Comments on: Holy crap, I think I figured it out

By: Scott Jacobs

Scott Jacobs — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:13:46 +0000

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).

By: Ira

Ira — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:20:00 +0000

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

By: Ira

Ira — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:18:02 +0000

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.

By: Larry Sheldon

Larry Sheldon — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:39:07 +0000

Spelling error.

he can altar reality … as in “miracles”

By: Kevin Murphy

Kevin Murphy — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 07:36:44 +0000

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

By: Juan

Juan — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 07:29:09 +0000

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.

By: Juan

Juan — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 07:27:24 +0000

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.

By: JVW

JVW — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 07:04:25 +0000

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.

By: in_awe

in_awe — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:55:27 +0000

Obama 2016: what Constitution?

By: Ira

Ira — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:55:22 +0000

     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?