Replies

Let's start with these gems from the posted article:

He wanted to change the provision stipulating that presidents are limited to one term.
Article 239 of that constitution explicitly states that a president who takes any steps to tamper with that provision forfeits the office.

Um, no. That's not what Article 239 says. Here it is in English:

ARTICLE 239 .- The citizen who has been conferred the title of Chief Executive may not be President or Vice President of the Republic. (forbidding term extension or reelection).
Anyone who violates this provision or proposes its reform, as well as those who directly or indirectly support it, are to immediately cease the discharge of their duties and shall be disqualified for ten (10) years from exercising any public office.

As stated in the article, it can be invoked for only two causes: First, remaining in office after term end or second proposing that the amendment be revised.

Zelaya was removed from office six months before his term was to end, so the first provision does not apply. And for the second provision to apply, he would actually have to "propose its reform" (argue or state that the provision be dropped). Problem is, he never said that he wanted a second term or that his original term be extended. What he thought or wanted is immaterial -- the article requires action. And no one has been able to document any time when Zelaya proposed term extension or dumping Article 239.

Zelaya was warned by Honduras’ supreme court to cease stirring up mobs in support of his bid to prolong his presidency.

Can you document this statement, professor? Didn't think so.

On June 28, the court — backed by both political parties (including Zelaya’s), the congress, the Catholic Church, and the business sector — removed Zelaya from office.

The SC did not remove him from office, the National Congress did in its Decreto 141-2009 of June 28th.

...the court asked the military to fly Zelaya to Costa Rica.

Can you document this statement, professor? Didn't think so.

The problem that Dr. Hendrickson has is that he has repeated inaccuracies reported by someone else rather than researching what actually happened. It is inappropriate for college professors to conduct such sloppy scholarship.

Have thought about your attempt at refuting Mr. Hendrickson’s article.

Your whole argument hinges on a Google machine translation of a portion of their constitution and ridicule of some of the statements that Mr. Hendrickson made as being unsubstantiated. I am not fluent in Spanish and it appears that you are not either, since you mentioned the google translator.

I use machine translations daily and find Google’s translator very good. But the structure of the English language and Spanish are very different. Anyone who has used machine translators understands that context is often distorted by this structural difference.

Some Constitutional scholars here in the U.S. have stated that his removal was lawful.

Rather than look at a sentence in the Constitution of Honduras, I am looking at the events as they unfold in Honduras.

There is evidence that Zelaya used whether a patient at a hospital supported the constitutional changes or not to deny medical treatment. (Why do you think Obozo is so committed to his Healthcare legislation and to having the FDA control U.S. food production- answer - they are hammers to subject a people) This is about a planned decent into totalitarianism.

I am not questioning your motives, but find it odd here to defend the puppet of Chavez and Lula (also Obozo) on this forum.

The pattern of Zelaya’s actions will eventually be exposed as will Obozo’s lies, treachery, deceit and treason. Both will ultimately be exposed and discredited.

Respectfully,