Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   11/10/22

      Help keep cascadeclimbers.com going!  Please consider donating so we can keep this site going.   We have set expenses right now but no revenue.  We do hope to getting a sponsor to help out, but for now we just need funds to upgrade the site and pay for hosting and licensing. See the "DONATE" tab in the top menu.
Sign in to follow this  
Fairweather

Honduras Smack Down

Recommended Posts

Not a coup. A constitutionally ordered arrest and deportation. Congress is in charge.

 

now we've really moved into the field of speculation (based on our political leanings).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can only assume that referendums which nulify parts of said constitution are foreign to any constitution.

 

i'm not sure, but if you are right, the articles of impeachment would seemingly come into play, yes?

 

it seems that if indeed one is concerned about the unconstitutionality of the president's actions, one would support a constitutional approach to rectify the situation (since one exists; i think we can all agree that a military coup is decidedly unconstitutional, yes?).

 

What, praytell are the articles of impeachment in Honduras? What does the Honduran constitution have to say about wanton disregard of the Hunduran constitution by the former president?

 

Not knowing the particlulars of the Honduran constitution, I cannot assume whether this is constitutional or not. The legislature seemed to think it was. The only person that I KNOW broke the law was the former president for his disregard for the constitution of Honduras and the faith of his people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my sincere hope that the officers of the United States Armed Forces would act in like fashion if a present or future leader here were to defy the Congress and Supreme Court in the same manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is my sincere hope that the officers of the United States Armed Forces would act in like fashion if a present or future leader here were to defy the Congress and Supreme Court in the same manner.

 

wilco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not knowing the particlulars of the Honduran constitution, I cannot assume whether this is constitutional or not. The legislature seemed to think it was. The only person that I KNOW broke the law was the former president for his disregard for the constitution of Honduras and the faith of his people.

 

yes, assumptions can lead one astray, and, being the sincere seeker of truth that you are, you would come to an understanding of the entire situation before jumping in and supporting one side or the other. it's the only way a just patriot can ever act, because once convictions based on truth and justice are lost, all is lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not knowing the particlulars of the Honduran constitution, I cannot assume whether this is constitutional or not. The legislature seemed to think it was. The only person that I KNOW broke the law was the former president for his disregard for the constitution of Honduras and the faith of his people.

 

yes, assumptions can lead one astray, and, being the sincere seeker of truth that you are, you would come to an understanding of the entire situation before jumping in and supporting one side or the other. it's the only way a just patriot can ever act, because once convictions based on truth and justice are lost, all is lost.

 

True, but only one truth is necessary for the forced outing of a leader and that is the overstepping of his duties and rights as leader of a country. This has obviously happened here and revolution/ coup is the only cure.

 

Your satire is not lost on me and I expect nothing less from a poster on this board. My ideals are simple, my mind is not. Our forefathers warned of the dangers of leaders overstepping their boundaries and gave us fairly explicit instructions how do deal with them.

 

To judge others for dealing with their issues in the same manner prescribed to us by our founding fathers is worse than hypocrisy; it is revisionist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The constitution was voted in by congress that happens to represent the interest of the oligarchy (2 rightwing parties have dominated politics since the return to civilian rule). It seems a little circuitous that congress declares the people ineligible to vote on their form of government. The majority of Hondurans are extremely poor and less than 50% vote for their elected representatives, which combined with a required 2/3 fraction of congress to amend the constitution means the status quo is almost guaranteed.

 

when was the constitution in its present form voted in?

 

Sometimes in the 80's. I seem to recall the military gave up power in 82 (?)

 

in the US, we cannot change our constitution through referendum; i'm inclined to think i'd rather not have it be malleable enough to be subjected to the whims of the general public. i'd think that in honduras, the solution would be to get better voter turnout, yes?

 

and, would you really want to see an entrenched president (here or in honduras) winning term after term? we both know what kind of advantages incumbents enjoy (think ronald reagan and the talk about a constitutional amendment).

 

The referendum was called to consider an assembly to review the constitution. One of the goals is presumably to allow a 2nd 4-year presidential term, so by any standard there is no question of entrenchment. One of the goal is indeed for Hondurans to participate more in the electoral process but it's not going to happen as long as the status quo is maintained.

 

why not let the people vote on a new assembly instead? what are they afraid of?

 

? i think they have a "functioning" democracy, where the people are free to vote on whoever they wish, right? now if you're talking about a "referendum" on constitutional changes, see above.

 

I don't call having 45-47% of potential voters partaking to elections in a country where most are dirt poor a functionning democracy. It's probable that many rural inhabitants don't vote. Even if people are nominally free to vote, without education and equal access to the ballot box and the political process, elections are pretty much a foregone conclusion, which really questions why they needed a military coup d'etat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you take a look my inquiries regarding your Bush post then you will see why the Honduras situation isn't all that complicated. If Bush acted in the manner described--like the Honduran president did--would you support his arrest/removal from office? I suspect you supported the latter for much less perceived offense.

 

Rhetorical hyperbola isn't a good susbtitute for facts: the Honduran president is accused of seeking a second 4-year term. How is that more of an offense than systematic spying on americans, making up intelligence to create a cause for war that cost the lives of 100,000's iraqis, and on, and on ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you take a look my inquiries regarding your Bush post then you will see why the Honduras situation isn't all that complicated. If Bush acted in the manner described--like the Honduran president did--would you support his arrest/removal from office? I suspect you supported the latter for much less perceived offense.

 

Rhetorical hyperbola isn't a good susbtitute for facts: the Honduran president is accused of seeking a second 4-year term.

 

Now, now, j_b--you know very well that he is guilty of defying the orders of his Congress and Supreme Court and acting against his nation's constitution. I fully expect a boutique revolutionary like yourself to sympathize with commie-wannabees, but let's not minimize and feign innocent intent when it's very clear what he was up to. Run along now. Your basement circle is having a reading tonight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, right. He is a commie for wanting a 2nd 4 year term and I am one for saying it sounds reasonable to put the question to the people. By the same token, your friend Uribe of Colombia is a commie too since he did the same thing in 2004. Moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My ideals are simple, my mind is not.

 

if you didn't make statements like the following, i'd believe you:

 

True, but only one truth is necessary for the forced outing of a leader and that is the overstepping of his duties and rights as leader of a country. This has obviously happened here and revolution/ coup is the only cure.

 

remember, you did say you knew nothing about the legality of the forced removal; you might investigate this first.

 

Our forefathers warned of the dangers of leaders overstepping their boundaries and gave us fairly explicit instructions how do deal with them.

 

tell me how our forefathers codified processes for the removal of a president who overstepped his or her boundaries; i believe it had something to do with "impeachment", yes?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, there's a whole bunch of shit in the US Constitution I take exception to.

 

That hasn't been nullified by amendment? Like what?

 

The Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to your snipe, I certainly supported Bush's arrest and removal because I was personally offended that in all of his faith-based bully-pulpit-ing he marginalized my one true god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

You're a joke! Really!

Sit down, "Spaghetti Monster".

 

simple_jack_movie_poster.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, there's a whole bunch of shit in the US Constitution I take exception to.

 

That hasn't been nullified by amendment? Like what?

 

The Senate.

 

Article I, Section 3. WTF are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll sidestep the akmenisnutjob thing for now to say that it looks to me that our President made a good call.

 

"President Barack Obama urged Honduras to "respect the rule of law"".

 

How can one disagree with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"President Barack Obama urged Honduras to "respect the rule of law"".

 

How can one disagree with it?

 

Because "Tyranny" is being redefined as "what a conservative feels under the Obama administration" and which spawns all sorts of fantasies about a coup de'tat right here at home. You know, "by any means necessary", to quote, ironically, popular communist ideology. How close they are to one another.

:yoda:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relevant passage:

 

Replacement Duel Ensues in Honduras After President Ousted

 

Monday, June 29, 2009

Associated Press

 

[abridged]

 

The Honduran constitution limits presidents to a single 4-year term and forbids any modification of that limit. Zelaya's opponents feared he would use the referendum results to try to run again, just as Chavez reformed his country's constitution to be able to seek re-election repeatedly.

 

 

Note the word "feared." Can we be clear? No one actually says Zelaya actually was in the process of extending his term limit. His government was afraid that is what he was going to do if his referendum was allowed, meaning this was a preemptive deportation. Ok? You guys can bluster all you want about true patriotism and how to deal with dictators and whatever, but unless you can show me where Zelaya definitively was in the process of desecrating his constitution (ie, with respect to messing with term limits when doing so is expressly forbidden), then his referendum was not some emergency that required desperate measures, meaning there was clearly time for a democratic process to take effect without involving the military or a coup. I don't think anyone here is arguing that Zelaya should be allowed to disobey the constitution and change the term limits, but rather that the rest of the world is correct in condemning the Honduran government staging a military coup against its president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when a nation is saved from a slide into socialist dictatorship.

 

I am again going to ask you which decade you think this is. The Cold War is over. Using the word "socialist" instead of "communist" does not change its function as an epithet.

 

 

In response to your snipe, I certainly supported Bush's arrest and removal because I was personally offended that in all of his faith-based bully-pulpit-ing he marginalized my one true god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

You're a joke! Really!

Sit down, "Spaghetti Monster".

 

Yes. My allusion to the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a joke. You are learning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. My allusion to the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a joke. You are learning!

 

No, pal...you AREN'T learning. YOU are the joke.

 

moore-simpleton.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a coup. A constitutionally ordered arrest and deportation. Congress is in charge. Strange how Obama adopts a policy of "silence" vis a vis Ahmadinijad in Iran, but is "outraged" when a nation is saved from a slide into socialist dictatorship. Strange indeed.

 

So, when is his trial scheduled? :rolleyes:

 

Don't get me wrong; I basically dislike anyone in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My ideals are simple, my mind is not.

 

if you didn't make statements like the following, i'd believe you:

 

True, but only one truth is necessary for the forced outing of a leader and that is the overstepping of his duties and rights as leader of a country. This has obviously happened here and revolution/ coup is the only cure.

 

remember, you did say you knew nothing about the legality of the forced removal; you might investigate this first.

 

Our forefathers warned of the dangers of leaders overstepping their boundaries and gave us fairly explicit instructions how do deal with them.

 

tell me how our forefathers codified processes for the removal of a president who overstepped his or her boundaries; i believe it had something to do with "impeachment", yes?

 

 

1) The right to overthrow tyrannical dictators does not require a constitution.

2) Our forefathers outlined their methods for dealing with tyranny by kicking brittish ass.

 

Impeachment? Seems to me Honduras tried that. We tried legal matters with england too. Should we have left it with that and just called it quits?

 

You don't need a piece of paper to tell you that if you are being abused, you have the moral right to rise up and kick some ass.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×