Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
If he broke the law then arrest him and throw him in jail. Let the second in command run the government while he goes to trial. In the mean time pass a bill which sets impeachment procedures.
Of course how can we expect Honduras to do that when we wouldn't even do it for bush. By your own admission we should have been able to forcefully remove Bush as he broke many of our laws.
|
with no legal precedent or constitutional principals laid out for the congress to follow, what should they do?
as to exiling a former ruler, this is world politics. I don't know of a whole lot of countries that would be willing to outright arrest a sitting political leader and charge them with a crime. we don't even do it in this country.
---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
Well, first of all, let's be specific about Honduras' constitution: it was crafted by an assembly during its last dictatorship, so it's not exactly some sort of holy text.
Of course, that is no excuse to ignore it, but the original issue was over a non-binding referendum. These sorts of referenda are allowed in Honduran constitution. Now, given the efforts to block this referendum, one must question just how unpopular the president really was.
|
if the referendum was allowed by law, then why did the supreme court of honduras rule otherwise? point being, it was not a referendum allowed by law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
The supreme court ruled this referendum unconstitutional, not because it in itself violated any laws, but because it was less than 180 days from the general election. So yes, as he planned to go ahead with the referendum, Zelaya was indeed overstepping the supreme court. But the result was that both the supreme court and congress then committed much more egregious violations of the constitution to remove him. Zelaya was sequestered and expelled from the nation, and then congress did a one round vote to destitute him and elect someone else (even though nothing in the constitution says that a single congressional vote is enough to remove the president).
So yes, regardless of what Zelaya did, his removal from power was a coup, and given the penchant of the military to shoot at peaceful demonstrations, the idea that what they are doing is protecting the democratic ideals is nonsense.
|
i'm at a loss to understand how you can seriously think that the actions of the honduran congress, the actual representing body of the people, was a more egregious violation of the constitution. moreover, it wasn't just the congress that elected to remove zelaya, but the court as well.
when the constitution does not specifically outline methods to remedy situations concerning violations of law, the peoples will (through their elected representatives) must take precedence. This was not a coup, no matter how you try to frame the argument. the constitutional process is what needs to be followed, not the 'democratic' process.