The Los Angeles Times
today ran an article on the editorial page that confirms my opinion about the "coup" in Honduras. (See the second article below this one.) According to the writer of the article, the method of removing the President from office was strictly according to the Honduran constitution. That constitution has no provision for impeaching
a president. Instead, he can be arrested for violating the constitution. The constitution provides a single term of office for the president and does not allow for a national plebiscite for amending it. It can be amended only by a 2/3 vote in the Congress and a vote by the people. The President, Mr. Zelaya, was attempting to conduct a national vote on allowing a change so that he could serve another term of office. The supreme court ruled that his action was illegal and a violation of the constitution and that he had forfeited his office by attempting to carry out the plebiscite. An overwhelmimg majority in the congress supported the action of the court.
The court ordered the army to arrest Mr. Zelaya and put him in jail. Instead, the army officials who made the arrest escorted him out of the country. Sending him out of the country was the only illegal action.
So, it was not a coup. It was a process provided in the constitution of the country as a means of deposing a criminal president. No coup! I was right! I gloat!
Not only that, but I strongly favor that we adopt the Honduran method of getting rid of a criminal or incompetent president. Let the army arrest him and put him in jail. Impeachment doesn't work worth shit.
Labels: coup, Honduras, impeachment, Zelaya