First things first. I’m back in Michigan now, as of Wed. past, raking leaves—which have fallen earlier than usual this year. Here’s hoping you are well along with your Nora, and best wishes to John, Robin, Kev, et al. (And I am delighted to find La Cuadra online!

As with Michael, above, thanks for taking the time to read and respond. Here’s a question, from the gut, staying away from Court, Constitutional and Congressional questions: what’s wrong with polling the public (in June) to see if they would support having the congress (during the summer) draft a ballot which if passed (in November, when Zelaya’s successor would be elected) would call for the nation to enact a mechanism to rewrite the constitution?

On its face, this seems unobjectionable—If I were to stop here, you would seem to have won the point, but please bear with me while I at least attempt to wrestle you to a draw! I’m afraid I cannot respond fully to your question sans mention of those messy legalities.
(1) Honduras has an established Constitution and procedures for amendment (articles 373 and 374, if I am not mistaken) which have, in the past, been followed. Since 1982, the Honduran Constitution has been amended on 20-some occasions.
(2) In Honduras, as in Michigan or the US as a whole, the Head of State is not empowered to add a “ballot initiative,” however innocuous, just on his or her say-so. We follow legal procedure, rather than submit to rule by caudillo.
(3) As I’m sure you know, Zeleya’s perfectly innocent (I’m willing to thus characterize it, for the sake of argument) ‘public opinion poll’ had been both ruled constitutionally impermissible by the Supreme Court disallowed by the Election Commission. After ballots had been printed (in Venezuela, presumably necessary due to the law-abiding nature of Honduran print-shop owners), the military had, in compliance with the aforementioned rulings, refused to distribute them. Nonetheless, Mr. Zelaya had led a mob of his supporters as they broke into a military installation, ‘liberated’ the ballots, and then announced his intention to proceed with the ‘non-binding plebiscite.’
(4) In light of the preceding, I repeat that Mr. Zelaya’s ballot question per se is unobjectionable. It can be argued, however, that his removal from office was not predicated on the form or content of the ballot question, but on his attempt to force a vote in defiance and disregard of the rule of law.
(5) Food for thought—First, if Mr. Zelaya’s actions were simply the result of his altruistic zeal to reform the constitution for the betterment of Honduras, would he not have been wiser, in light of the rulings of the controlling legal authorities, to wait six months until his term expired, and thereafter work for reform as a private citizen? Second, why didn’t he just call George Gallup or Elmo Roper and conduct a public-opinion poll, if his intention was merely to present the findings to Congress?

What is the fear? That the people of Honduras would have taken the opportunity to publicly tell the congress that they DO want to have the opportunity to vote for a Constitutional Assembly? That the Congress, having been given a mandate for change, would have a difficult decision to make: either to pass a law supporting a 4th ballot box or acting in defiance of the public will? Or was the fear that if there were a fourth ballot box in November that the majority of Hondurans would have voted for a Constitutional Assembly, thus expressing their dissatisfaction with a Constitution drafted under a military dictatorship?

The fear seems to be that Mel, having demonstrated his willingness, as executive, to ignore and defy all other institutions of Honduran government, might have had in mind to pull something out of his sleeve between June and November. If he were to have succeeded in conducting his illegal, improper, unconstitutional plebiscite…if he could get away with ignoring the courts and the election commissions the first time…who would have been surprised had he next made the unilateral decision to cancel, postpone, or nullify the November elections? “Give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take a mile” or, as they say in Honduras, “give ‘em a hand and they’ll take your elbow!” To a great many people, it seems, the possibility that Zelaya may have been scheming to extend his term in office, does not seem as far-fetched as you would have it. There are, after all, the examples of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and now, if the ruling of the FSLN-packed court holds, Nicaragua to consider. (Not to say there has been underhandedness in all cases but the Nicas, at least, seem to think there is something fishy going on.)

Furthermore, I am not aware of any specific provisions or articles of the Honduran Constitution that Mel or his supporters find objectionable. They are silent on this point. Why and how do they wish alter it? No answer. In fact, they do not want to ‘alter’ the present constitution but to scrap the whole thing and start over! And why is that? Because article 239 (term limits) is inalterable and immutable, of course! Any other changes or ‘tweaks’ could be accomplished by means of amendment, with the single exception of the term-limit provision.

This seems as good a time as any to make the point that—just because it was drafted under military rule—that doesn’t necessarily mean that the present Honduran Constitution was designed with the purpose of supporting and perpetuating a repressive oligarchical power structure or any of that nonsense. It had been decided in 1980 to return the country to civilian rule and so the 1982 constitution was drafted in part so that the newly-elected president Suazo and congress and the courts and so forth would have their powers and responsibilities defined beforehand and so that messy bickering and power-struggles and whatnot could be avoided under the new civil government, once it took effect. The US Constitution was similarly adopted (1787) before George Washington assumed the presidency (1789). Nothing sinister about that.

It’s either something along those lines, which is frightening, or it is an acceptance that coups in Central America are legitimate if some percentage of the military and the political class of that nation feels the president is violating a PROCEDURAL regulation… which, if you play it out is a pretty scary scenario, too.

As far as I can tell, the military’s only involvement was in carrying out the orders of the Supreme Court, with no hand in the decision to remove Mr. Zelaya. In the US it takes a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate to remove an executive. In Honduras, if I recall correctly, the legislators’ vote was 109-5 and the court was unanimous. What “percentage” would be acceptable, pray tell?
(I’m afraid I’m a bit too obtuse to understand the “PROCEDURAL” argument, frankly. I think I recall something along the lines of Andrew Jackson saying “The judges have made their decision. Now let them enforce it,” but otherwise can’t recall anything comparable in US history. Nixon didn’t burn the tapes. Roosevelt complied when the court ruled against a number of his New Deal programs. I would expect that if the court finds it unconstitutional to compel purchase of health insurance, Obama will drop the idea.)

The legality of the coup aside (and any stake holder, pro-Zelaya or pro-Michelliti, La Cuadra or La Gringa’s Blogicito) will read the law differently – i.e. the coup was legal in theory, but illegal in practice due to the way that he was removed from the country by the military… whatever.

You have accurately stated here, I believe, the prevailing opinion among legal experts and constitutional scholars. This is, in a nutshell, the conclusion of, for example, the legal arm of the US Library of Congress. The General in charge of the operation put it much the same way within days of the event, in fact, conceding that Zelaya’s banishment may not have been strictly proper under the law, but explaining that the reason for his exile was to avoid bloodshed. Makes sense to me.

History is written by the victors and in this regard the legality of a military takeover in Honduras will be determined by historians on the prevailing side. And this was my central point for those of us in Guatemala. Other regional stake holders will read that history and it may become the model for change throughout Central America.
(History is written by the victors…that’s probably why Latinos like the New York Yankees so much…They always fall for that bullshit.) As an aside, I’m not sure it is the job of historians to make such determinations regarding matters of law. Anyway, with all the opprobrium and sanctions and so forth that has befallen Honduras, I kind of doubt it will become a ‘model.’ To the contrary, I think Honduras and a few other countries, if they are smart, might well decide that their next constitutional amendments should involve the addition of some provision to codify an orderly manner of impeachment!
A history written that vindicates internal military intervention against elected governments is damned scary. I’d say it should worry you, too.

Well, we both know the military didn’t initiate anything and were just carrying out what they considered to be lawful orders of the court. Instead of a military junta ruling the country now, we’ve got Roberto Micheletti, the next-in-line constitutionally, who has shown no interest whatsoever in staying in office beyond January 27th, and who has offered several times to step aside in favor of a ‘national unity’ government, etc., etc. The legislature and courts have not been dissolved. The involvement of the military in the matter, frankly, causes me no consternation. I guess they don’t have Federal Marshals in Honduras or the job probably would have fallen to them.

Still, I stand by the objective truth that the poll Zelaya intended to hold in June would have asked if the voter supported the convening of of a Constitutional Assembly and NOT if the voter would like to repeal the term limitations placed on the President of Honduras.

Yes, correct, agreed, no argument, indubitably true.

Under no conceivable circumstances could that have led to Mel Zelaya running for reelection in November. I’ve found that getting supporters of Micheletti and the coup to acknowledge this point of fact to be like pulling teeth.

That’s because your final “point of fact” is more in the nature of conjecture, speculation, naivete, Pollyanna-like optimism. (Ok, a bit of hyperbole on my part, but…I actually think it more likely that he would have canceled the November balloting altogether than have stood for re-election.)

The other point of fact that I will not concede is that John Negroponte is a suspected vampire. My evidence – I SUSPECT HIM! Q.E.D.

Ok, then. Hasta luego…

As with Michael, above, thanks for taking the time to read and respond. Here’s a question, from the gut, staying away from Court, Constitutional and Congressional questions: what’s wrong with polling the public (in June) to see if they would support having the congress (during the summer) draft a ballot which if passed (in November, when Zelaya’s successor would be elected) would call for the nation to enact a mechanism to rewrite the constitution? What is the fear? That the people of Honduras would have taken the opportunity to publicly tell the congress that they DO want to have the opportunity to vote for a Constitutional Assembly? That the Congress, having been given a mandate for change, would have a difficult decision to make: either to pass a law supporting a 4th ballot box or acting in defiance of the public will? Or was the fear that if there were a fourth ballot box in November that the majority of Hondurans would have voted for a Constitutional Assembly, thus expressing their dissatisfaction with a Constitution drafted under a military dictatorship?

It’s either something along those lines, which is frightening, or it is an acceptance that coups in Central America are legitimate if some percentage of the military and the political class of that nation feels the president is violating a PROCEDURAL regulation… which, if you play it out is a pretty scary scenario, too.

The legality of the coup aside (and any stake holder, pro-Zelaya or pro-Michelliti, La Cuadra or La Gringa’s Blogicito) will read the law differently – i.e. the coup was legal in theory, but illegal in practice due to the way that he was removed from the country by the military… whatever. History is written by the victors and in this regard the legality of a military takeover in Honduras will be determined by historians on the prevailing side. And this was my central point for those of us in Guatemala. Other regional stake holders will read that history and it may become the model for change throughout Central America.

A history written that vindicates internal military intervention against elected governments is damned scary. I’d say it should worry you, too.

Still, I stand by the objective truth that the poll Zelaya intended to hold in June would have asked if the voter supported the convening of of a Constitutional Assembly and NOT if the voter would like to repeal the term limitations placed on the President of Honduras.
Under no conceivable circumstances could that have led to Mel Zelaya running for reelection in November. I’ve found that getting supporters of Micheletti and the coup to acknowledge this point of fact to be like pulling teeth.

The other point of fact that I will not concede is that John Negroponte is a suspected vampire. My evidence – I SUSPECT HIM! Q.E.D.

Safe travels, my friend. Will we see you up this way before you head back north?
Mike

Also, one could certainly take issue with your attempt to paint Mel as being tough on drug traffickers.

I did learn a couple things I hadn’t heard before, though, such as the bit about Micheletti’s having advocated for the repeal of term limits. I’d never before heard the rumor about Negroponte being a suspected vampire, either.

My wife and mother-in-law are Hondurans, remember, so we’ve been following the events pretty closely. Your article raises some good points for discussion (along with a fair number of irrelevancies). For any interested readers who’d like to find out more information (from a different perspective) I’d like to recommend googling “La Gringa’s Blogicito.” She (resident of La Ceiba) has been posting on this topic almost continuously for the past four months, with lots of links, videos, etc.

On a slightly different note, I just read this online. It appears there may be a negotiated settlement developing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE59S3LY20091030