if constitutions are meant to be ignored

[SmarterthanYou]

Because they opposed his politics?

no, they opposed his breaking the law to further his own politics.

They have no right to vote to remove him.

apparently they did.

Illegally using miltiary force to remove one government and replace it by another is a coup.

they didn't remove one government and replace it with another because every member of congress, elected by the people, still retain their seat. one single individual attempting to do an end run around the constitution was removed.

This was an illegal, unconstitutional coup, perpetuated on political reasons but using the constitution as a shroud (and violating the constitution to pursue these shrouded political goals).

fail.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

they didn't remove one government and replace it with another because every member of congress, elected by the people, still retain their seat. one single individual attempting to do an end run around the constitution was removed.

The president is effectively the government. The administration, if you will. Keep up here.

He was removed unconstitutionally by the legislature, who had no right to remove him, for political reasons.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The people who perpetuated this coup should be beheaded, and their useless heads should be put on pikes outside the capital as a warning to future usurpers of liberty and freedom.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

moving forward in honduras

By Roberto Micheletti
Tuesday, September 22, 2009

My country is in an unusual position this week. Former president Manuel Zelaya has surreptitiously returned to Honduras, still claiming to be the country's legitimate leader, despite the fact that a constitutional succession took place on June 28. Amid all of the claims that are likely to be made in coming days, the former president will not mention that the people of Honduras have moved on since the events of that day or that our citizens are looking forward to free, fair and transparent elections on Nov. 29.

The international community has wrongfully condemned the events of June 28 and mistakenly labeled our country as undemocratic. I must respectfully disagree. As the true story slowly emerges, there is a growing sense that what happened in Honduras that day was not without merit. On June 28, the Honduran Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya for his blatant violations of our constitution, which marked the end of his presidency. To this day, an overwhelming majority of Hondurans support the actions that ensured the respect of the rule of law in our country.

Underlying all the rhetoric about a military overthrow are facts. Simply put, coups do not leave civilians in control over the armed forces, as is the case in Honduras today. Neither do they allow the independent functioning of democratic institutions -- the courts, the attorney general's office, the electoral tribunal. Nor do they maintain a respect for the separation of powers. In Honduras, the judicial, legislative and executive branches are all fully functioning and led by civilian authorities.

Coups do not allow freedom of assembly, either. They do not guarantee freedom of the press, much less a respect for human rights. In Honduras, these freedoms remain intact and vibrant. And on Nov. 29 our country plans to hold the ultimate civic exercise of any democracy: a free and open presidential election.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

the Honduran Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya for his blatant violations of our constitution, which marked the end of his presidency.

And illegal arrest order issued for political reasons. Again, execute the people who made it.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The coup doesn't leave civilian forces in power? So the Bolshevik revolution wasn't a coup?

How ridiculous. Execute him as well for supporting the treason on his own country.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Oh wait, that's the military-appointed leader of the military government of Honduras, who are currently illegally holding the power of CURRENT president of Honduras Zelaya. Thanks.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

This administrations greatest fear is that those who have sworn to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic will actually do so.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I am amazed at the fundamental ignorance of this issue that is taking place out in the blogoshpere and in the media. I have seen dozens of references to this section of the Honduran Constitution - but not ONE reference to HOW the impeachment process occurs.
THE POINT(s):
First: The Honduran Constitution requires that if a high-ranking member of the Executive Branch has violated the law or exercised authority outside the dictates of the Constitution (which is treason), the Congress shall then file a petition for impeachment in the Supreme Court and the individual is to be tried with all rights of due process attaching. It seems apparent under those circumstances that they could arrest him (LAW ENFORCEMENT - NOT THE MILITARY) and hold him in jail pending trial.
LET US BE CLEAR ON THIS FIRST POINT - the allegation of Zelaya's unconstitutional acts do seem to violate the constitutional prohibition against a President attempting to amend the constitution in respect to term limits - if so, he had committed treason. HOWEVER, the Honduran Supreme Court nor Congress has the power to order the military or anyone to "remove him" until such trial has taken place. Procedurally speaking, the President's powers would be suspended after his arrest, and during his detention while awaiting for trial. And under the constitution, an interim President would be designated until case on the article(s) of impeachment was tried. Assuming he is convicted after having had full due process, his Presidency would terminate, and the acting President would then serve out the remainder of the term, and he would not be allowed to run for another term.

Second - The Obama Administration is backing the world-wide accepted principle that proper democratic procedure MUST be followed to the letter of the law. Otherwise, the notion of democracy becomes a farce.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This administrations greatest fear is that those who have sworn to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic will actually do so.

You aren't protecting the constitution. You don't give a fuck about the constitution. You would act for political reasons, and be hung like the traitorous piece of scum you are.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You aren't protecting the constitution. You don't give a fuck about the constitution. You would act for political reasons, and be hung like the traitorous piece of scum you are.

how wrong you are. I'd shoot back at any administration coming after me unconstitutionally, democrat OR republican.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You aren't protecting the constitution. You don't give a fuck about the constitution. You would act for political reasons, and be hung like the traitorous piece of scum you are.

great, we're back to heads on pikes and other fetish human mutilation by watermark

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

how wrong you are. I'd shoot back at any administration coming after me unconstitutionally, democrat OR republican.

You interpret the constitution to fit your political desire and then commit treason. How nice.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You interpret the constitution to fit your political desire and then commit treason. How nice.

I read the plain text of the constitution and take it at face value. politics only comes after. and treason? pfffft. we've seen decades of treason from our elected officials and you've done nothing.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Only decent punishment for traitors like SMY.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Got no problem with calling out Obama and company as being dead wrong about this....but the majority of his critics are serious hypocrits...as they turned a blind eye and/or vigorously defended all the violations of the the actual law and spirit of the Constitution by the Shrub and company.

Interesting

i have no problem calling out any politician for unconstitutional acts, no matter the party they are a member of.

I don't readily recall you condemining ANY of the Shrub & company's heinous actions outright and in no uncertain terms. If I am wrong, then it's going to be real interesting to see your reaction when people point out that the vast majority of the major problems we currently face are leftovers from those previous 8 years.

When Obama is wrong, he's wrong. Same with the legacy of the Shrub & company.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I am amazed at the fundamental ignorance of this issue that is taking place out in the blogoshpere and in the media. I have seen dozens of references to this section of the Honduran Constitution - but not ONE reference to HOW the impeachment process occurs.
THE POINT(s):
First: The Honduran Constitution requires that if a high-ranking member of the Executive Branch has violated the law or exercised authority outside the dictates of the Constitution (which is treason), the Congress shall then file a petition for impeachment in the Supreme Court and the individual is to be tried with all rights of due process attaching. It seems apparent under those circumstances that they could arrest him (LAW ENFORCEMENT - NOT THE MILITARY) and hold him in jail pending trial.
LET US BE CLEAR ON THIS FIRST POINT - the allegation of Zelaya's unconstitutional acts do seem to violate the constitutional prohibition against a President attempting to amend the constitution in respect to term limits - if so, he had committed treason. HOWEVER, the Honduran Supreme Court nor Congress has the power to order the military or anyone to "remove him" until such trial has taken place. Procedurally speaking, the President's powers would be suspended after his arrest, and during his detention while awaiting for trial. And under the constitution, an interim President would be designated until case on the article(s) of impeachment was tried. Assuming he is convicted after having had full due process, his Presidency would terminate, and the acting President would then serve out the remainder of the term, and he would not be allowed to run for another term.

Second - The Obama Administration is backing the world-wide accepted principle that proper democratic procedure MUST be followed to the letter of the law. Otherwise, the notion of democracy becomes a farce.

Given that Zelayan was seeking to incorporate the military in plans that were ruled unconstitutional after voting and court appeals, you had the making of a military confrontation on hand. Removing Zelayan removed that threat for the time being. The Obama Administration wants of play by the rules when clearly NO ONE was in Hondouras. Given our history in South/latin America, Obama and company need to dial down the rhetoric and see how things shake out (with a little quiet offer of arbitration via diplomats). But that's just my opinion.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I don't readily recall you condemining ANY of the Shrub & company's heinous actions outright and in no uncertain terms. If I am wrong, then it's going to be real interesting to see your reaction when people point out that the vast majority of the major problems we currently face are leftovers from those previous 8 years.

When Obama is wrong, he's wrong. Same with the legacy of the Shrub & company.

you wouldn't recall any of it because you didn't know of me when Bush was in Office, however, all you need to do is search through my posts on here to see that policies of Bush and the republicans I thought were wrong, I certainly spoke up about it.

 

[NOVA]

When bush would sign a bill into law he would state that certain portions were not to be enforced, etc...

You were not aware of this?

That is what the judicial branch/supremes are for not the executive branch.

The president does not modify laws or selectively enforce them under the powers granted him/her by the constitution.

If the president disagrees with the law he should veto it.

Mr. Obama also signaled that he intended to use signing statements himself if Congress sent him legislation with provisions he decided were unconstitutional.
Mr. Obama said there was a role for the practice if used appropriately.

“In exercising my responsibility to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint.

The Bush administration defended its use of signing statements as lawful and appropriate. And other legal scholars, while critical of Mr. Bush’s use of the device, said the bar association’s view was too extreme, because Congress sometimes passed important legislation that had minor constitutional flaws. They said it would be impractical to expect a president to veto the entire bill in such instances.

And thats the way it is, sonny....

 

[Cancel10]

The president is required to enforce laws. If you give the president the power to refuse to enforce laws because of constitutional reasons, 99.99999% of the time it will be because of political reasons, with a ridiculous interpretation of the constitution to back it up. Most importantly, the case will never get to the supreme court, where they could decide whether or not it was constitutional for the president to ignore his constitutional duties in carrying out legislation. Which is, of course, what president Bush is hoping for.

Incorrect. The President's role (in regard to enforcing laws) is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If a law violates the Constitution, the President is obligated to refuse to enforce it. Of course, in some cases the President's reasoning will be purely political. Thankfully we have two other branches of government to keep one another in check.