Talk:Honduran constitutional referendum, 2009

Name change

The article needs to have a name change due to the events of this morning, not sure about coup until we get the press using this word (see Talk:Manuel Zelaya). Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The press is using the word "poll", not that Wikipedia is supposed to parrot the press.
Some information about whether the poll actually would have been unconstitutional might improve the article, or should we just assume that if the supreme court said it'd have been unconstitutional, that that's enough? -- Rico 03:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Rico, The vote was unconstitutional (see my citations below), and by itself constituted enough of a reason for the National Congress to oust Zelaya. See the Honduran Constitution, sections (http://www.honduras.net/honduras_constitution2.html ) I-205.23 on the congress, for starters, but...

Then see the section on the Executive Power, I-239, wherein it states that a former president cannot be a president again (i.e., serve more than one term) and also that if the president even moves to propose to serve another term, he should be immediately removed from office and be banned from public life for 10 years: Here is the rough translation:

"I ARTICULATE 239.- The citizen that have performed the ownership of the Executive Power will not be able to be a President or Appointed.

The one that break this disposition or propose their reform, as well as those that support the direct or indirectly, they will cease immediately in the performance of their respective charges, and they will remain disqualified by ten years for the exercise of every civil service."

On the above clause alone, the Congress had sufficient cause to remove him from office.

Furthermore, one could also say more generally, that Zelaya violated the constitution by proposing his "non-binding," though in-effect binding referendum for what is in effect a constitutional convention. The power to initiate such referendums is reserved for the National Congress (see the Constitution section on the powers of the congress). And consider that the president must pledge the following upon being elected president (this is in the text of the constitution) I ARTICULATE 322.- every public official upon taking possession of its charge will lend the following promise of law: "I promise to be faithful to the Republic, to comply and to cause to comply the Constitution and the laws". Sorry, my Spanish isn't perfect.

But the National Congress voted that Zelaya was operating against the constitution and ordered the Army to remove him. The National Congress has the authority to remove anyone from office through the power vested in it by I ARTICULATE 205 points 4,8, 12, and esp., 14, 15, 16, and 20.

Had he not ostensibly resigned from office, it is possible there might have needed to be a full impeachment trial similar to such in the US, however, I can find no section of the Honduran constitution that demands an impeachment trial. It appears that if the Judicial branch and the Legislative branch both agree that the president is worthy of ouster, then it is left to the National Congress to vote him out. Upon reaching a majority, he's through. This isn't so different from the US, by the way. In the US, once the impeachment charges have been passed by the House of Representatives, the Senate (acting as a jury) then tries the President, and the Chief justice of the Supreme court acts as the judge.

Many of the early reuters, CNN, and AP articles make it quite clear that the military's actions were as a result of the ouster vote conducted by the National Congress. The military didn't just spontaneously act on its own. I'll find the citations and be back shortly to clear this up. The media is being very slack currently, and Obama can't substantiate his claims that the deposing of Zelaya is illegal. As I mentioned above, everything appears to be perfectly constitutional, and the new president (Micheletti) was the President of the National Congress. He was then eleveated, upon the post being vacant, to executive power (all as according to the constitution) and will serve the remainder of Zelaya's term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.206.156 (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That is an entirely preposterous interpretation rejected by every source you can think of outside of the golpistas themselves. If Zelaya indeed violated the constitution, that does not legitimate or legalize seizing him by force and flying him to Costa Rica in his pajamas. It would be analogous to a police department deciding on its own that some person is guilty of capital murder and killing him on the spot. All of the evidence points to the army taking matters into its own hands, and the Supreme Court and Congress attempting to legitimize their actions ex post facto.

I would really like to know what is behind this stream of IP editors from various parts of the world all pushing an extreme fringe interpretation of the recent events. Maybe just paranoia on my part, but one wonders. <eleland/talkedits> 21:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Eleland, if it is really so preposterous, then find the section of the constitution that refutes it. The National Congress DOES have the authority to remove him. Who else do you suppose has such authority. If they are forced to try him in an impeachment proceeding, I would love it if you could find the constitutional citation.

Article reads ridiculously Pro-Coup POV

I removed this from the article, as their were no citations or any facts to support it provided anywhere: "Yet, shortly prior to June 28th 2009, government authorities learned that Zelaya covertly enacted a new law--an illegal act in and of itself--which would have permitted him to bypass the newly proposed vote entirely, thereby allowing the him to thoroughly prevent new presidential elections from being held at all, thus essentially bypassing Honduran constitutional authority and the customary democratic process in general. Instead, the survey results would have served the same purpose as the November vote itself, despite the fact that it had been conducted under the guise of mere public inquiry and curiosity, and certainly not as an actual vote, rendering the validity of the survey results highly dubious. In other words, Manuel Zelaya's originally non-binding referendum would suddenly been binding, regardless of the fact that it had no semblance of legitimacy."

Even without that, the article reads like a hit-piece. Why does it feel obsessed with mentioning "illegal" so many times? Perhaps it was, however its not hard to see how mentioning that every other sentence can act as a crutch for those who wish to justify the coup, hence why it is being mentioned so often in the article. This almost needs a complete rewrite with lots of citations.--Surcer (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC) -

Thus, Zelaya's concern over the quality of the current Honduran constitution, was not one shared by the majority of elected and appointed officials in congress, parliament, or the military, and it even held little to no favor amongst members of Zelaya's own political party.

This is a conclusion; it is unsourced, and does not follow from the preceeding text.

Can we see Zelaya's position, as well as the arguments of his opponents? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding a link or text translation of the referendum would be appropriate, if possible. The main article on the crisis has a link to the Honduran constitution which appears to have a clause that would give some credibility to arguments that Zalaya had broke a law, however it is not in any way clear that his removal was proper. A referendum that would extend his power indefinitely would appear to be clearly in violation of the constitution and may support removal. But it would seem that removal for proposing a constitutional convention or similar body would make removal for that act questionable. It would help to have the text of the referendum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.13.125 (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The disputed statements appear to have been removed. Are there other problematic statements in the article, or should the dispute tag be removed? Warren Dew (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Warren, I posted some edits above about the constitution. I can't find anything in the constitution that suggests that his removal was unconstitutional - There doesn't seem to be a provision in the document that demands an impeachment trial. Furthermore, the executive does not have authority, under the Honduran constitution to call for a constitutional convention - no matter what the wording is. Whatsmore, Zelaya made it clear in no uncertain terms what the significance of the referendum would be and how it would be used to further his aim of tightening his grip on power.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124633015879271647.html Thanks, Bruce Bronson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.206.156 (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge

It seems that anything which wasn't blatant POV was already covered in the main article, so I've redirected the page to 2009 Honduran political crisis. <eleland/talkedits> 22:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)