Manuel Zelaya removed himself from the Honduran presidency

I’ve wondered if Honduras President Manuel Zelaya’s ouster is similar to our Marbury v. Madison ruling that, among other things, declared any law to be invalid if it violates the U.S. Constitution.

Well, as it turns out, there is a similarity. In The Christian Science Monitor, Octavio Sanchez says Zelaya made himself invalid by violating the Honduras constitution:

On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the “Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly.” In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an “opinion poll” about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: “No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], 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.”

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says “immediately” – as in “instant,” as in “no trial required,” as in “no impeachment needed.”

Instant karma. The words look fairly clear. The Honduras constitution has its term limits and the instant punishment for anyone tampering with term limits precisely because Honduras has had too many bad experiences with leaders who won’t leave.

Unless Sanchez is omitting something big from his explanation, no one seems to have denied Zelaya a chance to save his job before his “functions ceased” for violating the term limit provision.

With the Honduran Supreme Court on its side, the army stepped in. Constitution preserved. That would not be a coup.

Frank Warner

Comments

[David Holliday]

My understanding, is that Zelaya originally proposed to hold a "referendum" but when he learned of the above clause he tried to reposition it as a "poll" because he thought that would not trigger the constitutional prohibition.

[runescape money]

Who are you people? A public referendum on an additional presidential term for Zalaya was about to begin when him was arrested and sent out of the country. This democratic process was thwarted by a coup (yes,it's a coup, and you can call it anything else you’d like) but it just a coup, an illegal takeover of power, the Honduran Supreme Court notwithstanding.
runescape money

[What?]

Yes, An illegal public referendum that was bankrolled by Hugo Chavez. In Honduran law only the Congress can call for the type of referendum Zalaya was trying to hold. For Zalaya to do what he was doing is expicitly forbidden in the Honduran Constitution.

It was Zalaya who was thwarting the legal democratic process in Honduras. Get your facts straight.

[Billybobwilliam]

Yes, his ouster was certainly carried out in a coup-like fashion, but that does not mean that there was no basis for his immediate removal. The problem here is that the way in which immediate removal must carried out is not addressed in Article 239 or anywhere else, at least not to my knowledge. A little clarity in this area would have been helpful.

-Viva Fidel!

[Frank Warner]

End tyranny. Down with Fidel and his brother. Free Cuba.

[CJW]

Cuba, si! Castro, no!

[Nicholas]

According to Wikipedia:

"A coup d'état (pronounced /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/ us dict: kōō′·dā·tâ′), or coup for short, is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment — usually the military — to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military."

I'm no expert on Honduran law but it seems to me that when the military is acting on legitimate orders from the Supreme Court that it isn't an unconstitutional deposition. Further it seems that by repeatedly violating the constitution this guy was no longer a legitimate member of the government.