When is a coup legal?

[KrazyHorse]

Wife is allergic to them, actually. Went into anaphylactic shock a couple of years ago.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Alright, well aside from allergies...

[DaShi]

All berries or just a specific kind?

[KrazyHorse]

She's not sure. She's had strong reactions to strawberries especially, as well as cranberries.

[Barnabas]

The Argentine president is traveling with Zelaya to Honduras, they won't be able to arrest him unless they also want to arrest, or at least mistreat, the Argentine president. I imagine other leftist presidents like Hugo or Correa will do the same.

The coup is doomed, no one is recognizing them. Military coups are no longer tolerable in latin america.

[Kuciwalker]

No latin american country will recognize the new gov, this coup has no future.

If the people don't support Zelaya, then he will lose the election.

Under their Constitution he can't run.

[KrazyHorse]

term limits = stupid

[Kuciwalker]

but also probably Zelaya = stupid

[KrazyHorse]

No idea. Can't even remember if it's Guatemala or Honduras we're talking about.

[Ramo]

There doesn't appear to be a provision in the Honduran Constitution for impeachment of the President, regardless of the illegal actions that the President takes. The real problem here is that their Constitution is really ****ty. And illegally holding a nonbinding referendum to hold a convention to change a crappy Constitution strikes me as a lot more innocuous than a military illegally deposing a democratically elected government. A lot of the right wingers here seem to be fans of the actions of the military, but it really is not a good thing for a fragile democracy with a sordid past when the military illegally arbitrates political disputes.

[Darius871]

I posted none of my opinion of the matter of Honduran politics. But if you want to know, the population has a majority against Zelaya, and the Congress there is working for their constituents and not against them. What your referring to is the fact that in America laws are passed even when a majority of constituents voice their objections and are ignored by their appointed representatives. ... When the government fails to follow the needs of the people the government has failed. When the government heeds the call of the people, the people triumph.

Blah blah blah. You simply can't weasel around the fact that what Zelaya proposed was a referendum, the very same sort of referendum that you think is necessary to make an Article 5 Amendment part of the Constitution. Even supposing you're correct in assuming that the majority of Hondurans opposed Zelaya (and I haven't seen you post any polling data to that effect), then he would have lost in that referendum with no harm done. Instead, the bureaucrats in the judiciary, legislature, and military feared that referendum enough to stop it, regardless of what "the people" may or may not have wanted. That's anathema to what you were arguing in the other thread, and there's no getting around it.

Such as the continued use of the Fed which has a mass of US voters calling for its dismantling.

I'd love to see your polling data proving that an ignored majority of the U.S. citizenry wants the Fed "dismantled" immediately. Just because "a mass" of marginalized Ron Paul fans take that position, that doesn't mean the government doesn't "heed the call of the people." If a majority exists, show it to me. I beg of you.

[zakubandit]

...while Zelaya wins widespread support, including from President Obama as well as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, critics in the United States are asking why the U.S. leader doesn't take a stand against clearly illegal actions by Honduras' ousted chief executive.

So, clearly legal or illegal?

[zakubandit]

Zelaya, the ousted leftist leader, ignored a ruling from the Honduran Supreme Court, warnings from the military and opposition by a sizable swath of his country's population when he maneuvered to amend his country's constitution, apparently in hopes of extending his own rule

So, yea?

[DinoDoc]

But now when someone proposes a referendum whereby the voting public can choose whether to amend a term limit, that's "usurping" power?

Well in his defense, wouldn't such a referendum be illegal without an act of Congress? The President also defied a ruling against him to continue with the referendum and his followers attacked a military base to sieze ballots.

[Darius871]

So, clearly legal or illegal?

So, yea?

So, you just refuse to respond I take it? I'm asking a serious question: were the decisions of bureaucrats in the Honduran judiciary and legislature a better gauge of what the "people" want than a voter referendum, or not? Is there any polling data indicating that a majority of American citizens support dismantling of the fed, or not? These are very simple questions, which by definition are supposed to elicit answers. What are your answers to these questions? Do you have any? You liked to brag in the other thread how you'd never "cower and run," but somehow you can feel free to totally ignore simple questions asked of you, because they're inconvenient? I dare say you are a coward after all. No wonder you chose an armored MOS.



For anybody just tuning in, this is the quote I'm referring to:

Yes, the government can propose changes and additions to the Constitution. Yet we have have checks and balances installed that ensure that nothing will be done without majority approval. Proposal moves its way around the 3 branches, but still must be presented to the people to make their vote. If this is surpassed, or not properly done, then the legislatures passing said proposal would be violating the transparency of government, and the ability of the people to dictate their rights and laws has been usurped.

Now apply that principle to a fact pattern where Zelaya proposed a referendum to fix the Honduran Constitution, but judicial and legislative bureaucrats wouldn't have it. Apparently Zakubandit supports Zelaya here and doesn't even know it.