Zelaya’s Removal: Necessary and Proper
Guest post by Robert Romano
Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met privately with former president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya. Afterward, she announced that the crisis in that nation would now be mediated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, saying,
“We hope at the end of this mediation there will be a return of democratic constitutional order that is agreed to by all concerned.”
It’s time to take off the gloves: Mrs. Clinton is lying. “[D]emocratic constitutional order” has in fact already been returned to Honduras, no thanks to her boss, Barack Obama. And then only because Manuel Zelaya was impeached and removed from office by the Honduran Congress, and his attempt at rewriting the nation’s Constitution halted by the Supreme Court.
Zelaya’s removal was in fact the only legal outcome that could occur under law. And it was also necessary in order to maintain the constitutional administration of government in Honduras. What happened?
As ALG News has previously reported, Zelaya was attempting to convene a constitutional convention that would have enabled him to rewrite portions of the Constitution that defined term limits for the office of President.
Zelaya was repeatedly warned—by his own constitutional experts, the Public Prosecutor General, the Attorney General, the presiding judge of the Administrative Law Court, the Office of the State Attorney, the Administrative Law Tribunal, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the National Congress, and the National Commissioner for Human Rights—that his proposed referendum was unconstitutional, but he knowingly proceeded anyway with his unlawful plans.
In Honduras, the President is only allotted one term of office. And, it is unconstitutional for any public servant to even propose extending that term. While that may appear harsh, in Honduras the people have little use for would-be kings, or populist demagogues.



.


