'd submit that the remedies for some actions by high officials in other countries reflect their necessity based on the reality in which they live. Our rules might not work there; their rules might seem a bit incongruous here in the U.S. As a buddy of mine said one day while we were driving south in Nicaragua from the Honduran border, "We ain't in Kansas anymore, Toto."
Or are they just twits?
For clarity, you're supporting a military coup, one ousting a democratically elected leader?
ReplyDeleteWas it not long ago that you were chiding our President for not condemning strongly enough a sham election?
Is democracy not always best?
"Was it not long ago that you were chiding our President for not condemning strongly enough a sham election?"
ReplyDeleteHe's not condemning a sham election in this case, either. and there's nothing "democratic" about the Honduras election either.
Do they not teach critical thinking skills or even reading comprehension skills to students at State anymore?
rahrah, please read the news for comprehension.
ReplyDeleteAn aspiring communist dictator attempts to illegally change the Honduran constitution (Article 239)(Article 384) despite rulings from the country's supreme court and its democratically-elected congress. The military, operating with a court order issued by the Supreme Court, relieved him of his duties.
So, rahrah, now you're against a democratically elected government abiding by their own Constitution?
Oh, of course, I forgot...you're an Obamamaniac, and think the Constitution is not relevant anymore.
I have found nothing indicating anything untoward in the 2005 election of Manuel Zelaya. If you have something showing otherwise, please provide it.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't, the only conclusion is that you support the undemocratic usurpation of power by force in Honduras.
You're either a supporter of universal democracy or you're not. It's blatantly hypocritical to demand free and fair elections in Iran while welcoming the exile of a democratically elected leader in Honduras.
Jaycee,
ReplyDeleteZelaya was democratically elected as President in 2005 to serve a term from 2006-2010. By all accounts the referendum to extend constitutional term limits would have been illegal. It has not yet taken place.
Instead of negotiating or pursuing legal strategies to continue to prevent the referendum, the military decided to take power by force. This is decidedly undemocratic, and I'd venture to guess as illegal as the referendum itself.
The fact still stands that Zelaya was elected. If he was doing something illegal, his opponents should pursue the Honduran equivalent of impeachment.
Dude, rahrah, go read Honduras Constitution Article 239 and Article 384.
ReplyDeleteZelaya violated the Constitution in such a way as to require his removal from office. The Supreme Court took constitutionally sanctioned action, as is their duty.
End of story.
I've asked a fluent friend to translate 239, but you'll have to point me to 384. It's not listed on the constitution I've found.
ReplyDeletehttp://congreso.gob.hn/constitucionVigentes.htm
No translation needed:
ReplyDelete"Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution reads:
Article 239 — 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."
My fault on the other Article, it's Article 374.
Article 374 bars any amendments regarding the length of the presidential term.
jaycee,
ReplyDeleteI wanted you to know that I do want to examine this more closely with you, *possibly* to admit error, but it may be a day or two. I had a small surgery earlier today and the pain medicine really takes away my ability to do more than make snide comments. Don't want you to think I'm cowering in defeat or trying not to be accountable for what I say.
rahrah, I just call 'em like I see 'em.
ReplyDeleteYour view may vary, but I do respect that.
it appears that the ousting was likely legal (making me wrong). I don't think it was necessarily right or handled in the best way, nor do I think the restrictions in the Honduran Constitution are particularly democratic concerning this issue. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be followed. If anyone would like me to expand on what I mean, just ask. Otherwise I don't feel like typing somethin.g no one will read.
ReplyDeleteSummary though, the H. Const. seems to have been served well, democracy...not so much.
rahrah, I've traveled quite a bit and I've come to understand that "our" brand of democracy is not necessarily identical to the "democracy" practiced in other countries.
ReplyDeleteI also lived in Honduras for a year or so and learned that it has a very corrupt government.
That said, I stand by their right to enforce their own Constitution and applaud their efforts in defiance of the left-leaning dictators (and wannabees, such as Obama) shouting for them to throw it out and join the Communist cabal.
I just think a Constitution that precludes even suggesting something be changed isn't so great. I also know that I'd be uncomfortable living in a nation where the Supreme Court could direct the military to remove the President in the wee hours of the morning.
ReplyDeleteThe difficulties of governing a third world (or even a second world) country are often much different than those faced here in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteI'd submit that the remedies for some actions by high officials in other countries reflect their necessity based on the reality in which they live.
Our rules might not work there; their rules might seem a bit incongruous here in the U.S.
As a buddy of mine said one day while we were driving south in Nicaragua from the Honduran border, "We ain't in Kansas anymore, Toto."