Posted on 09/11/2009 4:39:13 PM PDT by SLB
When Manual Zelaya sought the Honduran presidency he knew his country’s constitution limited him to only one term. In June, 2009, Zelaya attempted to alter such constitutional limitation to allow himself another term. The only problem for Zelaya, his efforts triggered his own ouster under his country’s constitution.
President Barack Obama, (BO) famous for decrying interfering in other country’s internal political systems, at least non-allied countries, now insists that Zelaya be restored to the presidency of Honduras. Not surprisingly BO’s position is shared with Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers. Chavez has threatened military intervention to restore Zelaya.
BO’s demand for Zelaya’s restoration to office is a demand that Honduras’ leaders ignore their own constitution. Will BO ignore the US Constitution in 2012 if he’s defeated for reelection, or in 2016 when he’s constitutionally prohibited from seeking a third term?
Honduras adopted a new constitution in 1982 which now represents the longest lasting constitution in that country’s history. Honduras’ constitution contains seven articles considered so critical to the country’s democracy that they cannot be repealed or amended. The term limit provision is one of these seven articles.
Article 239 draconically penalizes any attempt to change any of these unalterable provisions. This penalizing article is at the heart of what many consider to be a constitutional crises in Honduras.
Under Article 239 anyone who attempts to violate any of the seven unalterable provisions “will immediately cease in their functions.”
On June 26, President Zelaya ordered a public opinion poll to consider convening a constitutional assembly to amend the term limitation provision. In doing so, Zelaya triggered Article 239’s provision that automatically removed him from office.
Honduras’ Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. After his arrest Zelaya was taken to Costa Rica.
Far from a coup d’etat, 123 of the 128 members of Congress present supported such action.
If two-thirds of the US House and Senate vote to impeach and convict a president and the president refuses to leave the White House, a court order removing him from office would be fulfilled and the vice-president would become the new president. No one would consider such action a coup d’etat.
Roberto Micheletti, a member of Zelaya’s own party, and head of Honduras’ Congress, is the new president in accordance to Honduras’ constitution’s succession provision.
Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer, former presidential adviser and cultural minister of Honduras, wrote in a Christian Science Monitor piece that article 139 provides for instant removal without a trial or impeachment proceeding.
The United States does not recognize the new Micheletti government and $16.5 million in aid to Honduras has been cut. Even diplomatic visas for four members of Micheletti’s administration have been revoked.
Department of State spokesman Ian Kelly called Zelaya’s ouster a coup d’etat in a September 3rd press release which featured America’s determination that it will not support the outcome of the scheduled elections set to take place in November.
According to Kelly restoring Honduran assistance is predicated upon “a return to democratic, constitutional governance in Honduras.”
Since Honduras has been following its constitution, to what constitutional governance does BO’s state department require adherence? Does BO want Honduras to follow Venezuela’s constitution? Perhaps Iran’s? Clearly BO doesn’t want Honduras to follow its own constitution.
Since President Obama demands Honduras’ leaders ignore their constitution, what’s to prevent him from demanding our own Constitution’s presidential term limitation amendment be ignored?
BO’s insistence on Zelaya’s return to the presidency not only interferes with Honduras’ internal political system, it ignores that country’s constitution and the rule of law.
BO’s penchant for ignoring presidential limitations found in Article II is evidenced by violating contractual obligations and taking control of the banking, automobile and housing industries. Without so much as a peep of protest from the tepid and spineless Republican opposition, BO ignores the advise and consent requirements for Presidential czar appointments.
Since the supplicating state run media drools in awe of BO, instead of doing their journalistic duties, little hope exists that the fourth estate will challenge future BO constitutional contraventions.
If limits on presidential authority under the US Constitution’s Article II hasn’t deterred Obama from acting unconstitutionally, a mere amendment isn’t likely to either.
Major difference here there is an armed pissed of bunch of Americans that say no.
HOW MUCH MORE PROOF DO WE AMERICANS NEED TO SEE ABOUT OBOZO HUSSEIN’S INTENT, AGENDA, AND PLANS TO DESTROY OUR AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, OUR AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, AND OUR GOD GIVEN FREEDOMS AND TO TURN AMERICA INTO A THIRD WORLD DICTATORSHIP WITH OBOZO HUSSEIN’S CIVILIAN POLICE FORCE OF BROWNSHIRTS TO PROTECT HIS TAKEOVER AS DICTATOR??
AT LEAST THE HONDURANS WOKE UP IN TIME TO SAVE THEIR BELOVED DEMOCRACY!
WILL WE AMERICANS AWAKE IN TIME??
I doubt it.
No.
"Mankind will in time discover that unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots." – John Adams
The founders said there was no government they could devise that would protect Americans from tyrants who get elected president. This was the basis for the checks and balances, but still they said it would not prevent, only forestall. So they devised two other protections, a Constitutionally protected free press and the second amendment.
The press bulwark has been partially breached, the media has thrown in with freedom's usurpers — But the Internet gives hope that it will hold. If not, the last resort must be taken up.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." ---- John Adams
Yes, but it must be within the Constitution ...
I have faith in the American people, especially those who have joined the tea party movement.
0 doesn't think we'll fight for freedom. Maybe not everybody will - but enough will. We're pissed.
The entire population of our armed forces took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Let's pray that they are preparing for this contingency.
I see the tea parties as a huge step in awakening the masses like I have never seen before.
O should not play Poker or try to pick a winning horse his judgment is not good. a lot of us have ancestor's that fought in the 1st revolutionary War I am not going to face them one day saying I was sitting on my butt while the country went down the drain!
“Major difference here there is an armed pissed of bunch of Americans that say no.”
Now that is a good sign!
I pray you are correct.
“Maybe not everybody will - but enough will.
I pray you are correct.”
Hopefully it will never go that far I pray it does not, But seeing the damage the Communists have already done there maybe no other way, they are in fact at WAR with us right now.
If only 5% of the gun-owners participated that would be 3 to 4 million people and many of them would be combat veterans of various rank.
A few.....
But.....
Maybe not enough.....
Sad to say.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.