Honduras Defends Its Democracy!

POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Sunday, July 5, 2009 04:15
VIEWED: 13327
PAGE 5 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Saturday, July 4, 2009 2:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, since the Iranian Supreme Leader said that vote was OK and refused a re-vote that's fine with you too.

About as fine as letting the President of Honduras call an illegal referendum to start the process of having himself named president-for-life, a la his buddy Chavez.

If he wanted the referendum, there were legal means available to him. If he had the support of the people, they could have influenced congress to call for the vote. Instead, he sidestepped the constitution and the Supreme Court, arrogating to himself powers he did not have under the law.

You accuse Pres. Bush of doing the same thing and call for his impeachment, Why not Pres. Zelaya?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, July 4, 2009 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The referendum was a NONBINDING VOTE to get a sense of whether the people favored allowing a President to run for a second term.

So? It was still illegal for the president to instigate such a referendum. He was told so by both the Congress and the Supreme Court, and declared he would hold it anyway. I would have preferred that the Congress impeach him. If he returns to Honduras, they have stated they will arrest and try him.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, July 4, 2009 2:50 PM

Hmmm. Interesting article that quotes at length from the Honduran Constitution.

http://www.redcounty.com/memo-president-obama-read-honduran-constituti
on?taxonomy=26

These folk are really serious about not having a president-for-life.

"Title II, Chapter 3: (citizens)
Article 42: The legal rights of any citizen is lost:
5) If the citizen incites, promotes, or supports the continuance or the re-election of the President of the Republic;"

Also,

"Title II, Chapter 4: (executive power)
Article 238: In order to become the President of the Republic or designated to the Presidency, one must:
3) Be in possesion of a citizen's legal rights;"

So, in supporting the re-election of himself, the President forfeits his citizen's legal rights and can no longer be president.

Article 374 states that the constitutional amendment process cannot be used to change, among other things, the current presidential term limit. So the only way the President could have more than one term would be to suspend the Constitution, sort'a like his buddy, President-for-life Chavez, did.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KWICKO

Saturday, July 4, 2009 3:21 PM

Quote:
You accuse Pres. Bush of doing the same thing and call for his impeachment, Why not Pres. Zelaya?

You accuse Zelaya of doing the same thing and call for his ouster. Why not Bush?

KWICKO

Saturday, July 4, 2009 3:25 PM

Can someone show me where it says "president-for-life" anywhere in ANY of the Honduran constitution or the proposed referendum?

Is he trying to be "president-for-life" in the same way that Bloomberg declared himself mayor-for-life in New York? Where was all of your outrage when that happened?

Or could it be that the whole "president-for-life" is just something you're making up out of thin air, a lie in other words?

Say it ain't so, Geez - tell me you aren't just parroting the party line.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

GEEZER

Saturday, July 4, 2009 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can someone show me where it says "president-for-life" anywhere in ANY of the Honduran constitution or the proposed referendum?

Okay, President for more than one term, then. Under the Honduran constitution, as linked to above, it's not only illegal for a president to serve more than one term, it's illegal to politic for the president to serve more than one term, or to try and change the constitution so the president can serve more than one term.

The "President-for-life" comments come from comparing Pres. Zelaya's actions with those of his buddy Pres. Chavez of Venezuela, who has suspended the Venezuelan Constitution, packed the Venezuelan Congress and Supreme Court, and pretty much made himself...President-for-life. Zelaya would have to do the same things to run for another term, and was starting down that road, so the comparison seems apt.

Or, since Zelaya is only violating the laws and Constitution of Honduras by trying to be president for more than one term (he says), rather than president for life, does that excuse his actions?

Quote:
Is he trying to be "president-for-life" in the same way that Bloomberg declared himself mayor-for-life in New York? Where was all of your outrage when that happened?

What Bloomberg did, although I consider it a bad idea, was done legally. Zelaya's actions were in direct contravention of the Hondurian Constitution.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 4, 2009 4:40 PM

Basically, we're talking about term limits.

Personally I would have liked to have seen an independent poll taken in order to get a sense of how the population felt about the issue. My understanding is that Zelaya's popularity was rising among the poorer segment of the population, and that threatened the wealthy (which includes the Congress and the Supreme Court) With a Presidential vote coming up in November, if Zelaya had as much support as some people claim (and I have no idea) people might have wanted a chance to vote for him again.

GEEZER

Saturday, July 4, 2009 6:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Basically, we're talking about term limits.

And the Honduran Constitution sets the term limit for the President, and also has a provision that that term limit cannot be changed by Constitutional Amendment. Now stop for a second and think why such a thing would be included in the Honduran Constitution in such strong terms.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 4, 2009 6:46 PM

Well, I have, and I understand the intention. But I've always thought term limits were stupid for a number of reasons.

GEEZER

Saturday, July 4, 2009 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I have, and I understand the intention.

Then you might also understand why he was removed from where he could have called on military forces loyal to him personally, rather than to the country, instead of just being impeached in place. The history of strong men in Central and South America has to inform the decisions of every constitutional government there.

Quote:
But I've always thought term limits were stupid for a number of reasons.

And the Constitution of Honduras says they are needed, and will always be needed, for reasons that seem perfectly clear to the Hondurans.

Pres. Zelaya clearly violated the provisions of the Constitution which ban politicking for extending the term of the President. He'd be gone one way or the other. Would you have preferred Zelayaist military fighting it out in the streets with military loyal to the constitutional government? That's happened enough in the region to motivate the government to try something different.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE