July 01, 2009
Honduras: What's really happening?
The Obama administration continues to peddle the line -- aided and abetted by a seemingly willfully ignorant press -- that the events in Honduras constitute an illegal coup d'etat.
Donald Sensing, a retired Army colonel, pastor and blogger, did a little bit of research, the results seemingly fatal to the spin favored by Fidel Castro (dictator), Hugo Chavez (tyrant), the Honduran ex-president (would-be tyrant), and the U.S. State Department, that the forcible removal from office of the president was illegal.
Ad fontes: CONSTITUCIÓN DE LA REPÚBLICA DE HONDURAS
Translation by Google (yeah, I know). Since I was once reasonably fluent in Spanish, I have massaged it a little herein; my glosses are in brackets [ ].
Let's consider the following facts seriatim (italics are mine throughout):
Chapter VI, Article 237: "The presidential term is four years... ." There is no provision for self succession. Article 42 forbids inciting, encouraging or supporting the re-election of a president, which Zelaya was unambiguously doing. The Honduran constitution makes no provision for impeachment as we understand the process. However, Article 239 provides that,
No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.
This re-emphasizes that a president may not succeed himself in office - having "already served as head of the Executive Branch," Zelaya was constitutionally inelegible to remain in office after his term expired.
Article 239 continues, Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [Sp.: reforma, or amendment], 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.
Since the constitution strictly prescribes a single term for the president, and since Zelaya was openly campaigning for a second term, the country's supreme court properly ruled, on purely constitutional grounds, that Zelaya must "immediately cease" in his function as president.
Chapter 10, Article 272: The Armed Forces of Honduras are ... established to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic, keep the peace, public order and the rule of the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage and alternation in the presidency of the Republic.
Consitutionally, it is the military that is charged, in concert with civilian organs of government, to ensure that the one-term limit of the presidency is enforced. It is the military that is constitutionally charged with ensuring the intregrity of national elections.
Therefore, the removal of Zelaya from office by the army was not merely appropriate, it was constitutionally required that the army do so. Why does the army have such responsibilities? See my post, "The role of the Honduran military," in the country's history.
Furthermore, when the army's chief of staff refused to send Zelaya's ballots to polling places, Zelaya personally led a mob to the warehouse, stole the ballots and had his minions start to distribute them. This act also violated the constitution because only the army has the constitutional authority to do so.
Yet somehow, the American MSM, the White House and State Department don't do the simple research to see what Honduran law and constitutionality have to say about recent events. Instead, they knee jerked from the beginning and kept on doing it. Their ineptitude is, sadly, no longer surprising. At least I hope it's mere ineptitude, which can be overcome. The alternative is explained by Roger Simon, and it ain't good.
Something to keep in mind as you read countless stories parroting the "illegal coup" meme.
Posted by Mike Lief at July 1, 2009 08:07 AM
| TrackBack