18 Comments

1. Ken  •  Jun 29, 2009 @11:08 am
   

   Ezra, I’ve read pieces coming from both directions on this. I haven’t educated myself sufficiently to comment intelligently yet — suffice it to say that I start from a position of skepticism about both those describing it as a coup and those describing it as a protective measure to prevent a coup. I’ll respond more later after I’ve read up on it.

2. Patrick  •  Jun 29, 2009 @11:44 am
   

   Ezra, since I can’t read Spanish, I can’t comment intelligently on how one goes about amending the Honduran constitution. But I’m going to assume, based on what you’ve written here, that you’re not a Honduran constitutional scholar either.

   I’ll note that this article, written before yesterday’s events, has this to say about the process of constitutional amendment:

   Title VII, with two chapters, outlines the process of amending the constitution and sets forth the principle of constitutional inviolability. The constitution may be amended by the National Congress after a two-thirds vote of all its members in two consecutive regular annual sessions. However, several constitutional provisions may not be amended. These consist of the amendment process itself, as well as provisions covering the form of government, national territory, and several articles covering the presidency, including term of office and prohibition from reelection.

   Assuming that this is indeed what the Honduran constitution says, and that the constitution is a source of observed law in other respects rather than a “figleaf” constitution of the Soviet variety, Zelaya’s attempt to hold a referendum on an additional term was blatantly unconstitutional.

   Moreover, Zelaya attempted to fire the head of the Honduran armed forces, when, again according to this summary, that person is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Honduran congress.

   If any American president attempted to obtain a third term through a referendum the way you people do in California, I’d certainly support his impeachment, and perhaps putting him on an airplane to Costa Rica.

3. Ken  •  Jun 29, 2009 @11:54 am
   

   A related query, via a KipEsquire tweet: here.

4. Ezra  •  Jun 29, 2009 @12:08 pm
   

   I’m certainly not a scholar of anything (except perhaps breakfast cereals..) but, I think that framing the referendum as merely a power grab by Zelaya is a tad disingenuous. I’m not sure Zelaya would have done that. None of us are. The hope of the effort was to give the people of Honduras (traditionally much more leftist than the governing majority and armed forces) more of a voice in the constitution.

   There are people for and against the referendum, but does anyone really think that a military coup was the answer? I’d say that makes the need for the referendum even clearer.

5. David  •  Jun 29, 2009 @12:12 pm
   

   Surely giving the people more of a voice in the constitution must itself occur by constitutional means. That’s the difference between amendment and ex cathedra.

6. Ken  •  Jun 29, 2009 @12:16 pm
   

   The hope of the effort was to give the people of Honduras (traditionally much more leftist than the governing majority and armed forces) more of a voice in the constitution.

   It’s October 2001. Bush proposes to put this question to vote, via toll-free phone in: “shall the people of the United States suspend habeas corpus and any other constitutional provision preventing the administration from protecting the people of the United States and impairing the ability of the President to retaliate against terrorists for 9/11?”

   Ezra, would you characterize that as giving people more of a voice in the constitution?

7. Patrick  •  Jun 29, 2009 @12:16 pm
   

   Regarding Kip’s tweet, and speaking theoretically, it may depend on the severity of the original violation and the degree of emergency. I think a strong case can be made that the Bush administration engaged in a number of unconstitutional acts, and that one remedy for those acts would have been impeachment.

   But, with Bush, things never got to the point of Bush holding a referendum on a third term and, say, deposing Nancy Pelosi. Had Bush done those things, I’d have supported putting him on a plane.

   Again, as none of us reads Spanish, we’re in the dark on what the Honduran constitution says, but consider this article from the (now-disgraced) Cato Institute, where Juan Carlos Hidalgo (I’m guessing he speaks Spanish) says that the constitution doesn’t provide an impeachment mechanism.

   If that’s the case, I’d argue the country was under a constitutional crisis, in which the President was violating clear law, with no effective remedy for the breach (he’d been condemned by Congress and repudiated by the Supreme Court).

   What else were the other branches supposed to do?

8. Steven Taylor  •  Jun 29, 2009 @12:53 pm
   

   Patrick,

   I have read through the Honduran constitution and there the presidential removal process is murky at best (and I have consulted with both an expert on Honduran politics and an experts on world constitutional design).

   Having said that, there were legal mechanism that could have been pursued beyond a pre-dawn arrest and exile of an elected president. And there is clearly no constitutional provision that gave the Supreme Court of Justice, et al. the legal right to do what they did.

9. Patrick  •  Jun 29, 2009 @1:13 pm
   

   Thanks for the insight Steven. Do you know of an English translation for the document? Google was stumped on this one, and of course any translation of a legal document will have its limits.

10. Ezra  •  Jun 29, 2009 @1:14 pm
    

    An interesting question (perhaps only to me..) is how to feel when something like this happens for what one perceives are the right reasons. Do the ends of Velaya trying to rejigger an (in my opinion) inequitable constitution justify the means of holding a referendum ruled illegal by the other branches of government? As Ken says, how would I have felt if Bush tried this? I don’t know where I stand on that, but it is an interesting discussion…

    Right now, I would say both sides are acting counter to the constitution, although I would argue that the coup (and assorted sidebars – the fake letter of resignation the Congress accepted, etc..) might be the more egregious act.

    It really is strange to see the few righty bloggers that are talking about this bend over backwards to talk about the importance of rule of law, given that two years ago, that wasn’t so important to them.

11. Ezra  •  Jun 29, 2009 @1:20 pm
    

    By the way, I will be attending a protest outside the Honduran Consulate here in SF this evening after work. I’ll be sure to recap. I’m really hoping for those huge puppets.

    Does anyone else have trouble taking any protest seriously? I think maybe I am too much of a wiseass.

12. Ken  •  Jun 29, 2009 @1:27 pm
    

    By the way, I will be attending a protest outside the Honduran Consulate here in SF this evening after work. I’ll be sure to recap. I’m really hoping for those huge puppets.

    You’re going to need a very nuanced sign. “Down with responding to what may or may not be constitutional violations with what may or may not be constitutional violations! Depending!”

13. Ezra  •  Jun 29, 2009 @2:18 pm
    

    I should try to get my friend Dan (who let me know about the protest) to reprint some of the signs he made for an anti-war rally we went to a few years back. They were hilarious!

    By the way, Dan was down at the Honduran consulate yesterday (which was also the day of the Gay Pride parade) handing out leaflets about the coup. Afterwards he went on a tirade about his new least favorite people “single issue progressives.” Apparently, the Pride crowd was more interested in partying.

14. GregS  •  Jun 29, 2009 @2:25 pm
    

    Why is the Obama administration so eager to help keep in power a leader who is a staunch ally of America’s avowed enemies (Hugo Chavez and Fidel/Raul Castro)? And what happened to that pledge Obama made in Cairo just a few weeks ago that America would stop meddling in the affairs of other countries? Surely getting involved in the murky details of Honduran politics counts as meddling.

15. David  •  Jun 29, 2009 @4:49 pm
    

    You’re going to need a very nuanced sign. “Down with responding to what may or may not be constitutional violations with what may or may not be constitutional violations! Depending!”

    Or maybe just one that says “¡¿Que hace, morans?!”

16. Robert  •  Jul 2, 2009 @8:28 pm
    

    There are plenty of indications that this was going to be a power grab by the president. The crocodile tears for him are much less convincing when it it reported that he was colluding with Chavez, who did this very thing. Zelaya even got the ballots from Venezuela, what, can’t the Hondurans print?

    Here is a translation of parts of the Honduran Constitution.

    Although not so “official” the translation seems to indicate that the Hondurans were acting well within the bounds of their Constitution and were in fact required to take action.

17. Murfmensch  •  Jul 5, 2009 @2:00 pm
    

    It is insane to consider Chavez an enemy of the United States. He has harsh words about G. W. Bush and past policies relating to the majority of the world’s countries. Also, he has harsh words about particular policies at present. I have the same and am not an enemy of the US.

    Chavez keeps having election after election. He has not overthrown any existing institutions. Instead, he builds parallel institutions that benefit the poor directly. That’s not Castroite at all.

    He’s not perfect but no one else even had a plan to get around to benefitting the bottom half of Venezuelan society. Such an option on the ballot would be welcome here in the States.

    Backing Zelaya is smart diplomacy. Backing Chavez would be as well. We are too busy elsewhere not to.

18. David  •  Jul 10, 2009 @10:05 am
    

    Adler at Volokh says that Miguel Estrada is getting into the act.

Leave a Reply