CRS: Zelaya arrest lawful

The official position of the Obama administration casts the removal of Manuel Zelaya from office in Honduras as an illegal coup d’etat, and almost every other nation in the region has lined up with the US — or more accurately, we have lined up with them. The Hugo Chavez protege has used this international support to demand a return to his office, and the US has ratcheted up the pressure by canceling visa services and suspending aid to the poor nation, which had been until now a fairly reliable friend in Latin America. Even with Zelaya spewing paranoid rantings about Israeli mercenaries and mind rays, the Obama administration has not budged from its position.

But was Zelaya’s removal actually illegal? The Congressional Research Service analyzed it, and concluded that Honduras’ parliament and Supreme Court, while lacking an impeachment mechanism in the country’s constitution, had the authority to issue an arrest warrant for Zelaya and remove him from office (via Fausta Wertz):

V. Was the removal of Honduran President Zelaya legal, in accordance with Honduran constitutional and statutory law?

Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.

However, removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution, and apparently this action is currently under investigation by the Honduran authorities.

The Hondurans made a blunder by exiling Zelaya. Had they kept him in custody, very little of what followed would have occurred.

Possibly not.

Article 102: No Honduran citizen can be expatriated or handed over by the authorities to a foreign state.

Article 42: The status of citizenship is lost when:
4) Restricting the liberty to vote, altering electoral documents, or employing fraudulent means to undermine the will and the vote of the people.
5) Inciting, promoting, or supporting the continuance or reelection of the President of the Republic of Honduras.

“The Hondurans made a blunder by exiling Zelaya. Had they kept him in custody, very little of what followed would have occurred.”

There is no basis to know that “what followed” would NOT have occurred had Zelaya been allowed to remain in the country.

He had already demonstrated that he was willing to ignore the law to seek his political aims. There is no basis to believe he would have suddenly become “law abiding” in continuation of that pursuit if allowed freedom inside Honduras.

Honduran officials did what they rightfully believed was best for the country - kick the dictator-wanna-be out.

You've been conned, lied to, and misled. This F.W. Blake whom you linked cited Article 42 and you repeated what he said as the the whole truth. But Blake left out the part of Article 42 that contradicted what he was claiming.

Article 42 consists of two parts: The first part is a list of six possible reasons for revoking citizenship; the second part gives the procedure for handling each of these cases. I am omitting Paragraphs 1 through 4 and 6 because they do not apply to Zelaya's situation. If you like, locate a copy of the Honduran Constitution and check out the second part.

ARTICLE 42.- Citizenship may be revoked: (omitting 1-4 and 6)
5. For inciting, encouraging, or supporting the term extension or re-election of the President of the Republic

In the cases referred to in paragraphs 1) and 2) the declaration of loss of citizenship will be issued by the National Congress through a circumstantial case established for the purpose (of removing citizenship). For the cases of paragraphs 3) and 6) per agreement by the Executive Branch, and for the cases of paragraphs 4) and 5) also by governmental agreement, after previous conviction handed down by competent courts.

ARTICULO 42.- La calidad de ciudano se pierde:...
5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República
...para los casos de los incisos 4) y 5) también por acuerdo gubernativo, previa sentencia condenatoria dictada por los tribunales competentes.

So per Article 42, before his citizenship can be revoked under Paragraph 5, two steps have to be taken: A competent court must first issue a ruling revoking Zelaya's citizenship and later the government must act on the revocation.

Neither of these constitutionally-required steps occurred. The Supreme Court in its timeline, in its deliberation, and in the arrest warrants it finally issued, referred to Zelaya dozens of times as Citizen Zelaya. And nowhere in its documents and judgments did the SC invoke Article 42.

The National Congress also referred to Zelaya as Citizen Zelaya several times in the resolution removing him from office. They did not cite Article 42 either. And they removed him from office after he had been deported.

So Zelaya's citizenship was never revoked and he was deported in direct violation of Article 102.

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.