Let me paint for you a picture. President Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal is discovered. An investigation begins. Nixon's administrations tries to stall and halt the process. The Supreme Court gets involved, and tells Nixon he must turn over incriminating audio tape recordings The Impeachment process begins. Nixon tries to change the U.S. Constitution to remain in power. The Supreme Court rules against him again, but Nixon does not waiver. Nixon is Impeached, but refuses to step down. Eventually, Nixon is convicted and is removed by force from the Oval Office.
Of course, this is not how it happened. Nixon wisely resigned, and no military force was necessary. Less than a year later, President Gerald Ford gave Richard Nixon a full pardon, and Nixon never got to face the full consequences of his actions. Though, one could say, the disgrace of being forced to publicly resign and the stigma that carried with it throughout the rest of his life was a punishment in itself.
But, had Nixon tried to change the U.S. Constitution and simply refused to step down, would we have looked badly on those who would have ordered and physically removed him? Would we have called it a coup?
Then let me give you some facts for your consideration. President Manuel Zelaya tried to hold a referendum to change Honduras' constitution in order to stay in power longer. He was not happy with what must have seemed like a very limited four-year term as president. So, he did what all democratic, freedom-loving presidents do. He asked for a referendum. Except the Honduran Constitution specifically prohibits the extension of presidential terms. The Honduran Supreme Court upheld the constitution and warned Zelaya that what he was trying to so was unconstitutional and illegal.
Honduras has had 16 constitutions since it's independence from Spain in 1821. Zelaya is not the first president to try to change the terms of his presidency after the fact. It seems a common concern for Honduran presidents to want to stay longer than prescribed by their constitution. In 1982, the current Constitution was written in no uncertain terms, to specifically disallow modification of the length of the presidential term. Even then, the first president under the 1982 Constitution tried to rid himself of this irritating limitation. He failed.
So it should be no surprise that when Zelaya attempted an illegal referendum against the Constitution and a Supreme Court ruling he was stopped and arrested. Honduras' Congress voted and swore in Roberto Micheletti, a member of Zelaya's own Liberal Party, to serve as president until January, when a new President is elected by the people.
And yet one would think a totally different set of circumstance existed judging by the cries of world leaders and news reports of a military "coup".
It is no surprise people like Fidel Castro and Chazez support Zelaya's thirst for unconstitutional power. Castro got rid of all restrictions on presidential terms after the communist revolution succeeded in 1959, and even did away with the power to declare anything illegal on the basis of it being anti-constitutional. He remained with the title of "President" until becoming ill and giving the position up to his brother last year. Castro was supported by the Soviet Union.
After being elected in 1999, Chavez managed to expand his presidential term by rewriting the Venezuelan Constitution shortly after via a referendum. In 2007, he proposed getting rid of presidential term limits altogether, and though his new referendums have failed, he remains in office past the time allowed in his own rewritten 1999 constitution and vows to put forth forth another referendum. Chavez was supported by Castro.
What would the world think if Obama decided to change what the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits, against Supreme Court ruling, with a referendum? Honduras is a troubled country, but at least it has upheld the Constitution and maintained the rule of law in this case. This should be celebrated as a triumph for democracy by those "democratic" countries of the world. Instead it is denounced as a military "coup".
Any reasonable person equipped with the facts must conclude that in fact, it was Zelaya who was attempting a "coup", operating as a rogue, against his country's constitution, against the government, his people and his own party, attempting to illegally extend his time in power with the help of his communist friends.
No, this has been no coup in Honduras. This was the prevention of a coup. It has been the lawful arrest of an aspiring dictator, and the restoration of the presidency to a member of same party under Congressional vote for the time until normal elections are held again in January. The facts speak for themselves, no matter how many seek to distort them.
I do not know how this will end. But if Zelaya or anybody else does succeeds in modifying the Honduran Constitution and presidency term limits, it will be a travesty for democracy. This is not to say that Honduras does not have other problems, but let us give credit where credit is due, and respect a people for trying to follow their own rules and Constitution. Let us not fall prey to apparently popular Communist propaganda.
Keeping the Herd Out of the Gulf
28 minutes ago


