The Jury Talks Back

7/1/2009

Holy crap, I think I figured it out

Filed under: Uncategorized — Scott Jacobs @ 9:14 pm

Ok, work with me here.  I am running without links, so while I might be off one minor details, it won’t change the overall scope of my epiphany.

President Obama has held slightly opposing views on the situations in Iran and Honduras.  Regarding Iran, he mostly holds that it is an internal matter, and while he’s poopoo’d the violence against the protestors, he’s mostly said it is all internal and we should butt out and not say much.  Even the condemnation of the violence took a while.

However, regarding Honduras, he was quick to come out condeming the “military coup”, claiming that the will of the people should be heard.

Why the disparity?

It’s simple, but to understand it, you have to know WHY the Honduran military booted Zelaya.

See, the Honduran constitution says that a President serves one term.  One.  Uno.  Ein.  You shall serve one term, and the number of terms you shall serve is one. You will not serve two.  Three is right out.

Zelaya didn’t like this, but instead of getting the Constitution amended, he decided to hold a refferendum, and thus could claim to have been “elected” when in fact no such thing had happened – you can not be elected to an office you are Constitutionally barred from holding.

So, after he had ignored orders from the country’s highest court to get the eff out, they issued what amounts to a warrant, and the military (which is charged by the constitution to enforce the rulings of the country’s highest court) promptly arrested his sorry tail and sent him packing.

“So?” I hear you say.  “So what.  That doesn’t explain why Obama would have a problem with it…”

Sure it does.  Considering the absolute cult-following that President Obama has (I’ve been told by people that they support his policies – even the ones that have never worked anywhere in the world in the history of ever – because they “Believe in him”, as if by will alone he can alter reality), what do you think the odds are that enough people would want to see a third term for him to try it?

I mean, the man is one of the most power-hungry politicians this country has known in decades, so why wouldn’t he want a third term, Constitutional Amendment regarding Presidential term limits be damned?

Obama doesn’t like the events in Honduras because it reminds him that some countries actually hold their Constitutions in high regard, and actually enforce the darn things.

It sets, essentially, the very dangerous precident of “ousting a man who’s time in office is offically over despite his very real desire to stay in power”.

If you were Obama, wouldn’t that prospect terrify you?

It doesn’t hurt Zelaya’s case (or his apparent support from the Administration or the UN – which has passed a resolution saying Zelaya should be returned to office) that Zelaya was essentially a Chavez puppet.  God knows those people have small side-alters to Hugo set up right next to the High Holy Alter set up for The One.

13 Comments

  1. Yeah, you may be on to something. I was half-listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day and I think he floated a similar idea, so great minds think alike and all that. It certainly makes sense — Obama has seven more years so there is plenty of time for him to work the machinery to get a third term. I don’t think he will ever get 38 states to ratify a Constitutional Amendment that erases the 22nd Amendment, so I guess he would have to pursue some sort of Chavezesque (Chavezistian?) plot to make it happen.

    I am more than convinced, however, that by the time we have suffered through eight years of Obama there will absolutely not be a widespread movement to keep him around.

    Comment by JVW — 7/1/2009 @ 10:40 pm

  2. I think you give the general population of this country far more credit than they deserve.

    These are the people, after all, who care more about Jacko’s death than the events in Iran…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 7/1/2009 @ 10:42 pm

  3. My thinking is more that Obama is a fad, like grunge or Britney Spears. After eight years there are still some diehards who hold on to it, but the majority of people move on to something else. I also have faith that Obama’s incompetence will soon become apparent to enough people so that the bloom will be off that rose.

    Comment by JVW — 7/1/2009 @ 10:54 pm

  4.      I’m a bit confused about what is happening in Honduras and our (i.e., the USA’s) response as voiced by our president.
         First, keep in mind that we who comment at patterico.com have been known to argue that sometimes some of our US Supreme Court justices cast their votes on certain legal issues in an incorrect way, and sometimes that ALL the judges are wrong,
         Zelaya’s presidential term does not end until January, 2010. The Honduran Supreme Court has ruled that Zelaya’s attempt to hold a referendum on some issue would be illegal and Zelaya insists on going forward with that referendum.
         Does anyone know if the Honduran Supreme Court’s ruling is actually correct?
         Has Zelaya been impeached?

    Comment by Ira — 7/1/2009 @ 10:55 pm

  5. Obama 2016: what Constitution?

    Comment by in_awe — 7/1/2009 @ 10:55 pm

  6. Ira (10:55), it seems that most of the relevant documents are (naturally) in Spanish, so we are at the mercy of whatever translations we get from third parties, unless a commenter here is fluent in the language. From what I have been told, the process in Honduras is that impeachment only happens when a president has been arrested (or, others have said, convicted). The congress and court approved his arrest, and the military carried out the order.

    On the other hand, we have what at first glance appears to be a phony letter of resignation, so that complicates matters. I am concerned that the letter might be fake; it seems like congress shouldn’t need it if they are indeed following the letter of the law.

    Comment by JVW — 7/1/2009 @ 11:04 pm

  7. Ira, while the term hasn’t ended, the AG promised to arrest anyone pursuing this illegal referendum, and the president persisted with it, leaving no choice. He was arrested for committing a crime, just as Obama could be if he committed a crime. It’s not the same as an impeachment, but Joe Biden would probably serve as acting president if Obama were arrested, and Honduras is apparently behaving in a similar fashion.

    Comment by Juan — 7/1/2009 @ 11:27 pm

  8. FDR made the depression. He ignored Hitler for a long while. He was very popular, or had election rigging I’m totally unaware of.

    I am unsure if the American people are that stupid today.

    Comment by Juan — 7/1/2009 @ 11:29 pm

  9. It really won’t matter what Obama wants when the Republicans take the House back in 2010.

    Comment by Kevin Murphy — 7/1/2009 @ 11:36 pm

  10. Spelling error.

    he can altar reality … as in “miracles”

    Comment by Larry Sheldon — 7/2/2009 @ 10:39 am

  11. HOLY CRAP, I THINK I’M FINALLY UNCONFUSED

    Assuming for the sake of argument that the information set forth by Octavio Sánchez in his article at is correct and is complete as far as relevant information is concerned, now I understand the umbrage at President Obama’s statements regarding Honduras. Here, in an excerpt from his article is what Sánchez explains:

    Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.

    These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the “Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly.” In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

    Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an “opinion poll” about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

    Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: “No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], 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.”

    Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says “immediately” – as in “instant,” as in “no trial required,” as in “no impeachment needed.”

    Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America’s authoritarian tradition. The Constitution’s provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

    Comment by Ira — 7/2/2009 @ 11:18 pm

  12. Here is the link to Sánchez’ article:
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html

    Comment by Ira — 7/2/2009 @ 11:20 pm

  13. The info is pretty much dead on.

    It is a way in which the system REALLY checks that balance, and holds rulers to the law.

    Such a thing terrifies a lot of politicians, not just democrats (though I think a lot of them are D’s).

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 7/3/2009 @ 12:13 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.