Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, 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.
It’s not exactly like the U.S. Constitution, but does it violate norms of democratic republican government? I don’t think so. The problem of presidents who never leave power is all too common among undeveloped countries, so a very strict prohibition against multiple terms of office seems appropriate.
Zelaya directly violated Article 239 by ordering an election to reform the Constitution in order to keep himself in power beyond his term of office. He was then removed from office as the Constitution of his own country calls for.
How was Zelaya’s removal from office unlawful? It seems to be exactly what the Constitution of Honduras requires given his crime. Obama should be praising Honduras for following its own Constitution and peacefully removing a president from power. Instead, he demands that Honduras violate its own Constitution by bringing Zelaya back.
Obama’s support of Zelaya is the most outrageous thing he’s done since he was elected. I knew he was a liberal, and expected stuff like tax increases and judicial appointments like Sonia Sotomayor. What I didn’t expect was that he would demand that a guy trying to become president-for-life be returned to power after he was lawfully removed by his own country’s legal processes.
Does Obama sympathize with Zelaya because he plans to violate Article Amendment XXII of the U.S. Constitution (which was proposed and ratified in the United States after President Roosevelt refused to honor the two-term tradition set by George Washington)?
The New York Times, which supposedly publishes all the news that’s fit to print, doesn’t see fit to write about Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution and how Zelaya’s removal was consistent with Honduran law.
Here is the Honduran Article 239 from a trustworthy source. While I have an idea what it says, I wanted to be fair and allow an impartial translation of this to be performed:
ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Designado. El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos, y quedarán inhabilitados por diez años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.
I plugged this into a free web-based translation tool (worldlingo.com – about as impartial as you can get, it’s a machine.):
I ARTICULATE 239.- The citizen that have performed the ownership of the Executive Power will not be able to be a President or Appointed. The one that break this disposition or propose their reform, as well as those that support the direct or indirectly, they will cease immediately in the performance of their respective charges, and they will remain disqualified by ten years for the exercise of every civil service.
The entire Constitution of the Republic of Honduras can be read here.
********
I had someone comment on my take on this (prior to this being published here) and they stated:
If you want to split hairs here, technically this survey wasn’t unconstitutional. The article 239 prohibits reelections and states “Anyone who breaks this regulation or proposes its reform” (and not “this constitution” as the video states). Zelaya’s survey was asking about putting a fourth ballot box during the elections in order people to vote if they wanted an constitutional assembly to be created.
My response: I’m not “splitting hairs”, “parsing” or even “changing the parameters of the issue” – Sorry, no… That is you that is doing that. The “survey” was unconstitutional when it was brought up in Zelaya’s Presidential Decree as a “referendum” on March 23, 2009. Article 5 states that he does not have the power to even ask for a referendum. Only the Supreme Electoral Tribunal can call for an election. Zelaya was told this, not by one or two opposition party members, not by one or two lawyers – he was informed of the illegality of his actions by the Honduran Supreme Court, and by Congress (which his party controls), and by the Attorney General, in addition to many national institutions. This was no mere “technicality”. So what did Zelaya do? He carried on Hugo Chavez’s plans and forced a confrontation.
He had the “ballots”, “survey documents”, (whatever you want to call them) printed in Venezuela. He then passed them to the military to distribute. When the military refused, and warehoused the ballots, he fired the head of the military and stormed the army base with a mob, and declared that “no one was going to stop the vote”. The VOTE?? Thought this was a mere survey? Guess someone in the know (Zelaya) was thinking it was something else – silly President…
Well to make a long story short – the military, on orders from the Congress and the Supreme Court (who voted that the referendum was illegal on a 5-0 vote by the way, no split decision here), arrested Zelaya.
So – again, in short – Zelaya by his own words intended to hold an illegal vote in order to extend his eligibility for office of the President of Honduras. Article 239 is quite clear – ANYONE attempting what Zelaya did here “will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”
I guess I’m still not seeing how I am “splitting hairs” as you claim – Please enlighten me…
Sorry, but article 5 doesn’t mention a thing about referendums:
“El gobierno debe sustentarse en el principio de la democracia participativa del cual se deriva la integración nacional, que implica participación de todos los sectores políticos en la administración pública a fin de asegurar y fortalecer el progreso de Honduras basado en la estabilidad política y en la conciliación nacional.”
The congress prohibited the referendum after the decree was emitted and that’s why he turn it into a survey. The only unconstitutional thing I’ve seen so far is the kidnapping and exile of a democratically elected president. And I guess the assassinations perpetrated by this new super-democratic government weren’t too legal as well.
Yet you still totally miss the point and misdirect attention away from the issue (or attempt to). Article 5 says that ONLY the SET has the authority to set elections, dates of, and issues to be balloted on. Zelaya violated that article of the Constitution that he had sworn to uphold. What do you think a referendum is? It’s not just an opinion poll.
ref·er·en·dum (rěf’ə-rěn’dəm)
n. pl. ref·er·en·dums or ref·er·en·da (-də)
a. The submission of a proposed public statute to a direct popular vote.
b. Such a vote.
So, in layman’s terms, a referendum is a vote to pass or not pass a law, or change in the law. What law was the subject of Zelaya’s effort? The article of the Constitution that states “No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.”
But wait! – We continue to read, “Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform” – which is what Zelaya did… “will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”
This is black-letter law. He proposed a change to Article 239, an offense requiring his removal. He attempted to enact his effort by committing an illegal act by proposing a referendum that he had absolutely no authority to even ask a vote be taken.
It didn’t matter if the referendum was on seat-belt laws – Zelaya did not have the power to ask for a vote on the issue. This was a constitutional violation. The major problem (which you seem to continue to convieniently gloss over) is that the referendum was an attempt to change (reform) something that was stricly forbidden under the Constitution he swore to uphold. This fact is what caused his removal. Because removal was the only remedy that the Honduran Constitution allows.
I continue to study the Honduran Constitution, and it seems that it was unconstitutional for them to send Zelaya to another nation – yet, even this fact does not mitigate his attempt to subvert democracy and the rule of law in the first place.
[...] The Rule Of Law – In Honduras… « Non Sequitur RantingsIt seems to be exactly what the Constitution of Honduras requires given his crime. Obama should be praising Honduras for following its own Constitution and peacefully removing a president from power. Instead, he demands that Honduras … [...]