Jim DeMint -What I Heard in Honduras

WSJ ^ | October 10, 2009 | Jim DeMint

[opentalk]

After visiting Tegucigalpa last week and meeting with a cross section of leaders from Honduras's government, business community, and civil society, I can report there is no chaos there. There is, however, chaos to spare in the Obama administration's policy toward our poor and loyal allies in Honduras. In a day packed with meetings, we met only one person in Honduras who opposed Mr. Zelaya's ouster, who wishes his return, and who mystifyingly rejects the legitimacy of the November elections: U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens.

[Canedawg]

Great video!

I bookmarked it.

Thanks.

[TigersEye]

Article 42 .- The quality of citizenship is lost:

1. For service in wartime enemies of Honduras or its allies;

2. By providing help against the State of Honduras, to a foreigner or a foreign government in any diplomatic claim or before an international tribunal;

3. Play in the country, without license from the National Congress, employment of foreign nation's military branch or political nature;

4. By restricting freedom of suffrage, adultery election documents or use fraudulent means to circumvent the popular will;

5. By encouraging, promoting or supporting the continuity or re-election of President of the Republic, and,

6. For Hondurans reside naturalized for more than two consecutive years abroad without prior authorization from the Executive.

In the cases referred to in paragraphs 1) and 2) the declaration of loss of citizenship will make the National Congress through circumstantial case to be formed for the purpose. For the cases of paragraphs 3) and 6), that statement will make the Executive by Government Agreement, and for the cases of subparagraphs 4) and 5) also by government decree, upon conviction handed down by the courts.

Zelaya wasn't a citizen of Honduras when he was exiled.

[normanpubbie]

1. Where was the previous court adjudication revoking citizenship as required in Article 42? Where was the government finding as required in Article 42?

Neither action happened. Furthermore, both the Supreme Court's arrest warrants of June 26th and the resolution passed by the National Congress on June 28th referred to Zelaya as Citizen Zelaya dozens of times. The requirements for revocation of citizenship per Paragraph 5 of Article 42 were never achieved. He was then and still is a citizen. Period.

[TigersEye]

The legislature voted on his removal and the SC ordered it. You are only assuming that that isn't an adequate legal finding. Both bodies did determine that he had violated Article 42 so why would they need any further findings to implement the explicit premise of Article 42; " The quality of citizenship is lost:?"

You seem to love grasping at straws to defend the wannabe Marxist. Any needle in a haystack to get him back in office where he can finish his mission of destroying the Honduran constitution.

[bustinchops]

Zelaya was trying to overthrow the constitution regarding term limits, just as Chavez did. The reason ostammer supports Zelaya is because he wants to overturn our constitutional amendment limiting him to two terms.

[normanpubbie]

Quoting your comment #164:

The legislature voted on his removal and the SC ordered it.

You're half right here. The legislature did vote on his removal. But the SC issued no such order removing him from office nor from the country.

Both bodies did determine that he had violated Article 42...

Can you document this statement? I didn't think so.

The National Congress issued Decree 141-2009 on June 28th removing Zelaya from office and installing Micheletti as President. Nowhere in this document do they cite Article 42. Nowhere.

And the Supreme Court issued an 82-page Special Communique including a chronology and attachments (available at the Honduran Judicial Branch's website) justifying their actions. Nowhere in this chronology or attachments was Article 42 cited. Nowhere.

The assertions I have made re Honduras are based on these two official documents plus the 1982 Honduran Constitution as amended.

In contrast, your assertions seemed to be based on some blogger's, politician's, or reporter's opinions. You have yet to back up any "facts" that you have cited. That's because there is nothing to back them up except opinions.

If you have a link to someother document(s) indicating that either the Judicial Branch or the Executive Branch invoked Article 42 at any time re Zelaya, post it.

[normanpubbie]

I’m somewhat baffled by your comment. In the comment you cited, I discussed Article 102. What other Constitutional article are you referring to?

[TigersEye]

The National Congress issued Decree 141-2009 on June 28th removing Zelaya from office and installing Micheletti as President. Nowhere in this document do they cite Article 42. Nowhere.

Do you have a link to that decree? I thought not. What else could they have been referring to? Article 42 is what covers the actions Zelaya took that they had repeatedly warned him to stop and to which they voted for his removal.

[normanpubbie]

So you want links, huh? I got 'em.

• Honduran Constitution of 1982, as amended (mouse over each sentence for original Spanish). Warning -- the Googlebot's English translation is pretty lame.
  
  
• Decreto 141-2009 issued by the National Congress on June 28th (as published in La Gazeta, official government journal)
  
  
• English translation of Decreto 141-2009 posted by a FReeper (see comment #60 of the thread)
  
  
• Special Communique issued by Honduran Supreme Court of Justice on June 30th that I referred to in an earlier comment.

Even the Law Library of Congress researcher who wrote the "CRS report" everyone cites as authoritative said that Article 102 was violated (i.e., that Zelaya was a citizen at the time of deportation).

[TigersEye]

It is obvious from your post that you don’t put much credence in the CRS report so I guess it is worth what it is worth.

[maica]

Sorry I cannot quote the relevant passage, but my understanding is that according to their Constitution, the president cannot succeed himself. Zelaya was planning to ignore or amend this stipulation, and run for re-election this November Perhaps you can find the passage or number where this is written.

[normanpubbie]

Zelaya cannot run for the presidency in next month's elections. Here's why:

Article 4 requires alternation in office (the same person cannot serve two consecutive terms). So Zelaya is ineligible to run for President again.

Article 42 along with Article 238 could be used to remove Zelaya from office. Paragraph 5 of Article 42 allows revocation of citizenship for anyone who encourages, proposes, or supports the continuity or reelection of the President. And Paragraph 3 of Article 238 requires the President to be a Honduran citizen, so if he had lost his citizenship per Article 42, he would have to leave office. Some posters on this board claim that Zelaya's citizenship was revoked but that's not true.

Article 239 forbids the President's continuation in office past the end of term. And any official who proposes reforming Article 239 is to be removed from office and disqualified from any public office for a ten-year period.

But here's the problem with claiming that Zelaya wanted to extend his term in office: Just thinking or wishing that the President's term be extended doesn't count -- that is what most commenters here on FR don't understand.

To meet the removal condition of Article 239, there has to be a public statement by Zelaya that he wants to run for another term. If his opponents had such a statement on tape, that would be enough for removal under Article 239. But no such statement has surfaced. No statement, no Article 239 removal.

The National Congress justified their removal of Zelaya from office by citing several Constitutional articles. But they did not cite Article 42, Article 238, or Article 239.

Election of the President: Party primaries for these two offices were held in November 2008. Micheletti was defeated in the Liberal Party presidential primary by Elvin Santos, who is that party's candidate for President in next month's elections. Running against Santos is Porfirio "Pepe" Lobo Sosa of the National Party. Although one cannot predict how next month's vote will turn out, these two parties garnered 96 percent of the presidential vote in 2005. So it is unlikely that any of the small party candidates will get a plurality or majority of the presidential vote. But you never know.

[SunkenCiv]

Ping!

[watusa1775]

Back in Choluteca, had family issues here. Thank you all. Seems like hopey changey isn’t working out well there. We are getting lots and lots of franchises and factory bids here though, since asserting our Constitutional right to evict our dimwit, business likes stability and a friendly work force. Maybe the Texas governor was right about secession after all. Love you all, Florentino Villalobos