FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
A nation without some form of constitution is by definition a dictatorship. The leader has no institutional restraints on his power in that situation.
LOL. The UK and Israel are dictatorships?
A nation without some form of constitution is by definition a dictatorship. The leader has no institutional restraints on his power in that situation.
LOL. The UK and Israel are dictatorships?
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?
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.
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?
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.
»∞«;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?
Yes.»∞«;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?
»∞«;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?
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?
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.