and now.... Honduras.

[grumbler]

It is also amusing to read the report that The Hamateur and his McClatchy buddies misinterpreted to read that "his removal from power was legal and constitutional." 

Turns out, it says nothing of the kind.  It merely noted that "Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system," which is merely a statement of opinion about what a single scholar thought was the mindset of the Honuran officials, and also noted that "removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution," which means that his 'removal from office" was, in fact, unconstitutional (since the only power the Congress had was to promote the VP in the case of the "absolute inability" of the president to carry out the functions of his office, and the President was only unable to carry out his duties because of the illegal actions of the Army).

As a side note, Congress's power to interpret the Constitution can only be undertaken "in ordinary sessions in a single term, with a two-thirds vote of all its members."  This requirement does not appeear to have been met, and I am surprised that Norma C. Gutiérrez, Senior Foreign Law Specialist, ignored this point.

[The Minsky Moment]

Point #2 isn't necessarily indicated by the article. There have been funny games played with quorum rules in American history.

Games with quorum yes.  But has a senate impeachment trial ever been held in a session where a number of key senators were deliberately uninformed of the session?  Indeed has any significant legislative action occurred under such conditions?  This is a bird of a very different feather.

I'm also not sure that it is material whether the vote was based on forged evidence (in this country, would it matter if the president was removed from office based on false evidence? I don't think there is a constitutional remedy for that situation).

It would matter if the question was not confined merely to the question of facial legality, yes.

[KRonn]

Exactly.

The Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant.  The Army decided not only to execute the warrant, but then sua sponte to impose punishment and sanction.

Ok then.  I guess this was a coup then.

Wow did this situation ever get misrepresented to me.  I mean they guy probably would have been stripped of the Presidency anyway but...

Yep, from the first news reports I saw and heard, I also got a very different impression and idea of how and why this occurred.

[alfred russel]

Point #2 isn't necessarily indicated by the article. There have been funny games played with quorum rules in American history.

Games with quorum yes.  But has a senate impeachment trial ever been held in a session where a number of key senators were deliberately uninformed of the session?  Indeed has any significant legislative action occurred under such conditions?  This is a bird of a very different feather.

I'm also not sure that it is material whether the vote was based on forged evidence (in this country, would it matter if the president was removed from office based on false evidence? I don't think there is a constitutional remedy for that situation).

It would matter if the question was not confined merely to the question of facial legality, yes.

I guess it comes down to how legitimate you expect institutions in Honduras behave. My expectations are fairly low. An election is (apparently) going to be held less than 6 months after the removal of Zelaya, the Supreme Court signed off on the removal (although after the fact), and the legislature approved the removal (although under sketchy circumstances).

I understand the political reasons to insist on Zelaya returning--we want to make sure that Latin America doesn't perceive us to be orchestrating coups against their left wing governments which would feed into the Chavez narrative--but I don't know if there is much reason beyond that.

[The Larch]

I understand the political reasons to insist on Zelaya returning--we want to make sure that Latin America doesn't perceive us to be orchestrating coups against their left wing governments which would feed into the Chavez narrative--but I don't know if there is much reason beyond that.

The only problem with that logic is that Zelaya's government wasn't left wing, but center-liberal.

[alfred russel]

I understand the political reasons to insist on Zelaya returning--we want to make sure that Latin America doesn't perceive us to be orchestrating coups against their left wing governments which would feed into the Chavez narrative--but I don't know if there is much reason beyond that.

The only problem with that logic is that Zelaya's government wasn't left wing, but center-liberal.

And maybe that is why the democratic institutions closely linked to his government endorsed his removal after he was viewed as moving to the left?

[The Larch]

I understand the political reasons to insist on Zelaya returning--we want to make sure that Latin America doesn't perceive us to be orchestrating coups against their left wing governments which would feed into the Chavez narrative--but I don't know if there is much reason beyond that.

The only problem with that logic is that Zelaya's government wasn't left wing, but center-liberal.

And maybe that is why the democratic institutions closely linked to his government endorsed his removal after he was viewed as moving to the left?

In which way was he "moving to the left"?

[alfred russel]

I understand the political reasons to insist on Zelaya returning--we want to make sure that Latin America doesn't perceive us to be orchestrating coups against their left wing governments which would feed into the Chavez narrative--but I don't know if there is much reason beyond that.

The only problem with that logic is that Zelaya's government wasn't left wing, but center-liberal.

And maybe that is why the democratic institutions closely linked to his government endorsed his removal after he was viewed as moving to the left?

In which way was he "moving to the left"?

The left? :p

As I said yesterday, I don't know anything that I haven't recently read on wikipedia or in this thread (aside from a few stray news articles that are probably even less reliable). That is how wikipedia characterized his time in office, with the adjective "sharply" included.

[grumbler]

I understand the political reasons to insist on Zelaya returning--we want to make sure that Latin America doesn't perceive us to be orchestrating coups against their left wing governments which would feed into the Chavez narrative--but I don't know if there is much reason beyond that.

There is that, plus the idea that successive US administrations have believed that extending the rule of law was in US interests. 

I think that there is no question but what Zelaya was pushing an agenda that went far beyond that of his colleages, but you cannot just kidnap and exile your duly elected President for that.

[The Minsky Moment]

I understand the political reasons to insist on Zelaya returning--we want to make sure that Latin America doesn't perceive us to be orchestrating coups against their left wing governments which would feed into the Chavez narrative--but I don't know if there is much reason beyond that.

It has been a consistent policy of the US since the end of the Cold War to oppose military coups in Latin America.  Including Chavez 1992 BTW.
I think it is as simple as that.

[derspiess]

In which way was he "moving to the left"?

Uh, pretty much every way?

[citizen k]

Zelaya: US-brokered pact for Honduran crisis fails
By JUAN ZAMORANO, Associated Press

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya said Friday that a U.S.-brokered pact failed to end a four-month political crisis after a deadline for forming a unity government passed.

"The accord is dead," Zelaya told Radio Globo from "There is no sense in deceiving Hondurans."

Forged last week with the help of U.S. diplomats, the pact gave the two sides until midnight Thursday to install a government with supporters of Zelaya and Roberto Micheletti, who was named interim president by Congress after Zelaya was ousted on June 28.

Jorge Reina, a negotiator for Zelaya, said the pact fell apart because Congress failed to vote on whether to reinstate the deposed president before the deadline for forming the unity government.

The pact did not require Zelaya's return to the presidency. It left the decision up to Congress. Zelaya interpreted that to mean that Congress had to vote on the issue by Thursday.

Supporters of Micheletti, who was named interim president by Congress after Zelaya was ousted on June 28, disputed that, saying the pact required that members of the unity Cabinet be in place by Thursday but that there was no deadline for Congress to meet.

"The de facto regime has failed to live up to the promise that, by this date, the national government would be installed. And by law, it should be presided by the president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya," Reina said.

Shortly before midnight, Micheletti announced that a unity government had been created even though Zelaya had not submitted his own list of members. Micheletti said the new government was composed of candidates proposed by political parties and civic groups. He did not name the new members.

"Everybody, with the exception of Mr. Zelaya, recommended Hondurans to lead the institutions of our country as part of the new government," Micheletti said.

He said the unity government "is representative of a large ideological and political spectrum in our country and complies strictly with the agreement" brokered last week.

It was the latest setback for international efforts to resolve the Honduran standoff before Nov. 29 presidential elections, which several Latin American countries have vowed not to recognized if held under the coup-installed government.

The United States has suspended millions of dollars in aid to the impoverished Central American nation. But Washington had hoped that having a unity government in place before the elections would end the diplomatic isolation of a country that is a traditional U.S. ally.

The elections had been scheduled before Zelaya's ouster. Neither he or Micheletti are candidates.

Hundreds of Zelaya supporters gathered outside Congress on Thursday to demand his reinstatement. The protesters said they will boycott the elections if Zelaya is not returned to power beforehand to serve out his constitutionally limited single term, which ends in January.

Reina accused Micheletti of preparing "a great electoral fraud this November."

"We completely do not recognize this electoral process," Reina said. "Elections under a dictatorship are a fraud for the people."

Soldiers flew Zelaya into exile at gunpoint over a dispute on whether to change the Honduran constitution. Opponents claimed Zelaya was trying to extend his time in office by lifting the ban on presidential re-election. Zelaya denied that was his goal.

[The Larch]

In which way was he "moving to the left"?

Uh, pretty much every way?

Such as?