AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Military coup or constitutional transfer of power?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/0...index.html

The president of Honduras was forcibly removed to Costa Rica by the military. Governments and politicians around the world are condemning this as a military coup including Hugo Chavez, President Obama, and Hilary Clinton. However, the articles I have read so far have some facts buried in them that suggest that the removal of President Jose Manuel Zelaya was ordered by the nations Supreme Court, and the acting President Micheletti was elevated to that position in accordance within the rules of the Honduran Constitution for when the office of President becomes vacant.

The question I have is this. If these facts are correct, is this still a military coup or is it a constitutional transfer of power? Another question of course is, does the Supreme Court of Honduras have the constitutional power to remove a sitting President?
Well, if Muslim-communist extremists such as Castro, Chavez, BHO and HRC condemn the military coup in Honduras, isn't that proof enough that it was supremely democratic?
Chavez threatened to invade too.
Does not have transport planes, but perhaps Obama would assist his friend? :lol:
quadrat Wrote:Well, if Muslim-communist extremists such as Castro, Chavez, BHO and HRC condemn the military coup in Honduras, isn't that proof enough that it was supremely democratic?

Yes, as a matter of fact.

That aside.
Quote:The question I have is this. If these facts are correct, is this still a military coup or is it a constitutional transfer of power? Another question of course is, does the Supreme Court of Honduras have the constitutional power to remove a sitting President?

No the Supreme Court cannot remove him and did not. The Military did. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum was unconstitutional. They gave no order to oust him.
Coup De Etat are common there. Not necessarily right, not necessarily wrong. It is not only in SA that these occur.
I do not think the Military would have taken that step without encouragement.
eaglestrikes Wrote:That aside.
Quote:The question I have is this. If these facts are correct, is this still a military coup or is it a constitutional transfer of power? Another question of course is, does the Supreme Court of Honduras have the constitutional power to remove a sitting President?

No the Supreme Court cannot remove him and did not. The Military did. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum was unconstitutional. They gave no order to oust him.
Coup De Etat are common there. Not necessarily right, not necessarily wrong. It is not only in SA that these occur.
I do not think the Military would have taken that step without encouragement.

According to this article the Supreme court did tell the army to remove the President.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090628/wl_n..._president

Quote:The Supreme Court, which last week came out against Zelaya and ordered him to reinstate fired military chief Vasquez, said on Sunday it had told the army to remove the president.
DavidR Wrote:
eaglestrikes Wrote:That aside.
Quote:The question I have is this. If these facts are correct, is this still a military coup or is it a constitutional transfer of power? Another question of course is, does the Supreme Court of Honduras have the constitutional power to remove a sitting President?

No the Supreme Court cannot remove him and did not. The Military did. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum was unconstitutional. They gave no order to oust him.
Coup De Etat are common there. Not necessarily right, not necessarily wrong. It is not only in SA that these occur.
I do not think the Military would have taken that step without encouragement.

According to this article the Supreme court did tell the army to remove the President.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090628/wl_n..._president

Quote:The Supreme Court, which last week came out against Zelaya and ordered him to reinstate fired military chief Vasquez, said on Sunday it had told the army to remove the president.

Not what I am seeing in the back and forth's from State.
I think the statement is generic. The Court? Or someone on it?
So far nothing I have seen in the Official Dispatches that says anything about a Court order.
Reuters would do well to cite a source for that rather than leaving it generic.
Here is what the WSJ says.
According to them, the removal of the president was a necessary constitutional measure.

What mechanisms exist in the US constitution for preventing an unconstitutional act made by the president or congress? I don't think there are any. Chief Justice Marshall established the right of the SCOTUS to declare law unconstitutional, over Jefferson's objections.

Congress is occasionally reigned in by the SCOTUS for its constitutional errors. No one seems to reign in the SCOTUS for its constitutional errors.

Suppose, for example, that BHO tried the same thing: A referendum to prolong his power (or something else) that would be clearly unconstitutional. What mechanisms are in place to prevent such a thing, or to correct it ex post facto?
jt Wrote:Here is what the WSJ says.
According to them, the removal of the president was a necessary constitutional measure.

What mechanisms exist in the US constitution for preventing an unconstitutional act made by the president or congress? I don't think there are any. Chief Justice Marshall established the right of the SCOTUS to declare law unconstitutional, over Jefferson's objections.

Congress is occasionally reigned in by the SCOTUS for its constitutional errors. No one seems to reign in the SCOTUS for its constitutional errors.

Suppose, for example, that BHO tried the same thing: A referendum to prolong his power (or something else) that would be clearly unconstitutional. What mechanisms are in place to prevent such a thing, or to correct it ex post facto?

Your reference is to Marbury vs Madison, and was clearly a power grab by the SC. Jefferson should have had Marshall arrested at the time IMO.

Technically, the military did the wrong thing, but for the best of motives. What they should have done, was enforce the upcoming election, and also enforce the constitution, by striking the present prsident from the ballot. When his tenure ended, whether or not he went along with it, they could then clear out the presidential residence, and make room for the new president.

Removing him, prior to end of his tenure, may have been good initiative, but it was poor judgement.
John L Wrote:Removing him, prior to end of his tenure, may have been good initiative, but it was poor judgement.

This begs the question, what do we do if it is found the Barak is ineligible to be Pres?
scpg02 Wrote:
John L Wrote:Removing him, prior to end of his tenure, may have been good initiative, but it was poor judgement.

This begs the question, what do we do if it is found the Barak is ineligible to be Pres?

I have been pondering this very thing. However, I don't really believe he will attempt this. Even the majority of his supporters would rebell, if you can believe that. After all, it took both S&Gs AND Jackasses to pass a constitiutional amendment prohibiting more than two terms.

I suspect we will just push him aside and leave him sitting out in the cold.

Oh, wait a minute. I see that you are talking about this "birth certificate" thing. Sigh,.....it's just another conspiracy theory angle. Like Neal Boortz has stated, time after time. If you want to follow that line, help yourself. But don't expect to get on to his show. It is a dead end, and if we really want to combat his influence, we need to GET REAL.

Please, please, forget this "BHO is not a US citizen" cry. It's going nowhere fast. Concentrate on the Real things. World Net Daily, and Joseph Farrah, have gone around the bend IMO.
John L Wrote:Please, please, forget this "BHO is not a US citizen" cry. It's going nowhere fast. Concentrate on the Real things.
Yes, and let's not forget that not BHO, but God is the true head of state of the U.S.
quadrat Wrote:
John L Wrote:Please, please, forget this "BHO is not a US citizen" cry. It's going nowhere fast. Concentrate on the Real things.
Yes, and let's not forget that not BHO, but God is the true head of state of the U.S.

Don't be an Ass "Q".

Hey, if others can say it, than so can I,......right? S6
John L Wrote:
scpg02 Wrote:
John L Wrote:Removing him, prior to end of his tenure, may have been good initiative, but it was poor judgement.

This begs the question, what do we do if it is found the Barak is ineligible to be Pres?

I have been pondering this very thing. However, I don't really believe he will attempt this. Even the majority of his supporters would rebell, if you can believe that. After all, it took both S&Gs AND Jackasses to pass a constitiutional amendment prohibiting more than two terms.

I suspect we will just push him aside and leave him sitting out in the cold.

Oh, wait a minute. I see that you are talking about this "birth certificate" thing. Sigh,.....it's just another conspiracy theory angle. Like Neal Boortz has stated, time after time. If you want to follow that line, help yourself. But don't expect to get on to his show. It is a dead end, and if we really want to combat his influence, we need to GET REAL.

Please, please, forget this "BHO is not a US citizen" cry. It's going nowhere fast. Concentrate on the Real things. World Net Daily, and Joseph Farrah, have gone around the bend IMO.

Dismissing the subject does not answer the question.
Doesn't matter. It's a losing hand. Ousting him over something, such as this ain't gonna' happen. I like being more realistic about this. Besides, legally, he is innocent until proven guilty.
Back to the subject of the thread, there is this interesting political cartoon, by M. Ramirez.

[Image: mrz063009dAPR20090630025810.jpg]
jt Wrote:Here is what the WSJ says.
According to them, the removal of the president was a necessary constitutional measure.

What mechanisms exist in the US constitution for preventing an unconstitutional act made by the president or congress? I don't think there are any. Chief Justice Marshall established the right of the SCOTUS to declare law unconstitutional, over Jefferson's objections.

Congress is occasionally reigned in by the SCOTUS for its constitutional errors. No one seems to reign in the SCOTUS for its constitutional errors.

Suppose, for example, that BHO tried the same thing: A referendum to prolong his power (or something else) that would be clearly unconstitutional. What mechanisms are in place to prevent such a thing, or to correct it ex post facto?

2nd Amendment and a large, very large, following.
The Precedent was set by our Fore fathers and is embedded in the Constitution as well as the Pre Amble..
John L Wrote:Doesn't matter. It's a losing hand. Ousting him over something, such as this ain't gonna' happen. I like being more realistic about this. Besides, legally, he is innocent until proven guilty.
Legal will not matter if it occurs. What our Founding Fathers did was not legal. Just right.
Legal Concepts are ambiguous in situations like that. Like the man said, the Winner writes the rules.
quadrat Wrote:
John L Wrote:Please, please, forget this "BHO is not a US citizen" cry. It's going nowhere fast. Concentrate on the Real things.
Yes, and let's not forget that not BHO, but God is the true head of state of the U.S.
The difference between God and 'The Muslim' is that God does not believe he is BHO.
eaglestrikes Wrote:
John L Wrote:Doesn't matter. It's a losing hand. Ousting him over something, such as this ain't gonna' happen. I like being more realistic about this. Besides, legally, he is innocent until proven guilty.
Legal will not matter if it occurs. What our Founding Fathers did was not legal. Just right.
Legal Concepts are ambiguous in situations like that. Like the man said, the Winner writes the rules.

Don't get me wrong here: I am totally against the Left's attempt to circumvent the Rule of Law. I was earlier talking about ideal circumstances. But nothing is perfect in this world. And too, just to watch the usual suspects squeal and yell, is a joyous sight to behold,......and hear.

Obama is in Great Company. If the S&Gs were as astute, and had the courage of Ramirez, they would make hay over this. But they are not Stupid and Gutless for nothing, right? Wink1
Here is another thing. Do you see politics here in this? And do you think the willing accomplices, in the media, will ever mention this?

US warns citizens to avoid travel to Honduras
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5