Granted, even the referendum was ruled unconstitutional, but still, he was putting it to a vote first.

He was insisting on placing the referendum to vote after it was ruled unconstitutional. As soon as he did that, he was no longer acting with the authority the office bestowed upon him. The Honduran court, congress and army were correct to turn him out.

The courts forcing the President of Honduras into a life of deviant prostitution aside, I cannot believe Honduras doesn't have a process to remove an official via impeachment. Perhaps their framers were drunk on cuba libres at the West Bay when it was time to include that, but I doubt it. Why go for a military coup that throws away the progress of the past ~30 years in one night?

Then again I could be wrong. Perhaps they don't have that provision. All I know of their government is that the President was featured in a picture on every freaking public building or pitching the services of state companies wearing that sash like a tinpot African dictator. I hope he was doing the Mayor Quimby and sleeping in it and thus got to take it with him. It's a quality sash. I like how all the Presidents of the Central and South Americas get pimped out sashes. What has two thumbs and is single handedly bringing the sash back? The President of Brazil. In conclusion, it's going to take weeks to change all the pictures on the buildings.

On a side note, I like how the CEO of Hondutel is rocking it 1920s corporate fatcat style with the desk with the absurdly large number of phones on it.

♫You's a superstar boy, why you still up in the hood?♫

He was insisting on placing the referendum to vote after it was ruled unconstitutional. As soon as he did that, he was no longer acting with the authority the office bestowed upon him. The Honduran court, congress and army were correct to turn him out.

Perhaps so, but by that standard the Founding Fathers deserved to be "turned out" for developing our own Constitution.  They had no authority under the Articles of Confederation to do such a thing.  Now, in principle I agree with you that what Zelaya wanted to do was wrong.  The problem is that on the face of it, saying "we had to stop the vote to protect democracy" sounds like an oxymoron.  You can certainly make a case (and I believe it's the correct argument) that stopping the vote was indeed necessary, but it's still a case you have to make.  It's not self-evident.  It's also not at all self-evident that Zelaya was removed from office in a way that was consistent with the rule of law.  Doesn't Honduras have something similar to impeachment proceedings?  If so, it would seem to me that this would have been the appropriate way to remove him from office. Bundling him into a military plane and dropping him off at the border, not so much.  No matter how just the actions were, doing them that way will inevitably give them the taint of illegality.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

The problem is that on the face of it, saying "we had to stop the vote to protect democracy" sounds like an oxymoron.

Only if you don't know the details. I mean, here in the US we'd be up in arms if a modern president said, "I don't care what's been written before, we need a new national vote on whether slavery should be legal." There's a point at which actions become undemocratic even if the word "democracy" are used to justify them.

It's also not at all self-evident that Zelaya was removed from office in a way that was consistent with the rule of law.  Doesn't Honduras have something similar to impeachment proceedings?

The country apparently has a procedure by which the Honduran congress can replace an acting president, so I'd say yes.

If so, it would seem to me that this would have been the appropriate way to remove him from office. Bundling him into a military plane and dropping him off at the border, not so much.

It worked well enough for the ancient Athenians (minus the military plane part, of course).

I mean, here in the US we'd be up in arms if a modern president said, "I don't care what's been written before, we need a new national vote on whether slavery should be legal."

That's an absurd comparison, because there is no support to speak of for legalizing slavery.  You assume, in through this comparison, that an overwhelming majority of the public was opposed to Zelaya's proposal.  You have presented no evidence that that is the case, and indeed it seems quite possible that Zelaya enjoyed substantial public support for his proposal.  If it's possible to make the argument that a majority of the public was supportive of amending the constitution, then it's not absurd at all to argue that preventing the vote was undemocratic.  It may still ultimately be the incorrect argument, but that doesn't mean that it can be dismissed out of hand, as you claim.  Perceptions matter.

The country apparently has a procedure by which the Honduran congress can replace an acting president, so I'd say yes.

Then why didn't they use it?  Don't tell me that they did, because the reports I've read so far have claimed that the transfer of power hinged on the congress accepting a "letter of resignation" which Zelaya claims he didn't write (and even if he did write it, he clearly wrote it under duress).  If they had done this appropriately, their actions wouldn't have needed to be based on such a flimsy pretext as an obviously invalid resignation letter.

Look, I'm not claiming that Zelaya should have been allowed to run for another term, or that Honduras's constitution needed to be amended.  All I'm saying is that this wasn't the way to go about stopping Zelaya from doing these things.  If the opposition had waited until Zelaya actually carried out the unconstitutional action, then brought him up on charges, then removed him from office through valid impeachment procedures, there would be no complaints.  As it is, it looks like they removed him from office because they were afraid that he would have won the referendum (i.e., that he would have been able to prove that the majority of the public supported what he was doing).  

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

You mean every time a President attempts to pass a law through Congress that he knows is unconstitutional we can kick him out via coup?  Fascinating analysis.

Through Congress, no. Around Congress, yes.

You mean you agree that when Bush tried to get around the laws passed by Congress through signing statements, that was a coup-worthy offense?  I'm glad you've finally seen the light!

I'm glad you've finally seen the light!

And just in time for a coup against the latest guy to use signing statements, too.

(I kid, I kid.)

With all due respect Gerry, you know I agree with you on many right wing issues, but really? If this is the case then where was the militia when President Bush '43 ran roughshod over that "goddamn piece of paper" otherwise known as the Constitution?

♫You's a superstar boy, why you still up in the hood?♫

President Bush '43 ran roughshod over that "goddamn piece of paper"

Not without Congressional approval, he didn't. For all the bloviating liberals did over the past administration, the fact remains that everything Bush did was meticulously done with Congressional knowledge and approval. Heck, by now we know that Pelosi was even personally informed about waterboarding, and that was one of the few examples where Congress didn't explicitly pass legislation allowing Bush to act as he did. It's not at all the same as what just happened in Honduras -- not even close.

So why didn't the militias rise up and kick out both Pelosi and Bush from the country? Somebody should have been kicked out if that's where you're going with this.

♫You's a superstar boy, why you still up in the hood?♫

So why didn't the militias rise up and kick out both Pelosi and Bush from the country?

Because then it would be the militias who were going against the will of the entire government. Also, militia members aren't generally the ones most concerned with what rights foreigners might or might not have.

Are you saying President Bush was a Foreigner?

♫You's a superstar boy, why you still up in the hood?♫

Well...he was cold as ice.

Minty fresh

Clearly you forgot Bush's "reinterpretation" of the anti-torture act passed by Congress, specifically addressing waterboarding.  Or for that matter, his executive order to ignore FISA's warrant requirements for wire tapping.

Signing statements = an end run around the will of Congress.  And according to your above comments, worthy of being removed by the military.

Aside from a few areas of San Juan, I didn't find Puerto Rico to be a bad place to hang out. Where were all these guys with guns and triple bars on the windows and stray dogs? (I did see a couple stray horses in Arecibo, though.)

My sister was put in charge of a family trip, so she picked Puerto Rico because my bro in law has a clearance and is too lazy to fill out the damn paperwork to leave the country or something. Who knows. Anywho, to "save money" we stayed at some rental place in Loiza. Good times. My dad also likes visiting "ethnic places" that are "local" and "off the beaten path" which means "Let's act like a fucking tourist and try to get mugged by walking in circles in the fun part of San Juan trying to find a place to go to Lunch that's not listed in the guidebook --- because its better that way." It's probably a good thing we weren't using the guidebook because we went way outside the tourist area.

There was at least one time when my parents, sister and her husband were standing on a corner in some random alley as my dad and my sisters husband pulled out their brand new digital cameras and started taking pictures of everything, maps in hand.

But then again, when my dad visits us he likes to drive through the bad parts of town and rolls down the window to talk to (and later give money to) the 'locals' who stagger up to his car at red lights. Because 'they're just having a rough time and need a bit of temporary help.' And let's not forget that he really doesn't believe my area is all that bad. To demonstrate this he likes to drive through the area on visits with his doors unlocked despite my pointing out "Hey, dad, somebody got shot in broad fucking daylight on this corner right here last week." or whatever.

Street smarts, my parents have none.

♫You's a superstar boy, why you still up in the hood?♫