+- TSP Archives (https://archive.tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: The South Pacific Historical Archives (https://archive.tspforums.xyz/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: General (https://archive.tspforums.xyz/forumdisplay.php?fid=98)
+---- Forum: RL Political Discussion (https://archive.tspforums.xyz/forumdisplay.php?fid=195)
+---- Thread: Constitutional Substitution or Coup? (/showthread.php?tid=3278)
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - Napoc - 08-17-2009
The political crisis in Honduras is somewhat old news as the coup d'etat/constitutional substitution happened in June, but I was wondering what people thought.
Is this just a pattern that the rest of Latin America has set
<a class='bbc_url' href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8159932.stm'>Honduras crisis reflects regional battle</a>
Is it more an internal conflict
<a class='bbc_url' href='http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/world/americas/09honduras.html?_r=1'>President?s Ouster Highlights a Divide in Honduras</a>
Any thoughts?
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - mavenu - 08-18-2009
honestly, i was amused that Chavez and Obama were agreeing on something.
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - Napoc - 08-18-2009
actually, that was pretty interesting. chavez still insists that the US was involved somehow though. seems likely too since the plane taking the deposed president stoped at a US base for refueling before it took him to costa rica.
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - Guest - 08-19-2009
The US has a long history of being involved in central and south America, so it wouldn't surprise me...
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - Napoc - 08-19-2009
It's had a fairly long history around the world. Even if this was in someway helped out by either the government or US interests abroad though, I feel like the biggest problem, not just in Honduras but around Latin America, is internal. The region is notorious for corruption, poverty, violations of human rights etc. This coup could be considered just a symptom of a larger problem.
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - mavenu - 09-18-2009
can't that also be said of all the $$$ we've poured into africa?
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - Napoc - 09-22-2009
Yeah, but since the mid 1800's the United States has viewed Latin America as it's own private playground, it's sphere of influence.
I know this puts President Obama in a tough situation but I feel that the U.S. response to this has been lukewarm. In my mind, it really should have been immediate outrage, but then I have biases.
Anyway, the situation is heating up. Zelaya just yesterday <a class='bbc_url' href='http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/21/world/international-honduras-zelaya.html?fta=y'>returned, staying at the Brazilian embassy</a>. The government led by Micheletti has responded by imposing a <a class='bbc_url' href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/honduras/6219026/Thousands-defy-Honduras-curfew.html'>curfew which was defied.</a> Now the government is <a class='bbc_url' href='http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-09-22-voa20.cfm'>breaking up the protests outside the Brazilian embassy</a>.
I think this is really important, more than just because my family is from Honduras (though that is clearly a big reason), but because it sets a precedent in this new century for what will be done in Latin America and possibly the rest of the world in case of arguably forceful take overs of power (I say arguably because the new government claims they were just following constitutional procedure).
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - tsunamy - 09-23-2009
Quote:I know this puts President Obama in a tough situation but I feel that the U.S. response to this has been lukewarm. In my mind, it really should have been immediate outrage, but then I have biases.I disagree.
First of all, you can't have it both ways -- wanting the US to not interfere when it suits you and interfere when it fits your view.
Second, this is an internal dispute. Frankly, from an outsiders perspective, it seems to me as though the government was in fact following constitutional protocol. I don't know a lot about Honduran governmental issues, but the judicial system ruled what the former president was unconstitutional and he kept pushing it.
The government there just has more of a backbone than the U.S. legislative/judicial branches had during the Bush years ...
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - htz31361849782 - 09-23-2009
Or the current situation where the Dems can ramrod through anything they want to.
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - tsunamy - 09-24-2009
Quote:Or the current situation where the Dems can ramrod through anything they want to.Care to explain that comment?
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - htz31361849782 - 09-24-2009
Majority in the house and 60 senate seats if they really want something they can do it.
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - Caer Rialis - 09-24-2009
Quote:Majority in the house and 60 senate seats if they really want something they can do it.Until the appointment from Massachusetts is confirmed, it's actually 59 seats in the Senate. 59 does not preent a fillibuster.
However there is a big difference in having majorities in both houses and 'ramrodding' issues through. 'Ramrodding' leads one to believe that the bills and polciies unders debate are not being properly investigated, properly debated, and properly discussed. I would argue that this is not true.
The issues which have been under debate in Congress are not new issues; they're also not made up. What's more, there is a time constraint with many (the stimulus package) and there has been more then enough debate on both the stimuls package and health care reform (Good God, they have been discussing healthcare reform since the Truman Administration. When, exactly, has there been enough debate to satisfy people).
Today, when I see people complain about Congress 'ramrodding' bills through, I think of an amendment proposed by Patty Murray in the Clinton Healthcare plan, then later proposed as legislation as late as 2006, which would forbid insurance companies from determining that spousal abuse is a pre-existing condition. It was shot down in the 1990's; in 2006, the Health, Pensions and Welfare committee deadlocked, 10-10 on the issue (all ten no votes came from Republicans). So, really, if that becomes law with minimal debate today, it's not ramrodding, it's sensible policy that the Insurance Lobby and its paid for congressmen don't want interferring with their profits.
Now, back to discussions of foreign policy and Honduras.
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - htz31361849782 - 09-25-2009
Quote:<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > Majority in the house and 60 senate seats if they really want something they can do it.Until the appointment from Massachusetts is confirmed, it's actually 59 seats in the Senate. 59 does not preent a fillibuster.
However there is a big difference in having majorities in both houses and 'ramrodding' issues through. 'Ramrodding' leads one to believe that the bills and polciies unders debate are not being properly investigated, properly debated, and properly discussed. I would argue that this is not true.
The issues which have been under debate in Congress are not new issues; they're also not made up. What's more, there is a time constraint with many (the stimulus package) and there has been more then enough debate on both the stimuls package and health care reform (Good God, they have been discussing healthcare reform since the Truman Administration. When, exactly, has there been enough debate to satisfy people).
Today, when I see people complain about Congress 'ramrodding' bills through, I think of an amendment proposed by Patty Murray in the Clinton Healthcare plan, then later proposed as legislation as late as 2006, which would forbid insurance companies from determining that spousal abuse is a pre-existing condition. It was shot down in the 1990's; in 2006, the Health, Pensions and Welfare committee deadlocked, 10-10 on the issue (all ten no votes came from Republicans). So, really, if that becomes law with minimal debate today, it's not ramrodding, it's sensible policy that the Insurance Lobby and its paid for congressmen don't want interferring with their profits.
Now, back to discussions of foreign policy and Honduras.
</blockquote>It was confirmed today.
I'm glad to discuss Honduras someone else brought up American politics and the republicans I was just trying to maintain a balance in information.
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - tsunamy - 09-25-2009
Quote:I'm glad to discuss Honduras someone else brought up American politics and the republicans I was just trying to maintain a balance in information.I feel the need to respond here ... even if it is off topic.
htz, I was comparing the situation in Honduras with the Bush administration ignoring the Constitution when it felt like it.
And in regard to the current officials "ramrodding" things through the legislature, they were elected to make laws. As long as those laws do not interfere with the Constitution, they are legally allowed (or should I say obligated?) to do that. That's life. You don't have to like the policies they come up with, but a growing majority of Americans seem to ... or we wouldn't have such Democratic control.
If you don't like the way things are being done ... write your congressmen. Campaign for someone. But realize that these people have the power until the next election. We elected them, this is what we get ... whether we agree or not.
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - htz31361849782 - 09-25-2009
Fair enough tsu. However I believe every administration does that at some point. I agree over all that the USA has not always had the interest of anyplace in mind that it always come back to our self interests.
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - Napoc - 09-27-2009
Quote:Second, this is an internal dispute. Frankly, from an outsiders perspective, it seems to me as though the government was in fact following constitutional protocol. I don't know a lot about Honduran governmental issues, but the judicial system ruled what the former president was unconstitutional and he kept pushing it.The Honduran constitution says that no Honduran can be forced into exile. Even if Zelaya was breaking the constitution, no one had the right to forcefully eject him. If he was guilty of a crime, then the courts should have had no problem prosecuting. Instead they took him out by gunpoint. That doesn't seem like having backbone, that seems like banditry to me.
The government there just has more of a backbone than the U.S. legislative/judicial branches had during the Bush years ...
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - tsunamy - 09-28-2009
Quote:<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > Second, this is an internal dispute. Frankly, from an outsiders perspective, it seems to me as though the government was in fact following constitutional protocol. I don't know a lot about Honduran governmental issues, but the judicial system ruled what the former president was unconstitutional and he kept pushing it.The Honduran constitution says that no Honduran can be forced into exile. Even if Zelaya was breaking the constitution, no one had the right to forcefully eject him. If he was guilty of a crime, then the courts should have had no problem prosecuting. Instead they took him out by gunpoint. That doesn't seem like having backbone, that seems like banditry to me.
The government there just has more of a backbone than the U.S. legislative/judicial branches had during the Bush years ...
</blockquote> Obviously, I'm not incredibly familiar with the Honduran constitiution.
But, I guess my question would be why does one constitutional provision (no exile) supersede(sp?) another (no term limit votes)?
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - Napoc - 09-28-2009
Quote:<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > Second, this is an internal dispute. Frankly, from an outsiders perspective, it seems to me as though the government was in fact following constitutional protocol. I don't know a lot about Honduran governmental issues, but the judicial system ruled what the former president was unconstitutional and he kept pushing it.The Honduran constitution says that no Honduran can be forced into exile. Even if Zelaya was breaking the constitution, no one had the right to forcefully eject him. If he was guilty of a crime, then the courts should have had no problem prosecuting. Instead they took him out by gunpoint. That doesn't seem like having backbone, that seems like banditry to me.
The government there just has more of a backbone than the U.S. legislative/judicial branches had during the Bush years ...
</blockquote>Obviously, I'm not incredibly familiar with the Honduran constitiution.
But, I guess my question would be why does one constitutional provision (no exile) supersede(sp?) another (no term limit votes)?
</blockquote> Well, he actually never passed that law. His intention was to change the constitution. He didn't get the chance because he was kicked out. He never broke the law then. They exiled him. So they actually broke the constitution.
It wasn't even a law that he was trying to pass. It was a non-binding referendum that simply asked the Honduran people if they wanted a change to the constitution. As far as I know, he didn't mention anywhere that he wanted to change the term limit. That came from the Honduran media, most of which is controlled by supporters of this coup/constitutional change. And right after the exchange in power took place, they said that Zelaya had resigned his post as president of Honduras, which clearly was false. I'm inclined to take what they say with a grain of salt.
So it's not really about which takes precedence. He had intended to break the constitution (because it does say you can't try to change the constitution), but he never did it. The military and new government actually did exile a Honduran, breaking the constitution.
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - tsunamy - 09-29-2009
So, your argument is that since the government pre-emptively stopped the crime, they are at fault? If they had waited until the vote was held and then expelled him, would've that been better?
Constitutional Substitution or Coup? - Napoc - 09-30-2009
no, they shouldn't have exiled him period. they should have put him on trial if he actually broke a crime. as it was, no crime had been committed. putting him on trial is constitutional. kicking him out isn't.