The Democrats In Honduras
…have to cave in to the fascist dictator huggers in Washington. This is shameful. Obama has given this country something to really apologize for.
[Update mid morning]
The Obama team did an excellent job of undermining the Honduran economy by cutting off economic assistance, throttling tourism with travel warnings, yanking visas away from Hondurans, and creating a climate of massive uncertainty that spooked U.S. investors and businesses. The U.S. embassy in Honduras did yeomen’s work watching out for the interests of the Zelaya clan, leaving many to wonder which side it was pulling for. In short, against a small, friendly, anti-Chávez ally, the administration mustered the sort of muscle it would never dare use against Iran, Russia, or Venezuela.
Guess it’s just more of that bullying people that you vastly outweighspeaking truth to power, like they did with Fox News.
[Late morning update]
Heh:
…the administration can’t show that it actually saved any jobs — other than Manuel Zelaya’s.
That one may prove very expensive.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Haven’t you got the memo? Supporting dictators is okay when Obama does it!
October 30th, 2009 at 7:46 am
“7. Requesting that the international community end all sanctions against Honduras and that they send in observers to the presidential election.”
I’m sure ACORN is on a plane heading down there right now to help over see things.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Birds of a feather…
October 30th, 2009 at 8:43 am
I have now come around to wanting to see that gone dim bar steward impeached.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:21 am
[...] Chicago comes to Honduras Honduran Government Succumbs to the Obama Administration’s Pressure, Fellow Marxist Manuel Zelaya Will Be Returned to Power….. Micheletti Caves in Honduras Telling It as It Is — New York Times Style Honduras Folds Part 2 Meanwhile, back in Honduras Zelaya’s back! Under U.S. Pressure, Bankrupt Honduras Agrees to Return Authoritarian Ex-President to Power Obama Administration Forces Honduran Capitulation to Chaves Wanna-Be The Rank Stench of Success The Democrats in Honduras [...]
October 30th, 2009 at 10:37 am
The Honduras situation is the definition of “messy.” We have a country that lacks an impeachment process and has a history of military coups, using the military to overthrow a popularly-elected leader. The reason for the overthrow? Calling a non-binding referendum. Then, the new government violently surpresses popular protests in favor of the ousted President.
I’m glad you have such moral clarity in this matter. Me – I see the proposed solution, which will see the “Dread Dictator Zelaya” out of power in January, as about as close to a good solution as it gets.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:41 am
It seems quite clear to me. This was in no way a coup. The military didn’t take over. I don’t know why you and the administration think that you understand the Honduran Constitution better than the Honduran Supreme Court does. I also think that when you’re on the same side as Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers, you should reconsider your position. But I suspect that the president thinks that validates it.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:51 am
This was in no way a coup. The military didn’t take over.
A military coup is a type of coup. A coup d’état is is the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment.
Regarding Chavez and the Castros, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. More to the point – Chavez wanted Zelaya’s referendum to go through. It won’t. Also, his ally Zelaya is now on a very short leash. Chavez is hardly popping the champagne on this deal.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I did say I am not an expert on the Honduran constitution – Gerrib
October 30th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Oh, snap!
October 30th, 2009 at 11:40 am
The general concensus is that Zelaya’s removal from office was constitutional. His exile was probably not. As far as I know, only one USA federal government agency has looked in the matter and decided that, yes, the removal was legal. Gerrib’s premise is flawed and therefore his conclusion as well.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Leland – I do actually learn new things over time. For example, I learned that the Honduran constitution did not have an impeachment clause. (Actually, I learned it here.)
My premise is that this is a messy situation, and neither side has covered themselves in glory. Therefore, a messy compromise that doesn’t please everybody is probably the best we could get.
October 30th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
A coup d’état is is the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment.
And what the Honduran Supreme Court ordered was “unconstitutional” because…? If they don’t know what’s constitutional and what’s not, who does? Obama? Hillary? You?
Therefore, a messy compromise that doesn’t please everybody is probably the best we could get.
What do you mean, “the best we could get”? Who is “we”? The Obama administration, unhappy that a dictator wannabe was constitutionally removed? What the hell business was it of theirs?
October 30th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
And Chris, why do you feel such a knee-jerk urge to defend everything that this administration does?
October 30th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
why do you feel such a knee-jerk urge to defend everything that this administration does? Why do you feel such a knee-jerk urge to attack everything they do?
Part of my desire to respond is the vicous name-calling and personal attacks you levy, this post being one of them. Part of my desire to respond is because I disagree with your thinking.
For example, in this case, everybody, including the European Union, seems to think that the coup was questionable. Everybody except some right-wing pundits in the US, that is. Maybe everybody is wrong and you’re right.
But making a knee-jerk assumption that one is right and the rest of the world is wrong seems to me to be arrogant and a good way to shoot yourself in the foot.
BTW, this would not be the first time in Central America that a court decided to re-write its country’s constitution on the fly in order to oust a politician it didn’t like. That’s the historical point here – Central America has a long history of one faction using whatever means available to oust another faction.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Why do you feel such a knee-jerk urge to attack everything they do?
I neither attack everything they do, or feel a knee-jerk urge to do so. There wouldn’t be enough hours in the day to do so, even if I were so inclined. I only attack the bad things they do, which unfortunately, are many. For instance, note that I haven’t attacked them at all on space policy, and have even occasionally been complimentary. But please, continue to ask foolish and baseless questions.
For example, in this case, everybody, including the European Union, seems to think that the coup was questionable.
Oh, the European Union. Speaking of non-Democratic institutions…
But making a knee-jerk assumption that one is right and the rest of the world is wrong seems to me to be arrogant and a good way to shoot yourself in the foot.
And yet that’s exactly what this administration did. And of course, it was quite in character. The supposedly “transparent” administration refuses to release the legal basis on which it made its decision to help out the dictator wannabe.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
“For example, in this case, everybody, including the European Union, seems to think that the coup was questionable.”
Law Library of Congress
Oops.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Funny how the Democrats want to hold everybody but themselves to the standards of the US Constution.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
There’s a very good reason that their constitution might not have stated a formal impeachment process–because once you put a person or group of people in charge of impeaching somebody, those people can be bought or threatened.
Witness Clinton’s survival–not on the grounds that the charges were false or untrue, but on the grounds that there wasn’t sufficient political will to enforce them.
More to the point, witness the stunt that Ortega just pulled–appealed a similar term limits law (except I think this one was a law, now a constitutional devree), rushed it through the court before the judges could arrive, and “replaced” them with his cronies (which sounds rather unconstitutional by itself).
The Honduran constitution doesn’t appoint anybody in charge of determining whether or not the president violated it–it simply says that if he does, he forfeits his power, effective immediately. This allows *any* of the other major powers in the government to launch a “coup” against the president’s own coup attempt (which an attempt to abrogate the term limits specified in the constitution clearly counts as).
October 31st, 2009 at 5:43 am
The fact that many other (non-Honduran) powers claim that the removal from power was “questionable” (p.s. is there *anything* that isn’t “questionable”? What a weasel word) is irrelevant. This is a matter internal to Honduras.
Unless, of course, the Westphalian system is over. If it is, then I don’t want to hear complaints about human rights, or about empires.
October 31st, 2009 at 6:05 am
Alinsky’s Rule 4
October 31st, 2009 at 8:05 am
Chris, a little thought experiment here. Suppose the US Supreme Court were to say some were constitution while every foreign government found otherwise. Is it constitutional or not?
October 31st, 2009 at 8:27 am
Karl Hallowell – let’s not get stuck on stupid. Of course the US constitution is supreme in the United States.
But that’s not the issue. The issues are:
1) the Honduran constitution is unclear on the process for removing the President
2) the President was removed before the congress voted, and the President had not opportunity to defend his actions
3) the President was removed for calling a non-binding referendum
4) after the President was removed, popular protests were violently supressed
In short, a genuine mess, with nobody having entirely clean hands.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:36 am
Karl Hallowell – let’s not get stuck on stupid. Of course the US constitution is supreme in the United States.
My point is that the US Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional in the US not foreign governments.
In short, a genuine mess, with nobody having entirely clean hands.
So why is “everybody” taking sides? It’s not their place to do so, right?
October 31st, 2009 at 11:40 am
the Honduran constitution is unclear on the process for removing the President
Actually it is very clear. No admendment can change the term limit of a President beyond a single four year term.
the President was removed before the congress voted, and the President had not opportunity to defend his actions
Voted for what? Changing the term limits? Try reading the Honduras Constitution again. Once Zelaya was removed, they voted in concurrence with the Honduras Supreme Court. So 2 out of 3 Honduran branches of government concur on the understanding to the Honduras constitution. But some IT technician, who works at a bank and moonlights writing fiction, knows better what the Honduras Constitution says because he has access to Wikipedia?
the President was removed for calling a non-binding referendum
Zelaya was removed for violating the Honduras Constitution. His non-binding referendum was deemed illegal by the Honduras Supreme Court. Zelaya went around the Supreme Court and received ballots from Venezuela. Those ballots were ordered embargoed by the Honduras Supreme Court, and guarded by the military. Zelaya led supporters to steal the ballots, and began to distribute them, both violations of the law as already interpreted by the Honduras Supreme Court. Zelaya then fired military personnel that acted against him. The Honduras Congress responded by voting to make it clear that Zelaya’s actions were illegal, the affirmative vote included many members of his own party. The Congress also made it illegal to hold any voter referendum in the next 180 days (that makes all non-binding votes illegal, even if they aren’t intended to violate the Constitution).
So, no; Zelaya wasn’t removed for just calling for a non-binding resolution. He was told not to call for such a resolution. He was removed for then continuing to violate the law despite findings by the Supreme Court, votes by the Congress, and peaceful use of the military to uphold the law.
after the President was removed, popular protests were violently supressed
Not nearly as violent as the supression of rioters at G20 summits, but I guess so long as Obama is attending those as President; it’s all ok and necessary.
October 31st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I’ve tried arguing the pro-Micheletti position. What came out of these discussions was the following: Zelaya should have been arrested and detained by civilian police, and tried in a court of law – or he simply should have been impeached and tried while still holding power, American-style. Either way, Zelaya’s exile was not what the Honduran Supreme Court called for – exile seems to have been an improvisation by the military. The choice to use the military at all was particularly unfortunate given Honduran and Central American history with respect to coups. And finally, Big D’s comment notwithstanding, the Honduran constitution is flawed in that it invites power plays instead of well-formulated legal procedures as befits the rule of law.
October 31st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I’ve tried arguing the pro-Micheletti position.
Even if you gave it your all, I’m sure it fell short and less than whole hearted.
October 31st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Also, that such a referendum should be illegal reminds me of the anti-Nazi and anti-holocaust-denial laws in Europe. Both the Honduran and European laws are well-intentioned and designed to thwart evil, but they are an unjust denial of liberty nonetheless.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Also, that such a referendum should be illegal reminds me of the anti-Nazi and anti-holocaust-denial laws in Europe. Both the Honduran and European laws are well-intentioned and designed to thwart evil, but they are an unjust denial of liberty nonetheless.
I don’t see it. Should I be allowed as a non-citizen to insert inconsequential referendums? That is, after all a denial of liberty (though obviously a just one) for Honduran voters. So if most people can’t add referendums for just reasons and that list happens to include the President, then what is “unjust” about it?
October 31st, 2009 at 3:02 pm
So if most people can’t add referendums for just reasons and that list happens to include the President, then what is “unjust” about it?
It must be unjust almost by definition, otherwise Bob wouldn’t have anything to use to defend the administration.
I wonder if Bob thinks that the 22nd Amendment is an “unjust denial of liberty.”
October 31st, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Also, it’s hard to take seriously concerns about “denial of liberty” from defenders of the Obama administration.
October 31st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Also, that such a referendum should be illegal reminds me of the anti-Nazi and anti-holocaust-denial laws in Europe.
Somehow, I suspect a person, who just claimed that such things were a bother, will still find a way to apologize for President Obama.
October 31st, 2009 at 3:21 pm
I wonder if Bob thinks that the 22nd Amendment is an “unjust denial of liberty.”
Any question what would happen if a US President demanded, via executive power only, to have a referendum to modify the 22nd Amendment added to a national ballot? Or any referendum of any kind?
October 31st, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Rand, your ad hominem attack is not worthy of you. It is also inaccurate – this last week I’ve been working with a representative of a libertarian statewide public policy institute who lives in my town to increase transparency and accountability in my community. We both spoke at the city council meeting (yet again), and it looks like we now have the votes. (I’m not being specific – I don’t want to screw things up by bragging about the particulars on the internet.) Our next project involves electoral reform – we think it shouldn’t be so easy to knock people off the ballot (Obama’s route to office, by the way).
Term limits (such as the 22nd amendment) are only a denial of liberty if they can’t be repealed. Karl, both you and Rand seem to want to defend various restrictions. I agree with both of you that there can be too much liberty, but I likened the law about referendums to Holocaust Denial laws for a reason — both laws are related to free speech. A non-binding referendum is just organized speech, and while Zelaya’s was clearly threatening, I believe it should have been tolerated in the interests of freedom. Just as Germans of good conscience might disagree with me about forbidding Holocaust Denial, you and Rand and Hondurans of good conscience might want to forbid the referendum – but you’ll be advocating a denial of what I think is a basic freedom.
October 31st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Term limits (such as the 22nd amendment) are only a denial of liberty if they can’t be repealed. Karl, both you and Rand seem to want to defend various restrictions.
Ummm…no. I want to defend the right of the Hondurans’ and their Supreme Court to defend their constitution, and settle their own affairs absent the outside interference from lovers of leftist dictator wannabes, like Hugo, and Fidel and Raoul, and…Barack Obama.
Just as Germans of good conscience might disagree with me about forbidding Holocaust Denial, you and Rand and Hondurans of good conscience might want to forbid the referendum – but you’ll be advocating a denial of what I think is a basic freedom.
Sorry, Bob, no sale.
Are you claiming that there is no legitimate means of changing the Honduran constitution? Are you claiming that if we had a constitutional amendment specifically prohibiting a national referendum on a specific subject, that it would be “a denial of a basic freedom”? Because (FYI) the US Constitution has no provision for national referenda at all, let alone one demanded by the president by executive order.
If those are not your claims, then what’s your beef?
Please stop pathetically flailing in the defense of your leftist president. To use your own phrase, it “is not worthy of you.”
October 31st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
After some thought, I want to change my answer: Yes, the 22nd amendment, as well as the age restrictions for national office, and the nationality restriction for the Presidency, are all denials of liberty and democracy, but this denial is mitigated somewhat by being repealable. In the case of the age restrictions, they are mitigated by being fairly easily overcome (restrictions on gender would be far worse). But I’m in favor of repealing all such restrictions – I trust the voters.
October 31st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
After some thought, I want to change my answer…I trust the voters.
OK, so now that I’ve pointed out one of the many flaws in your argument (such as it is) you’re now desperately at least trying to be consistent. But unless there is no way of amending the Honduran constitution, we (or at least I) still fail to see the point. Basically, you (and the leftist-dictator-hugging administration that you continue to attempt to defend) are saying that nothing other than a pure democracy (no doubt aided by ACORN and unions and dead voters voting multiple times) is acceptable? And that if the Constitution doesn’t allow that, then to hell with the Constitution? Or that we understand the Honduran constitution better than the Honduran Supreme Court does? Or what?
That sure as hell isn’t a constitutional republic.
October 31st, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I would also add that the irony of “letting the people decide” is apparently lost on someone who had no problem with Obama sitting silent for days while the thugs running Iran put down the protesters after the stolen election. Or did you protest about that, and I just missed it?
There seems to be a common denominator in both Iran and Honduras, in terms of the administration’s attitude. I wonder if you see it?
October 31st, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I haven’t defended President Obama in this conversation. I’m just criticizing the Honduran military, the Honduran constitution, and the Honduran Supreme Court.
Are you claiming that if we had a constitutional amendment specifically prohibiting a national referendum on a specific subject, that it would be “a denial of a basic freedom”?
Yes. Even really horrible evil subjects should be legal to discuss. Voters can punish politicians for such behavior at the polls. And yes, I worry that Democracy can be fragile, but I don’t think repression is the way to preserve it. (And yes, I’m against hate-crime legislation, although I understand the well-intentioned motivation for it.)
The right for a country to settle its own affairs without interference is what China uses to justify its various unjust policies and also its anti-USA votes in the UN. I don’t recognize Hondurans as having a fully legitimate government or constitution. They are a lot better than China, and better than Venezuela, but they aren’t as legitimate as the USA. Honduras needs to improve its constitution and get its military under complete civilian control. They also seriously cracked down on freedoms during this crisis, and I don’t think it was right or legitimate.
I think referenda, including non-binding ones, would be an excellent addition at the Federal level, and I always like to see them at the local level.
Iran: I was on a trip during the height of the events in Iran, and watched in disbelief only late at night from my hotel room. I didn’t even bring a laptop, so no blog comments. I don’t really see the connection though — our influence in Central America is very different from our influence in Iran. Furthermore, many protesters both in the streets and at the highest levels wanted the USA to stay out of it. I don’t know why you think Obama’s sympathies were not with the protesters, and I don’t know what you wanted Obama to do to help them. (There was a request from the Administration to Twitter or something like that, right? What else should Obama have done?)
October 31st, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I haven’t defended President Obama in this conversation. I’m just criticizing the Honduran military, the Honduran constitution, and the Honduran Supreme Court.
Yes. Right. Whatever. [rolling eyes]
I worry that Democracy can be fragile, but I don’t think repression is the way to preserve it.
So, it’s “repression” for the Supreme Court of a country to rule that its president has violated its constitution?
This must be some new definition of “repression” with which I was previoulsy unfamiliar…
Please, Bob, stop embarrassing yourself.
October 31st, 2009 at 4:58 pm
OK, so now that I’ve pointed out one of the many flaws in your argument
That’s really unfair. I take my time writing these comments and then hit the “submit” button. Sometimes you or someone else posts in the meantime. This looks like a sequential conversation, but you’re computer literate, so don’t fall for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:01 pm
It is repressive to ban speech or polls based on their subject matter. Sometimes, such as loud discussion of fire in a crowded theatre, it is a good idea, but we want to limit such repression as much as possible.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:02 pm
That’s really unfair. I take my time writing these comments and then hit the “submit” button. Sometimes you or someone else posts in the meantime. This looks like a sequential conversation, but you’re computer literate, so don’t fall for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
OK, I’ll stop submitting for a while. I hope that you’ll come up with good arguments (not just “better” but actually good — so far you’ve failed) in the meantime.
October 31st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I think we’re addressing interesting issues regarding US society. Should it be legal for an alderman of a US city to promote a non-binding referendum on repealing the right of women to vote in the US? It is obnoxious behavior, but I think it should be legal – vote the alderman out, or recall him, but don’t censor him.
But as far as the Honduran Constitution goes, it is poorly written, and that led to the crisis. As Chris has noted, the impeachment process stinks, as it invites the use of force and doesn’t declare the necessity of a trial. But beyond that, there are other problems. Rand, you asked Are you claiming that there is no legitimate means of changing the Honduran constitution?
Lets look at the constitution.
Article 373 states, “The reform of the Constitution can be decreed by the National Congress, in ordinary session, by a vote of two thirds the totality of its members, and must specify the article or articles that are to be reformed, and must be ratified by an equal number of votes in the subsequent ordinary legislature.”
So far so good, right?
Article 374 states “It is not possible to reform, in any case, the preceding article, the present article, the constitutional articles referring to the form of government, to the national territory, to the presidential period, the prohibition to serve again as President of the Republic, the citizen who has performed under any title in consequence of which he or she cannot be President of the Republic in the subsequent period.”
That’s what led to the problem. So, yes, to answer your question Rand, Article 374 looks unmodifiable. But Article 374 doesn’t ban non-binding referenda, which are really just discussions. I think no subject should be banned from discussion. What do you think? I think Zelaya’s speech and proposals were dangerous, but Honduras over-reacted and made the problem worse.
===
When you say you don’t want to be on the side of Castro, consider that instead, you are on the side of the military which didn’t obey the supreme court, and you are on the side of politicians who created Decree PCM-M-016-2009 suspending parts of the Honduran constitution such as Article 69 – personal liberty, Article 72 – freedom of expression, Article 81 – freedom of movement, and Article 84 – habeas corpus.
Why not be on nobody’s side? I think Chris has it right – this was messy, and everybody involved shared some blame. Honduras should clean up its constitution, focus on how impeachments should work, re-establish complete civilian control of the military, and rededicate themselves to democracy and free speech.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:22 pm
I think we’re addressing interesting issues regarding US society. Should it be legal for an alderman of a US city to promote a non-binding referendum on repealing the right of women to vote in the US? It is obnoxious behavior, but I think it should be legal – vote the alderman out, or recall him, but don’t censor him.
Just for the sake of the argument, if that’s all he was doing, perhaps not. But even if that was all he was doing, and it was a known condition of being an alderman, why not? No one forced him to take the job. And of course, this is a false analogy. Sorry, but your case remains pathetic.
Why not be on nobody’s side?
Gee, what a good idea. Too bad the administration took the side of the leftist dictator wannabe, who was supported by the other leftist dictators in the hemisphere, instead of staying out of it entirely. Just a coinkydinky, I’m sure.
I think Chris has it right
Of course you do. All in the service of The One.
Have you no shame? Particularly considering how he’s thrown Israel (like everyone else who proves inconvenient) under the bus?
October 31st, 2009 at 9:46 pm
I don’t understand what you are saying about the alderman and censorship. You’re saying it would be ok to censor the alderman? Do you think this sort of censorship would be in the public interest? That’s an odd position for a libertarian.
Article 374 is what is known as “an entrenched clause”, and it is undemocratic (despite the good intentions of its authors). Using it as a justification to censor discussion or, specifically, to suppress a non-binding resolution, is just piling on more anti-democratic repressive suppression of liberty. Supporting this kind of repression is a very odd position for a libertarian.
You’re arguing about Obama, but you’re ignoring my arguments, which don’t concern Obama.
If you’re changing the subject to Obama, I’m game. You might note the only thing I said about Obama until now is that I think that when Obama was younger, he shouldn’t have knocked his opponent off the ballot when he was first running for public office. In the Honduran situation, I think Obama should have said what Chris said: it is a genuine mess and no one has clean hands. I think Obama could have followed up by making the points I’ve been making, about freedom of speech and freedom at the polls – the points you’re ignoring by going off on tangents about Israel and Iran. Very odd for a libertarian!
November 1st, 2009 at 1:35 am
Bob, you have yet to explain why the President of Honduras should have any power to decide what is on an election ballot. Especially when he explicitly is prohibited that power by the Honduras constitution. Perhaps you simply don’t understand (as so often is the case with you) how this power can be abused. For example, suppose I’m running for office and someone inserts right before that point on the ballot, “Should Karl Hallowell be prosecuted for allegations of child molestation?” or something similar. Some portion of the adult population is going to think “I’m not going to vote for a possible child rapist.”
Being allowed to dump such questions (or more innocent sounding ones) on the ballot allows you to steer the narrative, to get the voters to think in a certain way during the voting process. It is propaganda dumped directly on the ballot. I think that’s exactly what was intended with this referendum on a new constitution. And I think it’s a great idea that the President of Honduras is prohibited by the Honduran constitution from doing so.
Finally, I think as a matter of principle, anything which doesn’t have a material effect should never appear on a ballot. It is a frivolous squandering of the voter’s attention and effort at best.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:35 am
Hi Karl, As is so often the case with you, you’re making very sensible points. However, I’ll try to tease out the places where I disagree with you.
I don’t have to explain why the President of Honduras should have any power to decide what is on the election ballot, nor do I need any lessons in how such power can be abused.
First, just to be clear: I’m not defending Zelaya. Look at what in the comments I made above — I said that I thought he should have been arrested and detained and tried in a court of law or, at least he should have been impeached. I said his actions were “clearly threatening” and in a later comment, I said Zelaya’s speech and proposals were dangerous.
I just think that whenever someone does have the authority to place a referendum on the ballot, the subject matter of the referendum should not be censored. And, as in the case of Zelaya, authorities should not be censored (and arrested, and exiled) for simply proposing a non-biding referendum on a certain subject matter. You seem to think the issue is whether Zelaya has the power to initiate referenda, while I think the issue is whether the subject matter of a referendum can be so forbidden that even talking about it is cause for bringing tanks into the street and forcibly sending a leader into exile.
I absolutely agree with you that non-binding referendums can be used a form of propaganda — that’s why I’ve been talking about free speech, and about Germany’s well-intentioned lack of it when it comes to Holocaust Denial.
I also agree with you that the power to place referenda on the ballot can be abused. Such abuse can be dangerous. But my argument isn’t about security, it is about liberty. I think subject matter shouldn’t be the basis for a ban. You’re response is discuss how such freedom could be abused. Libertarians are very fond of discussing how tradeoffs work between security and freedom, so I won’t lecture you on the subject. But that’s why I thought this whole conversation was odd — the pro-Micheletti position involves invoking different reasons why security for the people requires various kinds of freedom to be suppressed, and as I mentioned in a previous comment, the reasons are often the same ones used by the Communists in China.
Finally, back here in the USA, I think non-binding referenda can be very helpful way to citizens to get a voice in government – it is a very accurate way to survey the voters. The criteria for how to get a referenda on the ballot can be more restrictive, or less restrictive, as the citizens see fit, but such restrictions come at the cost of some freedom. The issue is similar to the argument over what candidates should need to do to qualify to be on the ballot. In Illinois, you need a certain number of signatures to get onto the ballot. Obama successfully challenged his opponents signatures, and got him thrown off the ballot. I believe this maneuver, while legal and common, hurt democracy. I’d like to see the barriers to entry dropped — I’d rather see too many people on the ballot than too few.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:49 am
[...] whole “crisis” was an exercise in Democracy and law that the U.S. rejected in favor of propping up a would be dictator and seriously harming a country, simply because his political leanings are in alignment with Obama, Soros, and so many other [...]
November 1st, 2009 at 8:09 am
You’re arguing about Obama, but you’re ignoring my arguments, which don’t concern Obama.
I’m not ignoring your arguments. I’m telling you that they don’t hold water.
If you’re changing the subject to Obama, I’m game.
I’m not “changing the subject to Obama.” The subject was always Obama. Go back and actually read my post.
the pro-Micheletti position involves invoking different reasons why security for the people requires various kinds of freedom to be suppressed, and as I mentioned in a previous comment, the reasons are often the same ones used by the Communists in China.
No, the “pro-Micheletti position” is the pro-Honduran Constitution position, and the position that it’s none of this administration’s business. And a more enlightened administration would actually welcome the squelching of a potential unconstitutional takeover of yet another Latin American country by a leftist dictator, instead of fighting it. But this administration takes its cues from Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, the brothers Castro, and its own intrinsic leftist urges.
November 1st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Bob,
Number one, you don’t seem to have a clue about the US Constitution, so it is not surprising you don’t understand the Honduran Constitution. You keep trying to apply concepts that you think the US Constitution has in it to the Honduran Constitution, and in both cases you are wrong.
Let’s go through a few fallacies here. Providing the President the power to create a national referendum is not liberty. That’s a dictatorship. No amount of arguing that the President is a citizen will help you make your point, because no citizen has that authority either. Not in the US, and not in Honduras.
Term limits were requested by the citizens of both the US and Honduras. You say that’s a restriction of liberty, yet it seems rather clearly a restriction in government. It limits the power of the elite in government, and when applied, it has served both the US and Honduras.
Finally, you’re the one who enjoys discussing Obama. Yet, you missed my link where he was using the UN to ban speech against religions and nationalities. He wants to make it a worldwide wrong to draw cartoons of Muhammad. So if you really think it is wrong to restrict speech in any way, particularly like anti-Nazi and anti-Holocaust denial; well, we’re waiting for your righteous anger.
We’re not holding our breathes though that you really mean what you write.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:21 am
Rand, you say my arguments don’t hold water, but you didn’t say why they don’t hold water.
Also, you said “But unless there is no way of amending the Honduran constitution, we (or at least I) still fail to see the point”, but when I showed you that the relevant part of the Honduran constitution has an entrenched clause which can not be amended, you didn’t acknowledge it. When I pointed out that you were using the non-interference argument used by China, you actually denied doing so in the very same sentence that you said “it’s none of this administration’s business”. And of course, you do think the US should interfere in repressive regimes, such as Iran and Saddam’s Iraq. We agree that the US ought to interfere with repressive regimes — You just don’t see Honduras as having a repressive constitution, military, or supreme court, and I do. It is true that Zeyala is a scoundrel, but that’s no reason to support the other scoundrels Honduras has on offer, instead of supporting freedom and good government.
Leland makes the argument that non-binding referenda are tools of a dictatorship. American citizens who live in localities which have very frequent referenda will interested in hearing more.
Leland also advances the potentially interesting argument that term limits in the united states do not restrict liberty because they restrict government and not the people, as if we in the united states do not have a government of the people. I think there are grounds for an interesting debate here. I think we should start with the idea that my right to have a meaningful vote for someone is an enhancement of my liberty, not just the person I’m voting for. So, for example, if women are not permitted to be president, not only are women’s freedoms being restricted, but my freedom to choose my leaders is being also restricted. Not permitting women to be president would not only be a restriction on government, it would also be a restriction on the people’s freedom to have the leaders they choose. Similarly, not permitting young people or two term presidents to be president is not only a restriction on government, it is a restriction on the people’s freedom to have the leaders they choose.
Unfortunately, Leland’s arguments are marred, as usual, by unnecessary personal attacks. I didn’t follow your link just as you’ve refused to follow my links in the past. Leland, I’ll carefully address each aspect of your comments when you start showing some common courtesy.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
Rand, you say my arguments don’t hold water, but you didn’t say why they don’t hold water.
Yes, I did.
of course, you do think the US should interfere in repressive regimes, such as Iran and Saddam’s Iraq. We agree that the US ought to interfere with repressive regimes
Even if I agreed with you that the Honduran government is repressive (or more repressive than it would be were Zelaya to get his way), I’ve never said that the US should interfere in repressive regimes simply because they are repressive regimes. This is the stupid fallacy that critics of removing Saddam always came up with — that there couldn’t be more than one reason for a policy action, and that it somehow couldn’t result from a combination of reasons.
Chavez’ regime is much more repressive than the current Honduran government could hope to be. Do you think we should fix that? How about Cuba?
Please.
I continue to see no basis for US government interference with a constitutional action in Honduras, other than that the White House (and probably SecState as well) likes left-wing dictators. I also notice that it continues to stonewall on its legal justification, while attempting to strong-arm and muzzle the Library of Congress, via John Kerry.
I won’t speculate on why you continue to defend it.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
I’m sure we agree that the extent of our interference with repressive regimes should depend on, among other variables, the threat they pose to the US, but also the cost of pro-democracy or pro-freedom interference. My point was that if a regime is repressive, they are not entitled to a lack of interference.
In general, it is in our interest to promote good government around the world, for lots of reasons, including ones of self-interest with respect to commerce and defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory)
I’m unclear the relationship between a member of Congress and the Law Library of Congress, so I’m not sure about the propriety of Kerry and Berman’s request, but I’m quite sure that it is better for there to be multiple alternative analyses available. I reflexively agree with Adler that the lawmakers would be better off promoting alternate points of view instead of squelching them.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:31 am
The link I provided above (no need to follow it if you’re familiar with the “democracies don’t fight each other” theory) included a map from Freedom House. I think of Freedom House as an organization that you would usually agree with, Rand. Is that true, in general? (I usually agree with it too – I just think it represents common ground for us — usually at least.)
You might be interested in Freedom House’s take on the Honduran Coup.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=1017
No doubt, you’ll disagree with them, but the article provides a pro-freedom justification for condemning the Honduran govt’s actions and calling for Zeyala to be re-instated, even while not giving any support to Zeyala’s policies (which I believe is the stance the Obama admin takes, and it is my stance as well.)
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Bob, I’ll show you common courtesy when you quit doing chickenshit things like change a debate on term limits to a suggestion of gender bias. Where in the 22nd Amendment do you find a restriction to a President being a woman? Find that, and I will take your arguement as serious rather than an obvious slur.