Zelaya To Be Returned To Honduran Presidency

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 08:37:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Good news:

The government of Roberto Micheletti, which had refused to let Mr. Zelaya return, signed an agreement with Mr. Zelaya’s negotiators late Thursday that would pave the way for the Honduran Congress to restore the ousted president and allow him to serve out the remaining three months of his term. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed on Friday that Mr. Zelaya and Mr. Micheletti had approved what she called “an historic agreement.”

Good. The principle is important and must be upheld. Practically speaking, Zelaya was, in essence, stopped in his campaign to overturn the Honduran Constitution's prohibition on reelection of Presidents. He gets to serve his last 2 months in office. A new President is elected on November 29. And this is all over in January 2010. In a way, this is a perfect ending to this story.

Speaking for me only

< The Public Option: It's Up To The Congress | Firday Afternoon News and Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Zelaya To Be Returned To Honduran Presidency | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Zelaya never said (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by wagnert in atlanta on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 06:33:08 PM EST

what changes he wanted in the Constitution. According to the report by the Law Library of Congress, he decreed a referendum, to be held well before the election, to determine whether an extra ballot box be set up in every polling station to count votes for the calling of a Constitutional convention.

The appropriate court (Court of Administrative Litigation) told him he had no such authority. He repeated his decree, told the military to support the referendum logistically, and appealed the court ruling.

When the ruling was affirmed, he refused to acknowledge it. The Chief Prosecutor filed a criminal complaint with the Supreme Court alleging treason against the State (and other things).

The Supreme Court removed Zelaya from office and ordered the military to arrest him. This was to be followed by trial in a lower court (Zelaya no longer being an officer of the state) but, in what was apparently an excess of zeal, the military bounced him out of the country.

On review, the National Congress endorsed his removal from office.

So, the Honduran courts, the National Congress, the military and (judging from the lack of blood in the streets, though there were a few lackluster demonstrations) most of the Honduran people approved of the removal of Zelaya from the Presidency.

Given that the Honduran Constitution does not have an impeachment provision per se, I think the whole thing was legally and neatly done.

Question: What would the US and the OAS prefer be done with a President that defies the law, as interpreted by his Supreme Court?

According to polls (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Watermark on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 07:37:04 PM EST

most Hondurans disapproved of the coup. Zelaya was removed for office for purely political purposes.

[ Parent ]

: Polls? (none / 0) (#32)
by wagnert in atlanta on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 08:37:50 PM EST

Link, please

[ Parent ]

The principle is important and must be upheld. (none / 0) (#1)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 09:02:25 AM EST

Is that the principle that the Honduran Supreme Court should be ignored in stoppong a presidential coup?

: Proposed vote wouldn't have illegally amended (none / 0) (#6)
by fairleft on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 11:29:01 AM EST

the Constitution.

Zelaya is charged with trying to amend the constitution to allow re-election of the president (which would be illegal), yet no one has ever provided evidence to that effect. It is illegal to amend seven particular parts of the constitution, but the wording of the proposed vote did not mention any of them.
I do not care if you are positive he wanted to, as that does not constitute evidence. He said before the coup that he would leave office in 2010. Maybe he was lying, maybe not. But it deserves more investigation before overthrowing him. Ousting a president requires more than just assumptions about intent.
http://weeksnotice.blogspot.com/2009/07/honduras-summing-up-some-basic-points.html
By
Greg Weeks
I am an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. I am the editor of the academic journal The Latin Americanist.

[ Parent ]
: It is incorrect (none / 0) (#17)
by Watermark on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 04:17:59 PM EST

to think that the Supreme Court of Honduras is anywhere near as respectable as ours. Zelaya never said that he was going to reform the provision on presidential term limits.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Supreme Court justices, all of whom had been appointed either be right-wing liberal party presidents or right-wing National party presidents, were scared of the way he had started to tilt to the left. This coup was established for purely political reasons.

[ Parent ]

Works for me (none / 0) (#2)
by Steve M on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 09:13:16 AM EST

Being on the same side of an issue as Miguel Estrada was getting vexing for me anyway.

Ha. (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 11:03:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]

On the other hand it does prove one of my guiding (none / 0) (#11)
by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 02:12:33 PM EST

principles- Mark Penn will always lose.

[ Parent ]

Maybe so (none / 0) (#13)
by Steve M on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 02:27:34 PM EST

but can you remind me what Mark Penn has to do with this story?

[ Parent ]

He (or his firm) lobbied on behalf of the Honduran (none / 0) (#19)
by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 04:22:05 PM EST

Coup supporters http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=eljefebob&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost &plckUserId=eljefebob&plckPostId=Blog%3aeljefebobPost%3a73cc19a5-abed-4865-a6b0-ab9887c95846 &plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest

[ Parent ]

Do you realize (none / 0) (#20)
by Steve M on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 04:52:33 PM EST

that Colombia and Honduras are actually different countries?

[ Parent ]

You know, it is hard to keep track (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by MKS on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 05:18:48 PM EST

Especially the countries in Central America....

Team Hillary did really good here in negotiating a resolution....Even Sully today complimented what she has done as Secretary of State.

[ Parent ]

Amazingly enough, I haven't seen any (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by oculus on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 05:33:40 PM EST

criticism of Hillary Clinton's wearing a head covering while in Pakistan.

[ Parent ]

For some reason (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by Steve M on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 06:18:59 PM EST

people seem to have forgotten how to criticize Hillary. I thought she was the polarizing one and Obama was the charismatic friend-maker.

Of course, reverse the job descriptions and it probably would be just like that, but it's still funny.

[ Parent ]

: Yes...heh. The popularity polls (none / 0) (#29)
by oldpro on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 06:28:11 PM EST

are what's cracking me up!
Go, Hil!

[ Parent ]

Criticism? When in Rome.... (none / 0) (#23)
by oldpro on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 05:43:02 PM EST

...what's to criticize? Repect for culture is one thing...when she wears it in DC, THEN's the time to raise the alarm!

[ Parent ]

Remember the sh#t storm when (none / 0) (#24)
by oculus on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 05:54:21 PM EST

Pelosi covered her head in Syria? Or was it Lebanon.

[ Parent ]

Guess I missed that...oh, well.. (none / 0) (#25)
by oldpro on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 06:11:23 PM EST

Tempest in a teapot IYAM.

[ Parent ]

For sure. Caused by GOP. (none / 0) (#26)
by oculus on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 06:16:38 PM EST

: Their stock in trade. Yawn....! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by oldpro on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 06:27:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Abulbul (none / 0) (#3)
by Dark Avenger on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 09:31:46 AM EST

Doesn't it bother you that the exiling of Zelaya was itself unconstitutional?:

Arguments that Zelaya's removal was illegal have been advanced by numerous Honduran scholars of Constitutional Law[113][114][115] and others.[116] Acting Honduran President Roberto Micheletti said forcing deposed President Manuel Zelaya to leave the country, instead of arresting him, was a mistake.[1][108][117]

Optional Link

yes, but (none / 0) (#7)
by bocajeff on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 11:37:36 AM EST

I'm against the exiling, but not the ouster. I hope I'm wrong, but I think this will turn out poorly...

[ Parent ]

That is a secondary issue. (none / 0) (#8)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 01:12:01 PM EST

The Z man was trying to become prez for life, and the democrats defended their constitution and stopped him.

[ Parent ]

but, (none / 0) (#9)
by bocajeff on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 01:47:50 PM EST

he's for the people...

[ Parent ]

: "The ends justify the means?" (none / 0) (#10)
by Dark Avenger on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 02:08:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: ... as are most political buffoons. (none / 0) (#15)
by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 02:39:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Zelaya never tried to set himself up as president (none / 0) (#18)
by Watermark on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 04:19:07 PM EST

for life. That is a lie, pure and simple.

[ Parent ]

: Hardly a lie (none / 0) (#33)
by Steve M on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 08:58:24 PM EST

An opinion, I guess. A great many people in Honduras, including members of Zelaya's own political party, understood the removal of term limits to be his agenda. Personally I find it hopelessly naive to discount the notion altogether, but it's true that he didn't come out and admit to it.

[ Parent ]

Why was it ever called a coup in the fisrt place (none / 0) (#4)
by Saul on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 10:33:23 AM EST

As a rule a coup is a complete fresh set of agents that are now ruling the country and the old guards that was overthrown is no longer ruling but that was never the case when Zelaya was removed since the duly elected Zelaya government was still in power just absent of Zelaya. The only questionable thing was that Zelaya was escorted out of the country. I did not agree with that but that in itself does not make it a coup.

I do not agree with bringing him back to serve his last 2 months. Seems that you are rewarding someone with a slap on the hand for trying to over throw the very constitution that allowed him to get elected. You can never reward that IMO.

Yes let him come back to his country but he can no longer run for any govt office any any level period.

Trying to amend the constitution (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 02:13:58 PM EST

by vote is not overthrowing it, if he had attemped amendment by fiat that would be what you so fear.

[ Parent ]

It is (none / 0) (#34)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 11:18:04 PM EST

It is it it is an extralegal vote. Z had no consititutional authority to conduct such a vote.

[ Parent ]

: The exile of Zelaya was itself unconstitutional (none / 0) (#35)
by Dark Avenger on Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 09:02:18 AM EST

ARTICULO 102.- Ningún hondureño podrá ser expatriado ni entregado por las autoridades a un Estado extranjero.
ARTICLE 102.- No Honduran can be expatriated nor handed over to the authorities of a foreign country.

Zelaya's wife, Xiomara Castro de Zelaya, charged that the expatriation of her husband was a violation of the Honduran Constitution.[40] Article 102 of the Honduran Constitution forbids expatriating or handing over of Hondurans to foreign countries.[41][42][43]
Optional Link

[ Parent ]

And not only that, but ... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 02:36:19 PM EST

... where were all the generals strutting around in fancy uniforms with lots of brocades and shiny medals, or cigar-smoking, unshaven guys with dressed in military fatigues haranguing the masses from a third-story balcony? I mean, how can you have a real coup in Latin America without those guys?

Such mildly offensive stereotypes aside, I beleive that any sudden removal of a public official by extra-legal or unconstitutional means, with someone promoted to take his or her place extra-constitutionally, can be called a coup, which Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines as "a brilliant, sudden, and usually highly successful stroke or act."

In that regard, Merriam-Webster's also notes a difference between such a coup and a full-scale coup de'etat, in which an entire government is overthrown or removed from political power extra-legally, and usually by forceful and / or violent means.

President Zelaya should be thankful that he can resume power because plotters didn't also deliver a personal coup de grace, as had happened to countless Latin American leaders over the nearly two centuries since the region's collective independence was obtained from Spain and Portugal.

[ Parent ]

Zelaya (none / 0) (#16)
by Watermark on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 04:12:02 PM EST

There was never a campgaign to abolish term limits. Zelaya never said anything about abolishing them. Most importantly, the constitutional referendum he was going to hold took place at the time of his election and there was no way any changes that would have been made to the constitution could have applied to him.

It's NOT illegal to request a new constitution. I'd even go as far to say that if a constitution says that it can never be replaced, the people have a moral right to ignore that provision. No constitution has a right to set itself up as a legalocracy.