tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post4820588691854001191..comments2023-09-12T01:15:08.356-07:00Comments on Honduras Coup 2009: Revisiting the constitutionality... a response to some commentsRAJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-81587610248349169982009-07-19T12:04:15.255-07:002009-07-19T12:04:15.255-07:00I will take DHOFF's comments as an opportunity...I will take DHOFF's comments as an opportunity to interject more of the commentary I am developing on the actual Supreme Court actions, which keeps being overtaken by events, while noting this blog post is about distortions by editorialists and others who have yet to read either the Honduran Constitution or the actual rulings of the Supreme Court of Honduras. I object here to Estrada's misrepresentation of the Constitution.<br /><br />First point: the Honduran Supreme Court's rulings are the final rulings in Honduran judicial affairs. But they in fact had not found President Zelaya guilty. They issued an arrest warrant for him-- and we should note that, as with the clearly forged "resignation letter", many Hondurans are dubious about the timing of that warrant, believing it was produced after the coup. But even if it were legitimately dated before the coup, it was an arrest warrant. There could be no ruling yet on the charges because there had been no trial and thus no presentation of evidence for and against the accused. Many commentators crying "the Supreme Court has the last word" conflate what the Court did rule on-- the order to arrest Zelaya--with rulings of other courts about the proposed poll or referendum (and legally, precise terms do matter). As I think will become obvious if I ever finish the arduous process of translating the judicial documents, most of the legal decisions still needed to be made, and what should have happened even if we accept the rulings of lower courts as likely to have been upheld were further motions, appeals, and perhaps trials. <br /><br />Second point: The Honduran Supreme Court has similar legal authority to the US Supreme Court. But here is the glaring difference that makes equating the two facile. The Honduran Supreme Court is appointed for seven-year terms, in a process controlled by the Honduran Congress. As Honduran historian Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle, Minister of Culture in exile, notes in an editorial translated at <a rel="nofollow">http://quotha.net/node/131</a>, the politicization of the court is one of the facts of the conflict that reflect the unbalanced nature of Honduran constitutional government. So we should not pretend that the Honduran Supreme Court's judgments are apolitical (any more than the US Supreme Court is-- although there, once in a lifetime post, Justices can surprise us all).<br /><br />Third point: the claim that this is a judicial/constitutional coup-- in Spanish, a "golpe tecnico"-- is to some extent valid. But the Armed Forces could have refused to carry out the order they received, which as noted in other commentaries reproduced here, usurps the constitutional role of the National Police. Thus, this is both a <i>golpe tecnico</i>-- especially once Congress accepted a forged resignation letter and then proceeded to base the elevation of Micheletti on a completely different Article of the Constitution about presidential incapacitation-- and a military coup.RAJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-26313431271445025022009-07-19T09:25:35.084-07:002009-07-19T09:25:35.084-07:00I appreciate you translating the relevant portion ...I appreciate you translating the relevant portion of the constitution. My understanding is based on the US Constitution, and that understanding is that the USSC is the supreme and prescriptive authority on interpreting the constitution and I similarly assume the same for the highest court in Honduras.<br /><br />What we think a word means, regardless of how ordinary or supported that meaning is, is irrelevant if the body responsible with interpretation has issued a ruling or other judicial act regarding the interpretation. To make this short, the ruling of the SC of Honduras means whatever the SC says it means. That isn't an opinion, it is a fact (based on the assumption of the SC's role).<br /><br />What I don't understand is why they didn't bother to impeach the president, or in the alternative let him serve out his remaining 6-7 months in office (he can't be re-elected so he is gone when his time is up). During that time they could simply enjoin the president from mentioning, or even secretly dreaming, the any new constitution or any part of the existing constitution that relates to the term limits and the executive office. He makes a single reference to a new constitution, a poll of any sort, or etc. and have the Congress impeach him for violating a judicial injunction. It seems the same result could have been obtained as the abrupt flight to Costa Rica, but the wrong method was used to accomplish this. The military seems to be following judicial decrees, so this is really a judicial/congressional coup, not a military coup. If anything the military is dogmatically following directions.DHOFFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16701531196962646103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-21803403924107067522009-07-15T11:23:41.040-07:002009-07-15T11:23:41.040-07:00Today's WP Article by Juan Forero does seem to...Today's WP Article by Juan Forero does seem to be more reflective, and go beyond the screaming about second-terms. I like the statement by Eduado Maldonado:<br /> "The coffee exporters have congressmen, the bankers have congressmen, the fast-food interests have congressmen," Maldonado said. "That's why the country has been in these difficult conditions . . . because there is not a congress that permits people to participate." <br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071403320_2.html?sid=ST2009071403735Doug Zylstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03023935711242140793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-75710217122920048252009-07-15T08:13:59.350-07:002009-07-15T08:13:59.350-07:00The emerging image of "angry mobs" is te...The emerging image of "angry mobs" is telling, actually, because it goes to what must in one sense be the real thing at stake here. The people = "angry mobs".<br /><br />This, of course, was brought to life vividly when President Zelaya called for the people to join him at the Presidential Palace on Wednesday night, when it seemed there was a technical coup (legislative removal) in the making. He went on the air surrounded by a crowd of people who came there to provide a barrier to any military action. These were the people who he led in a taxi and bus caravan to the air force base to seize the polling materials.<br /><br />What was extraordinary about that crowd of people for me, watching it on Honduran television, was that many of them were wearing the colors of a variety of political parties-- Liberal, National, UD, and others. It was the first time I could literally see that support for Zelaya's poll crossed party lines.<br /><br />I have been interested to see, in the more recent, more reflective print reports, acknowledgment that Zelaya has strong support among the people. But at the same time, I am disturbed that this is now settling into the mode of "his supporters are the poor and dispossessed and uneducated".<br /><br />President Zelaya's government also had the support of many people who were highly educated, as I think this blog is demonstrating. <br /><br />Not that those observers were ignoring problems of administrative efficiency. But when I look back at historical commentary on other Honduran presidencies since the constitution was passed, many of the same faults are cited. This to me suggests that under the Honduran constitution, the office of President is structured in deeply problematic ways.RAJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-88608514781131307242009-07-15T06:34:16.310-07:002009-07-15T06:34:16.310-07:00Re the Estrada; that so many on the right are will...Re the Estrada; that so many on the right are willing to overlook blatant criminality as 'unfortunate' or 'regrettable' because it is politically convenient shouldn't surprise me, but it still does. <br /><br />Re the point about the military's action itself, Adrienne Pine's comments from last Friday's hearings were priceless: <br /><br />"..my translation: "What is to be done? [Throw hands up in air] The military, we try to civilize them, but they have a mind of their own. Who knows what goes on in their heads really? In any case, how Zelaya was removed was just a minor detail. Did I mention how he led the angry mobs?""Doug Zylstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03023935711242140793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-4258905184045444142009-07-15T06:18:29.874-07:002009-07-15T06:18:29.874-07:00Raj -
Page 66 would seem to preclude practically...Raj - <br /><br />Page 66 would seem to preclude practically ANY activity. You could go as far as to say that Zelaya even asking a couple of people on the street their opinions would technically be precluded. That is, as Palacios Ramos says in the piece you referred to, obviously antithetical to a "Constitutional Democracy which depends on the sovereign will of the people."Doug Zylstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03023935711242140793noreply@blogger.com