and now.... Honduras.

[The Minsky Moment]

So, if an american president were to try to stay in the White House after his 2 terms, and the US military were to remove him, it would be a military coup?

Under this scenario, a new President would be sworn in and clothed with full constitutional authority; that President could then use all legal means at his disposal to physical remove the first one from the premises. 

A closer analogue to this scenario would be more if in the middle of Monicagate, the Marines marched into the White House, grabbed Bill Clinton, threw him out of the country; following which Newt Gingrich read a forged letter of resignation, and Congress then voted to name Al Gore president, asserting that Clinton had perjured himself and thereby committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" justifying his removal.

[Admiral Yi]

Under this scenario, a new President would be sworn in and clothed with full constitutional authority; that President could then use all legal means at his disposal to physical remove the first one from the premises. 

A closer analogue to this scenario would be more if in the middle of Monicagate, the Marines marched into the White House, grabbed Bill Clinton, threw him out of the country; following which Newt Gingrich read a forged letter of resignation, and Congress then voted to name Al Gore president, asserting that Clinton had perjured himself and thereby committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" justifying his removal.

You're stretching a bit on your analogy Joan.  The Honduran counterpart of the Senate vote on high crimes and misdemeanors is the Supreme Court decision.

[sbr]

Under this scenario, a new President would be sworn in and clothed with full constitutional authority; that President could then use all legal means at his disposal to physical remove the first one from the premises. 

A closer analogue to this scenario would be more if in the middle of Monicagate, the Marines marched into the White House, grabbed Bill Clinton, threw him out of the country; following which Newt Gingrich read a forged letter of resignation, and Congress then voted to name Al Gore president, asserting that Clinton had perjured himself and thereby committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" justifying his removal.

You're stretching a bit on your analogy Joan.  The Honduran counterpart of the Senate vote on high crimes and misdemeanors is the Supreme Court decision.

That and the US Constitution doesn't list perjury as a reason as a reason for removal from office.

[ulmont]

That and the US Constitution doesn't list perjury as a reason as a reason for removal from office.

I dunno.  I'd consider perjury a high misdemeanor.

[Siege]

So, if an american president were to try to stay in the White House after his 2 terms, and the US military were to remove him, it would be a military coup?

Under this scenario, a new President would be sworn in and clothed with full constitutional authority; that President could then use all legal means at his disposal to physical remove the first one from the premises. 

A closer analogue to this scenario would be more if in the middle of Monicagate, the Marines marched into the White House, grabbed Bill Clinton, threw him out of the country; following which Newt Gingrich read a forged letter of resignation, and Congress then voted to name Al Gore president, asserting that Clinton had perjured himself and thereby committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" justifying his removal.

You are so full of shit.

What happened in Honduras is closer to an american president, saying and forcing his way for a 3rd term as the candidate from his party. Completely and ultimately unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure you would support this president depending of wheather he was democrat or republican.

I know your type. We have plenty of weak lefti jews like you in Israel. They want the palestinians from the territories to vote in our elections. They are always trying to take people like me to court for waging war on Israel's sworn enemies. They are weak, and use the judicial system as a tool to maintain the alpha males like me under their boot.

[Fireblade]

Actually my point is that your positions are based entirely on political partisanship and not on some fidelity towards the law.

POT, MEET KETTLE.

[Fireblade]

What happened in Honduras is closer to an american president, saying and forcing his way for a 3rd term as the candidate from his party. Completely and ultimately unconstitutional.

Zelaya was actually illegally trying to change the constitution to stay on for a second term.

[DontSayBanana]

Actually my point is that your positions are based entirely on political partisanship and not on some fidelity towards the law.  I'm still waiting for you to denounce eric holder for his dismissal of the case against the Black Panthers, oops I mean licensed Democratic poll watchers, in the voter intimidation case after there was already a default judgement against them.

I mean you ranted for years at the politizisation of the Bush Justice Dep't, surely you would condemn are far stronger case for illegitimate politicization of justice.

Of course when I challenged you last time on that all I heard was crickets chirping.

Similarly here, your defense of Zelaya is purely political, and not out of any sense of fidelity to the law, I doubt you're capable of that.  That being said, if I were ever guilty of murder I'd hire you in a nanosecond.

Whether or not the bolded part is true, a coup d'etat is actually more illegal than what Zelaya did. He was trying to go through the channels, even if only to manipulate them.

[DontSayBanana]

Zelaya was actually illegally trying to change the constitution to stay on for a second term.

Illegally? If the constitution can be altered through voter referendum, it was legal. Manipulative, devious, possibly even despicable, but legal. Don't confuse legal with ethical.

[The Larch]

I don't know why you keep bringing Obama and Chavez into this,

Pretty sure both are injecting themselves into the debate by insisting that the Hondurans put Zelaya back in power.

Also the UN, the EU, the OAS, UNASUR, MERCOSUR...everybody and their dog was demanding Honduras to restore Zelaya as President back in the day. I don't know how the situation evolved, as I haven't been following it closely, but AFAIK both the USA and the EU, as well as the World Bank (that notorious haven of revolutionaires) were cutting aid to Honduras until the situation was resolved.

[The Larch]

What happened in Honduras is closer to an american president, saying and forcing his way for a 3rd term as the candidate from his party. Completely and ultimately unconstitutional.

Zelaya was actually illegally trying to change the constitution to stay on for a second term.

Nope, not even that. He was trying to make a non binding poll in order to decide if in the scheduled November elections would have a fourth ballot to ask if the Constitution should be amended (it also has to be said that the current Honduran Constitution, drafted in'82, was already ammended more than 20 times in the meanwhile), wanting to reform obsolete articles on it, of which the presidential term limit was said to be one of them. If he got away with the june poll, Zelaya would still have many more hurdles to pass before effectively amending the Constitution, it was not a straight forward thing.

[Admiral Yi]

Whether or not the bolded part is true, a coup d'etat is actually more illegal than what Zelaya did. He was trying to go through the channels, even if only to manipulate them.

"Going through channels" would have meant Zelaya waits until he's out of office before proposing a referendum to change the constitution.  "Coup d'etat" would have meant the army imposed a new ruler on Honduras by fiat.

[DontSayBanana]

"Going through channels" would have meant Zelaya waits until he's out of office before proposing a referendum to change the constitution.  "Coup d'etat" would have meant the army imposed a new ruler on Honduras by fiat.

I don't see where the law barred Zelaya from making the proposal while in office. Again, don't confuse "legal" with "ethical." He was likely trying to exploit the system, but it still sounds as if it was within the bounds of the Honduran constitution for him to do so. Also, show me where the Honduran legislature was authorized to remove him from office as a unilateral action.

I'm convinced that the government was in the right ethically, but not legally, to try to prevent Zelaya from exploiting the system, but Zelaya's actions regarding the proposed referendum were legal; they just weren't ethical.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't see where the law barred Zelaya from making the proposal while in office. Again, don't confuse "legal" with "ethical." He was likely trying to exploit the system, but it still sounds as if it was within the bounds of the Honduran constitution for him to do so. Also, show me where the Honduran legislature was authorized to remove him from office as a unilateral action.

I'm convinced that the government was in the right ethically, but not legally, to try to prevent Zelaya from exploiting the system, but Zelaya's actions regarding the proposed referendum were legal; they just weren't ethical.

I don't think the legislature is authorized to remove him.  I think they're authorized to appoint an interim successor after the court has removed him from office.  Back at the beginning of the thread there was mention of the Honduran law which forbids current office holders from proposing changing that clause. 

[Admiral Yi]

"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, 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."

Here you go.