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.

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.

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?!"

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.

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!"

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.