Obama lashes out at honduras; sides with chavez, castro (Limbaugh, Reagan, attorney)

[djacques]

Originally Posted by Icy Tea

When you read the facts its clear we should sit this one out and should actually be glad the guy was ousted. I don't like coups but they did remove a wannabe dictator and one that clearly wasn't serving the will of the people.

I have the directly opposite opinion on each point. I don't think all coups are wrong. I wasn't at all sure at first that this one was wrong. But it is not at all clear that Zelaya was not serving the "will of the people". It is clear he violated some provisions of the Honduran constitution, which is hardly the same thing. But why--and I ask this of my friends on the 'left' as well as my adversaries on the 'right'-- is the "will of the people" such a sacrosanct concept? Aren't most of the people imbecilic cretins most of the time? That's precisely why I was almost prepared to be sympathetic to this coup, until it became evident that it was total overkill, like going after a mosquito with a cannon.

That's the basis why the coup should be condemned: that it was unnecessary. Not because Zelaya had a right to break the law with impunity, and not because the "will" of the majority should blindly be followed.

[jfields]

Originally Posted by Wapasha

Just as illegal as it would be had Bush ran in '08 and been elected to a third term.

Bush running for a 3rd term? I wish he would have. Obama would have had a much easier time getting re-elected. Hell Bush was such a lame duck that McCain wouldn't even let Bush campaign for him. I bet you their conversations regarding the matter went something like this:

Bush: I want you to win no matter if I campaign for you or campaign against you, I want to see you win.

McCain: Gee thanks.

Bush: So do you want me to campaign for you?

McCain: No, that's allright, I've got Sarah Palin taking care of that for me.

Bush: So is there anything I can do to help you win?

McCain: Yes, look for every bill that you pushed that Obama voted for and I voted against.

Bush: Yeah, there are like one or two of them , but you have been a staunch supporter of mine, you know that you voted with me 90% of the time.

McCain: keep that on the down low. If word gets out about that, Mark Sanford will have a better chance at beating Obama; You know he's having an affair with some woman in Argentina, right?

Bush: I didn't know that. Well is there anything else I can do?

McCain: Yeah, go visit some kindergarden classes and read childrens books to the kids.

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Well, it's not really how we define it, is it?

It is how the Honduras constitution defines it. What exactly is allowed in their constitution.

I have read where the congress has the authority to remove the president, which they did.

Must read the constitution to find out.

You "have read". Please post a link to this.

[jfields]

For anyone who has any questions regarding the constitutional legisitmacy/illegitimacy of the military coup in Hounduras, here is part of the Honduran constitution that I found cited in a Huffinton Post article by Laura Carlsen:

"No-one owes obedience to a government that has usurped power or to those who assume functions or public posts by the force of arms or using means or procedures that rupture or deny what the Constitution and the laws establish. The verified acts by such authorities are null. The people have the right to recur to insurrection in defense of the constitutional order".

In other words, Roberto Micheletti, who "assumed his public post by the force of arms" is not the legitimate president of Honduras according to the constitution and the Honduran people have no obligation to recognize his government.

I'm speculating here, but I know some of you will say that Manuel Zalaya was using "means or procedures that rupture or deny what the Constitution and the laws establish" by holding the Consultation regarding whether or not the Honduran people would support a constitutional referendum. However, Zalaya didn't assume power by breaking what the constitution and the laws establish; he was democratically elected and is therefore the legitimate president of Honduras according to their constitution.

[HappyTexan]

So what do you think would happen here in the US if (big if now)

It was 6 months to the election
The President says he wants a referendum to amendent the constitution to eliminate presidential term limits.
The President bypasses the other branches and instructs whoever does ballots to put it on there.
Congress tells him he can't do it
He pays no mind to Congress

Honestly I can't picture that even happening here in America..but what do you suppose would happen ? Who would take action then ?
Who stops the President if he's doing something wrong ?
I know he wouldn't get kicked out of the country.

AND, notice no names nor parties folks.

[Katiana]

Theoretically speaking, we have our system of checks and balances. Interesting questions. I do know that in the US, the military is not a co-equal branch of the govt, and cannot go and rouse the president out of bed and spirit him/her out of the country so that a new govt. can be installed.

You can call that whatever you want, but it is not democracy.

[jfields]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

So what do you think would happen here in the US if (big if now)

It was 6 months to the election
The President says he wants a referendum to amendent the constitution to eliminate presidential term limits.
The President bypasses the other branches and instructs whoever does ballots to put it on there.
Congress tells him he can't do it
He pays no mind to Congress

Honestly I can't picture that even happening here in America..but what do you suppose would happen ? Who would take action then ?
Who stops the President if he's doing something wrong ?
I know he wouldn't get kicked out of the country.

AND, notice no names nor parties folks.

I could only speculate. Now it would probably be different from what's happening in Honduras because our constitution allows us to take up arms to defeat a government that is destructive to our needs; I could see this being used to justify a military coup in a really, really extreme situation after another president was elected. On the contrary, from what I read in the Huff Post, HOnduras' constitution prohibits the overthrow of a government by force.

Honestly, I don't think that situation would ever happen in the US, because if a president wants to amend the constitution, he needs the support of the Legislative Branch. If the President were to bystep this step, he would be breaking the law and the Legislative Branch could impeach him, but then the Vice President would take over. What they would probably do is carry out the elections as if the President wasn't trying to stay in power. The Supreme Court would rule that the current President's name couldn't be on the ballot and the voters would decide between 2 candidates, none of which are the incumbent. After it was time for the incumbant to step down, if he still refused he would probably be impeached. If he still refused to step down, the president could be removed by military force. I'm no constitutional law expert, but this is how I imagine it would go down.

I don't think any president would be stupid enough to bypass the other branches of government just push a constitutional ammendment, because if the president wants a constitutional amendment, there is a procedure that he's supposed to follow; that procedure is getting support from the Legislative Branch.

[HappyTexan]

I don't think it would happen either, but in reading about Honduras I wondered how our process worked. Never entered my mind before.

Thanks for your opinions.

[jfields]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

I don't think it would happen either, but in reading about Honduras I wondered how our process worked. Never entered my mind before.

Thanks for your opinions.

Yeah no problem. Your question was actually a good brain exercise for refreshing my memory. Like I said, I'm not a constitutional law expert and the last time I spend alot of time going over these types of issues was in a US Government class during my second year of college.

[gghhgg]

Originally Posted by sanrene

DRUDGE REPORT 2009®
Obama says coup in Honduras is illegal | Reuters



Nice, strong statement from obama - too bad it is once again wrong. Compare and contrast this very quick response to the silence over Iran's elections.

Why does it always seem obama and the dems/libs take the side of dictators, criminals and despots?

The Supreme court ruled that what Zelaya was doing was illegal, so did the congress and the military refused to distribute the ballots. He was trying to pull a Hugo Chavez - and the other branches of government stepped in to prevent a constitutional crisis.



Really? So they have no problem meddling in the affairs of a sovereign country? Why the left must be contorting themselves into unimaginable shapes in order to resolve the dichotomy between the two.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Terrific: Chavez accuses U.S. of having “a lot to do” with Honduras coup




Doesn't it just warm your hearts to see POTUS allign himself with this evil clown? Just one call from Chavez is all it took for obama to comply.

o please obama is duble faced lair.america did this but in efort to pretend to nutral he came out and condemned this action.he acts like a women with his manipulations and mind games