Honduras Defends Its Democracy

Watermark said:
LOL. The UK and Israel are dictatorships?
Click to expand...

"Some form" dumbshit. Both of those have some form, and I was thinking specifically of the UK when I phrased it that way because I know you're just the sort of nitpicking idiot to respond to my assertion in that way.
 
There may be a plausible argument that the Honduras military defended its constitution, but I fail to see how it defended its "democracy."

I'd also note that I know next to nothing about the Honduras constitution but I presume that there is a mechanism for removing a president from office short of the military arresting him (and his allies) and sending him off to Costa Rica, no?
 
Dungheap said:
There may be a plausible argument that the Honduras military defended its constitution, but I fail to see how it defended its "democracy."

I'd also note that I know next to nothing about the Honduras constitution but I presume that there is a mechanism for removing a president from office short of the military arresting him (and his allies) and sending him off to Costa Rica, no?
Click to expand...

CATO says, "the Honduran constitution does not provide an effective civilian mechanism for removing a president from office after repeated violations of the constitution".

I understand that you would probably want something more neutral. I'm still looking.
 
Epicurus said:
CATO says, "the Honduran constitution does not provide an effective civilian mechanism for removing a president from office after repeated violations of the constitution".

I understand that you would probably want something more neutral. I'm still looking.
Click to expand...


And "effective" sets off all sorts of alarms for me. "Effective" according to whom and in what way is not "effective?"
 
Dungheap said:
There may be a plausible argument that the Honduras military defended its constitution, but I fail to see how it defended its "democracy."

I'd also note that I know next to nothing about the Honduras constitution but I presume that there is a mechanism for removing a president from office short of the military arresting him (and his allies) and sending him off to Costa Rica, no?
Click to expand...

didn't their supreme court order it...

and what if bush did not leave office, would you support him being removed by the military?
 
Epicurus said:
CATO says, "the Honduran constitution does not provide an effective civilian mechanism for removing a president from office after repeated violations of the constitution".

I understand that you would probably want something more neutral. I'm still looking.
Click to expand...

Well it also doesn't provide a mechanism for calling a referendum when the douchebag military-controlled assembly is ignoring the people. The president was responding to a demand. The military should be executed for treason.
 
The military protects the constitution by violating it. How brilliant. I wish we had a way to do that in America, for instance, disabling the second amendment because it hurts the constitution. That would be excellent. Get rid of your guns or go to the gallows now!
 
the president violated the constitution by bringing this to referendum. It was unconstitutional for him to even propose it. Their constitution provides for removal from public office for at least ten years if a president brings up this issue. He was in violation of upholding the constituion, and was legally removed from office with a legal order from the congress, supported by the supreme court and the attorney general.

Are you really that dumb watermark?
 
»∞«;459607 said:
the president violated the constitution by bringing this to referendum. It was unconstitutional for him to even propose it. Their constitution provides for removal from public office for at least ten years if a president brings up this issue. He was in violation of upholding the constituion, and was legally removed from office with a legal order from the congress, supported by the supreme court and the attorney general.

Are you really that dumb watermark?
Click to expand...

that is exactly my understanding....

would watermarx support military action if bush did not leave office or said he was seeking a 3rd term?
 
»∞«;459607 said:
the president violated the constitution by bringing this to referendum. It was unconstitutional for him to even propose it. Their constitution provides for removal from public office for at least ten years if a president brings up this issue. He was in violation of upholding the constituion, and was legally removed from office with a legal order from the congress, supported by the supreme court and the attorney general.

Are you really that dumb watermark?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Yet others say it's Zelaya who's guilty of turning back democratic progress. According to Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, not only is presidential reelection illegal, so, too, is any attempt to reform the law for the purpose of reelection.

Zelaya, however, argues that popular consultation should never be illegal in a democracy. So, he proposed a nationwide, nonbinding poll June 28 to ask the Honduran voters if they would be willing to support a ballot proposition on constitutional reform in the November general elections. Among the proposed changes would be an extension of presidential term limits that would allow Zelaya to run for reelection. Most state institutions argued – and the Supreme Court ruled – that his initiative was illegal.

...

When Zelaya ordered the military to give logistical support to his popular consultation by distributing the ballots to polling stations across the country, Honduras's top general, Romeo Vásquez, refused the order and was subsequently fired for disobeying the commander in chief. The minister of Defense and other military brass resigned in solidarity.

Zelaya pushed forward on his plan anyway, prompting Sunday's coup.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0629/p06s01-woam.html?page=2

obama's admin really put their foot in their mouth on this one
 
»∞«;459607 said:
the president violated the constitution by bringing this to referendum. It was unconstitutional for him to even propose it. Their constitution provides for removal from public office for at least ten years if a president brings up this issue. He was in violation of upholding the constituion, and was legally removed from office with a legal order from the congress, supported by the supreme court and the attorney general.

Are you really that dumb watermark?
Click to expand...

Liar. The military junta is traitorous. The UN should invade and restore democracy. The military juntas heads should be taken off and put on pikes in front of the capital as a warning to further usurpers of democracy.
 
It is illegitimate for a democratic constitution to claim that there can be no debate on a subject. It is illegitimate of a constitution to claim that it cannot be replaced. Therefore, he was not in violation of the laws of humanity in claiming that the a referendum should be held to call a national assembly to write a new one. The military junta decided to usurp him and install a military dictatorship in his place. The people should revolt, kill the military junta, and replace them with their democratically elected president from this military coup.
 
Yurt said:
Yet others say it's Zelaya who's guilty of turning back democratic progress. According to Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, not only is presidential reelection illegal, so, too, is any attempt to reform the law for the purpose of reelection.

Zelaya, however, argues that popular consultation should never be illegal in a democracy. So, he proposed a nationwide, nonbinding poll June 28 to ask the Honduran voters if they would be willing to support a ballot proposition on constitutional reform in the November general elections. Among the proposed changes would be an extension of presidential term limits that would allow Zelaya to run for reelection. Most state institutions argued – and the Supreme Court ruled – that his initiative was illegal.

...

When Zelaya ordered the military to give logistical support to his popular consultation by distributing the ballots to polling stations across the country, Honduras's top general, Romeo Vásquez, refused the order and was subsequently fired for disobeying the commander in chief. The minister of Defense and other military brass resigned in solidarity.

Zelaya pushed forward on his plan anyway, prompting Sunday's coup.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0629/p06s01-woam.html?page=2

obama's admin really put their foot in their mouth on this one
Click to expand...

No wonder Obama supports him.
 
I have to say that i am most impressed, and somewhat surprised, at the sheer depth of knowledge many of our posters display on the machinations of the Honduran constitution and Honduran politics.

On other, less prestigious, boards this issue would merely be used to justify the poster's own political stances but, thankfully, we're a cut above here.
 
»∞«;459607 said:
the president violated the constitution by bringing this to referendum. It was unconstitutional for him to even propose it. Their constitution provides for removal from public office for at least ten years if a president brings up this issue. He was in violation of upholding the constituion, and was legally removed from office with a legal order from the congress, supported by the supreme court and the attorney general.

Are you really that dumb watermark?
Click to expand...

He had the Bitch-flavored Hillary-aid!
 
charver said:
I have to say that i am most impressed, and somewhat surprised, at the sheer depth of knowledge many of our posters display on the machinations of the Honduran constitution and Honduran politics.

On other, less prestigious, boards this issue would merely be used to justify the poster's own political stances but, thankfully, we're a cut above here.
Click to expand...

Heads. On. Pikes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top