DC Tom Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Dressing up like Indians and dumping tea into Boston Harbor was illegal too Yes, it was. Are all of you too retarded to understand the distinction between "legal" and "wrong"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Yes, it was. Are all of you too retarded to understand the distinction between "legal" and "wrong"? All? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Are all of you too retarded to understand the distinction between "legal" and "wrong"? I dunno. Is everybody here too pig-headed to admit that their first instinct was wrong, and that when information on the Honduran constitution came to light the removal turned out to be exactly what was called for constitutionally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I don't know, but intending to distribute rigged voting boxes (that were supplied by Chavez) is both illegal and wrong. I wouldn't be loathe to the same thing happening here, should Obama try to "fix" healthcare with his retarded plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 I dunno. Is everybody here too pig-headed to admit that their first instinct was wrong, and that when information on the Honduran constitution came to light the removal turned out to be exactly what was called for constitutionally? Show me the part of the Honduran constitution that allows the judicial branch to command the army to stage a "legal" coup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Show me the part of the Honduran constitution that allows the judicial branch to command the army to stage a "legal" coup. You keep insisting it was a coup. According to the link, the constitution says he is guilty of treason and shall 'cease henceforth in his duties.' Presumably that means the leadership automatically flows along the lines of succession, to the VP (the office being vacated owing to a resignation) and then to the Speaker, who was formally sworn in a day or so later. So that leaves only the question of whether the Supreme Court can write an order to the military to arrest him and remove him from office. The link cites Article 272 as saying that the military must enforce compliance with the constitution, with particular respect to the laws of succession. So if the constitution say's he is immediately stripped of power and the position falls to the Speaker, and if it say's the military must enforce compliance with this, who ultimately gives the order to enforce compliance? It either has to be the Supreme Court or the Speaker. Your argument seems to rest on the ideas that (1) courts cannot issue arrest warrants, and (2) militaries cannot be tasked with carrying them out. The latter may be wrong in light of 272 (and it would be the Supreme Court itself that would decide that), and the former is certainly wrong here in the US and in a great many other countries as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 You keep insisting it was a coup. According to the link, the constitution says he is guilty of treason and shall 'cease henceforth in his duties.' Presumably that means the leadership automatically flows along the lines of succession, to the VP (the office being vacated owing to a resignation) and then to the Speaker, who was formally sworn in a day or so later. So that leaves only the question of whether the Supreme Court can write an order to the military to arrest him and remove him from office. The link cites Article 272 as saying that the military must enforce compliance with the constitution, with particular respect to the laws of succession. So if the constitution say's he is immediately stripped of power and the position falls to the Speaker, and if it say's the military must enforce compliance with this, who ultimately gives the order to enforce compliance? It either has to be the Supreme Court or the Speaker. Your argument seems to rest on the ideas that (1) courts cannot issue arrest warrants, and (2) militaries cannot be tasked with carrying them out. The latter may be wrong in light of 272 (and it would be the Supreme Court itself that would decide that), and the former is certainly wrong here in the US and in a great many other countries as well Instead of quoting a blog's interpretation of the law, how about digging up the law itself or a translation of the law. Usually, laws are written in a way that 1 - define an illegal activity and 2 - establish guidelines and punishments for that activity. From what I've read, there's no doubt about 1, but there is certainly ambiguity about 2, and that's what the argument is about. How's this, if you get caught speeding (against the law) could you argue that police are justified in giving you life in prison because you broke the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Instead of quoting a blog's interpretation of the law, how about digging up the law itself or a translation of the law. Usually, laws are written in a way that 1 - define an illegal activity and 2 - establish guidelines and punishments for that activity. From what I've read, there's no doubt about 1, but there is certainly ambiguity about 2, and that's what the argument is about. How's this, if you get caught speeding (against the law) could you argue that police are justified in giving you life in prison because you broke the law? Well, one man's blog is another man's seemingly researched and reasoned LA Times editorial by a US Federal Appeals Court nominee (successfully fillibustered by the Democrats) who by coincidence is Honduran and was a member of the US delegation to Zelaya's inaugeration. But if you want to give it the same weight as blogospheric PPP punditry then go ahead. Second, it's not the interpretation of the law but of the constitution which - he points out - is available in Spanish along with the other relevant documents on the Supreme Court website. Here it is in Spanish, followed by an english summary published by the Library of Congress prior to these events. http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/H...ras/hond05.html http://countrystudies.us/honduras/84.htm While laws may be written they way you describe, constitutions are not. Tell me - what is the punishment defined in the US Constitution for the suspension of habeas corpus when invasion or public safety do not require it? It's not there. Nevertheless because of their history the Hondurans felt strong enough about constitutional manipulations that they went to great lengths to define it as treason and to specify the minimal actions to be taken: Here is a translation of Article 239: Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years. Apparently you feel that there is ambiguity about will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office. I can't help you there, but would point out that the arbitrator for the meaning and reach of the Honduran Constitution is... the Honduran Supreme Court. Here are some more useful bits touching on the legality of the courts use of the military to protect the constitution: Article 42: The legal rights of any citizen is lost: ...5) If the citizen incites, promotes, or supports the continuance or the re-election of the President of the Republic; : Article 244: If need be, the lawful duty of the President of the Republic, or of its substitute, will be presented to the President of the National Congress if in session, and if not to the President of the Supreme Court. : Article 272: The Armed Force of Honduras is a permanent National Institution, essentially professional, a-political, obedient, and undeliberate. It is constituted to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic, to maintain the peace, public order, protect the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage, and the changeability of the President of the Republic. As for your hypothetical question - life in jail for speeding would have to be applied consistently, and not be considered cruel and unusual punishment by the courts. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Well, one man's blog is another man's seemingly researched and reasoned LA Times editorial by a US Federal Appeals Court nominee (successfully fillibustered by the Democrats) who by coincidence is Honduran and was a member of the US delegation to Zelaya's inaugeration. But if you want to give it the same weight as blogospheric PPP punditry then go ahead. Second, it's not the interpretation of the law but of the constitution which - he points out - is available in Spanish along with the other relevant documents on the Supreme Court website. Here it is in Spanish, followed by an english summary published by the Library of Congress prior to these events. http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/H...ras/hond05.html http://countrystudies.us/honduras/84.htm While laws may be written they way you describe, constitutions are not. Tell me - what is the punishment defined in the US Constitution for the suspension of habeas corpus when invasion or public safety do not require it? It's not there. Nevertheless because of their history the Hondurans felt strong enough about constitutional manipulations that they went to great lengths to define it as treason and to specify the minimal actions to be taken: Here is a translation of Article 239: Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years. Apparently you feel that there is ambiguity about will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office. I can't help you there, but would point out that the arbitrator for the meaning and reach of the Honduran Constitution is... the Honduran Supreme Court. Based on the translation, there is ample ambiguity, because this statement "that has already served" could mean to construe someone who has served in the past and not now. And I don't know how many times it must be explained that the argument is not whether the Honduran courts made the right decision in its verdict and the military acted properly in removing Zelaya from office, there is little ambiguity whether it was illegal for them to expel him from the country. The legal thing to do is to arrest him and throw him into jail and then take him to court. And while, I find very few thing that I agree with Obama's foreign policy, he should be acting cautiously here, because if he officially backs the coup then he opens the door wide open for the Chavistas to use the military in their protectorates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 And I don't know how many times it must be explained that the argument is not whether the Honduran courts made the right decision in its verdict and the military acted properly in removing Zelaya from office, there is little ambiguity whether it was illegal for them to expel him from the country. The legal thing to do is to arrest him and throw him into jail and then take him to court. Then you are guilty of speed reading. It is fairly unanimously agreed (here and in the real world) that the expulsion appears illegal - indeed, if I'm not mistaken the constitution itself forbids that. What we have been arguing was (first) whether this a military coup, and (second, assuming it was civilian directed) whether or not the courts can legally order the military to remove a president, and if in fact if it is ever legal for the military to do so. I originally thought it a civilian coup and that the military was getting a bum rap, but am now of the opinion that the episode was entirely in accordance with the constitution (except possibly for the expulsion bit). DC Tom maintains that the removal was illegal and in particular the military can not be used to execute it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Well, one man's blog is another man's seemingly researched and reasoned LA Times editorial by a US Federal Appeals Court nominee (successfully fillibustered by the Democrats) who by coincidence is Honduran and was a member of the US delegation to Zelaya's inaugeration. But if you want to give it the same weight as blogospheric PPP punditry then go ahead. Second, it's not the interpretation of the law but of the constitution which - he points out - is available in Spanish along with the other relevant documents on the Supreme Court website. Here it is in Spanish, followed by an english summary published by the Library of Congress prior to these events. http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/H...ras/hond05.html http://countrystudies.us/honduras/84.htm While laws may be written they way you describe, constitutions are not. Tell me - what is the punishment defined in the US Constitution for the suspension of habeas corpus when invasion or public safety do not require it? It's not there. Nevertheless because of their history the Hondurans felt strong enough about constitutional manipulations that they went to great lengths to define it as treason and to specify the minimal actions to be taken: Here is a translation of Article 239: Apparently you feel that there is ambiguity about will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office. I can't help you there, but would point out that the arbitrator for the meaning and reach of the Honduran Constitution is... the Honduran Supreme Court. Here are some more useful bits touching on the legality of the courts use of the military to protect the constitution: As for your hypothetical question - life in jail for speeding would have to be applied consistently, and not be considered cruel and unusual punishment by the courts. What's your point? Seems pretty clear to me that this was not an illegal coup. Good find Finknottle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Then you are guilty of speed reading. It is fairly unanimously agreed (here and in the real world) that the expulsion appears illegal - indeed, if I'm not mistaken the constitution itself forbids that. What we have been arguing was (first) whether this a military coup, and (second, assuming it was civilian directed) whether or not the courts can legally order the military to remove a president, and if in fact if it is ever legal for the military to do so. I originally thought it a civilian coup and that the military was getting a bum rap, but am now of the opinion that the episode was entirely in accordance with the constitution (except possibly for the expulsion bit). DC Tom maintains that the removal was illegal and in particular the military can not be used to execute it. One of the links you provided also had a provision that the military serves at the direction of the Commander in Chief. So, there's even more ambiguity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 You keep insisting it was a coup. According to the link, the constitution says he is guilty of treason and shall 'cease henceforth in his duties.' Presumably that means the leadership automatically flows along the lines of succession, to the VP (the office being vacated owing to a resignation) and then to the Speaker, who was formally sworn in a day or so later. So that leaves only the question of whether the Supreme Court can write an order to the military to arrest him and remove him from office. The link cites Article 272 as saying that the military must enforce compliance with the constitution, with particular respect to the laws of succession. So if the constitution say's he is immediately stripped of power and the position falls to the Speaker, and if it say's the military must enforce compliance with this, who ultimately gives the order to enforce compliance? It either has to be the Supreme Court or the Speaker. Your argument seems to rest on the ideas that (1) courts cannot issue arrest warrants, and (2) militaries cannot be tasked with carrying them out. The latter may be wrong in light of 272 (and it would be the Supreme Court itself that would decide that), and the former is certainly wrong here in the US and in a great many other countries as well Actually, that was my argument in your bull sh-- "What if the same thing happened here example". Which is why it was such a bull sh-- example. As for the Honduran situation...show me the Honduran law that says the judicial system can command the military to oust the executive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 As for the Honduran situation...show me the Honduran law that says the judicial system can command the military to oust the executive. I'd say it's right there with the law that allows rigged voting boxes to be distributed nationally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 One of the links you provided also had a provision that the military serves at the direction of the Commander in Chief. So, there's even more ambiguity. As for the Honduran situation...show me the Honduran law that says the judicial system can command the military to oust the executive. The courts reading of the constitution concluded that he was no longer president - that ousted the president. The military role was simply one of enforcement. If Iran nukes the White House but Pelosi is still around, show me the law which say's she can order a counter-strike. The same legal reasoning governs both situations. To GG's point, there is no ambiguity if you accept that the president's authority ceased immediately per Article 239. The Supreme Courts position is that under Article 242 (which I provided and bold-faced this very point) executive authority (ie lawfull duties) are passed first to the head of Congress and then to the head of the Supreme Court. No president in place means presidential authority and execution of his duties, including control of the military, is passed down the chain. The legality of using the military in enforcement of their warrant is reinforced by Article 272 which directs the military to preserve the Constitution and the rules governing changes in the presidency. So the army can be so directed, and in these circumstances the chain of authority fell to the Supreme Cout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/19/16...ith-No-Election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/19/16...ith-No-Election You mean they may have rigged the voting, so that they could alter the constitution to stay in power? Shocking!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 You mean they may have rigged the voting, so that they could alter the constitution to stay in power? Shocking!! Yeah, especially since I've been saying that for the past week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastback Posted July 20, 2009 Author Share Posted July 20, 2009 You mean they may have rigged the voting, so that they could alter the constitution to stay in power? Shocking!! Meanwhile, our clueless administration is advocating restoring this Chavez stooge to power. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Meanwhile, our clueless administration is advocating restoring this Chavez stooge to power. Nice. Maybe they are just nervous about the scrutiny. ACORN-supplied voting returns, nothing to see here folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts