Mel Zelaya did propose reelection
Article 239 of the Honduran constitution states that the President can only serve one term and that anyone who proposes to reform this disposition, directly or indirectly, immediately ceases in his position and is ineligible for any public function for 10 years.
A favorite defense of pro-Zelaya forces is to say that Zelaya never proposed reelection. Well, yes, he did.
In this video, which I believe was from sometime the week before June 28, you will hear Mel Zelaya complains that congressmen, judges, and others can be reelected and the only one who can't be reelected is the president but "reelection will be the theme of the next constitutional assembly".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Update: Reader Allen provided a complete translation of the video:
[Zelaya speaking] "Here, judges are re-elected, fiscal officers are re-elected, mayors are re-elected, congressmen are re-elected, the − the commissioners on human rights are re-elected. The only one who is not re-elected in Honduras − the only one who is not re-elected in Honduras − is the President [points with both hands to himself in the video].
"But re-election is [a/the] topic of the next National Constitutional Assembly." [Cheers from the crowd.]
"There will be an opportunity − [turning to the person next to him, apparently someone related to a previous president] − leader, there will be an opportunity for your ex-father-in-law to return.
[Everyone laughs − someone in the crowd shouts "That guy won't return" and others in the crowd boo "Nooo."].
"Because we will open the opportunity for him in the next National Constitutional Assembly.
"Callejas − will come back, correct. [More boos of "no, no"] And I already told him that if − no, I already told him, 'Look, Rafael Leonardo, if we make it to the World Cup, I'll think about my vote, but you have to take our Honduran team to the World Cup.' But if he doesn't take us to the World Cup, then he can't complain to me. You understand?" [Callejas is a former president, currently president of the National Autonomous of Soccer of Honduras.]
-----------------
[Allen continues...] So, he talks about re-election of the President, and specifically mentions at least one former president coming back, just to make it sound fair, to make it sound like he's being altruistic by proposing such a thing, to make it sound like he's not in it for himself. Of course he plays to the crowd by bringing up presidents he knows they hate, so they all know he's really talking about opening up the possibility for himself.
In the face of this, anyone want to dare say Zelaya never proposed, discussed, incited or intended to change the Constitutional rules about presidential re-election?
Thank you for providing the translation, Allen.
Posts
Click book to view details.
39 comments:
Honduran Constitution
Title II, Chapter 3: (the legal rights of any citizen are lost)
Article 42
5) If the citizen incites, promotes or supports continuism or reelection of the President of the Republic.
Mel lost his citienship. He was not a Honduran citizen, much less the President when he was sen to Costa Rica on June 28th.
This video is proof that President Zelaya never suggested that HE wanted to be re-elected and that he never PROPUSED any reform to art. 239. Totally the opposite, for intelligent people who know how to listen and how to read, Zeleya is saying that the reelection will be a SUBJECT on the New Constitutional Assembly. To say that it will be a subject is not any proposal of any kind, anywhere in the world.
If you read the constitution, you'll see that he didn't have propose his own reelection, proposing reelection - period - is all that it takes. Don't forget the "directly or indirectly". Any intelligent person would see that he was manipulating the mob to get what he wanted.
Look, Zelaya's no hero in all of this but the words of the constitution have to be understood as what they are: legal language. Here's a link to a helpful explanation of what all of those words mean in context and why article 239 does not legitimate a coup against Zelaya:
http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/08/article-239-does-not-legitimate-zelayas.html
Anon: Why our opinion doesn't matter
If you read carefully art. 239 it develops around a PROPOSAL, and that proposal does not exist. Zelaya is making barely an announcement of an unverified event, but never he is making any proposal. You could say that he indirectly wants people to support reeelection, but he is making absolutely NO PROPOSAL AT ALL. Without proposal definitely there is no crime. That's why it is very important to listen carefully what he said and to read carefully the Constitution, in order to understand the legal meaning of "proposal", completely differente from a guessing announcement of an unverified event, which obviously is not a crime.
John,
Let me understand what you are trying to say? If someone proposes to make the "subject" of a constitutional assembly the reelection issue, what would be the purpose if it is not for chaning it (i.e. APPROVING reelection)? Are you trying to tell us that his only intention was to have a little chat on the issue? Like: "hey guys, now that we went through all this trouble to call this constitutional assembly, all I have to say is that the idea of not allowing reelection for president is a GREAT idea! Thanks for coming. That was all, folks."
I've been pointing out this video for months... but Zelaya-heads will deny that the sky is blue. "Technically, the sky isn't really blue but just refracts certain wavelengths of light more than others" blah blah blah.
The constitution speaks of intent, and this video shows intent, whether there was a formal proposal or not.
John Behives, you know that Zelaya knows he has to be circumspect. Of course he won't come out and SAY directly, "I want to be re-elected." That is political suicide under the Honduran constitution. Knowing this, you have to take this video as the closest thing you will ever get from him. Because he has to incite his followers, he mentions it as directly as he can without apparently meeting legal standards (according to "some", but not according to 15 out of 15 judges whose opinions matter on the issue).
Zelaya is an instrument of Chavez. Of course he wanted to run for indefinite re-election, this is a prerequisite of Chavista tactics. A president cannot change the constitution. However it can be changed legally in other ways. (except for re-election issues) Just the fact that he did not pursue the constitutional changes legally leaves just one reason for the cuarta urna -- re-election! Quad erat demonstrandum!
Why does everyone insist on picking at legal flyspecks? If someone is pointing a loaded gun at me, I don't have to wait until AFTER they pull the trigger to defend myself.
It sounds like Mr. Beehives (?) is another of Chavez's paid propogandists who haunt the anti-Chavista blogs. If they put even a small fraction of their legal nit-picking to work analyzing the anti-constitutional and corrupt acts of Chavez, Morales, Correa, Ortega, and Zelaya, they would still be able to build a mountain of evidence against them.
LG, Thanks for posting this video. I have been on the side of the government in this whole thing. It always seemed clear that Zelaya was working to change the constitution, so he could return to power. This video makes it undeniable to any objective observer. I just wish the media would start reporting, "The de facto government claims Zelaya was seeking to overturn term limits. Zelaya denies this charge, but a search of YouTube videos proves that Zelaya lying about this."
There is also the little issue of his Constitutional Reform, where there are supposed to be pretty much: zero holdings on the president being able to interpret and change the law of the land at will.
Where this "subject" of reelection is entirely up for him to decide on, and thoroughly does not at all respect the prior constitution, or the powers of the other branches of government.
Zelaya's own words:
"Here, judges are re-elected, fiscal officers are re-elected, mayors are re-elected, congressmen are re-elected, the-- the commissioners on human rights are re-elected. The only one who is not re-elected in Honduras-- the only one who is not re-elected in Honduras-- is the President [points with both hands to himself in the video].
"But re-election is [a/the] topic of the next National Constitutional Assembly." [Cheers from the crowd.]
"There will be an opportunity-- [turning to the person next to him, apparently someone related to a previous president]-- leader, there will be an opportunity for your ex-father-in-law to return.
[Everyone laughs-- someone in the crowd shouts "That guy won't return" and others in the croud boo "Nooo."].
"Because we will open the opportunity for him in the next National Constitutional Assembly.
"Callejas-- will come back, correct. [More boos of "no, no"] And I already told him that if-- no, I already told him, 'Look, Rafael Leonardo, if we make it to the World Cup, I'll think about my vote, but you have to take our Honduran team to the World Cup.' But if he doesn't take us to the World Cup, then he can't complain to me. You understand?" [Callejas is a former president, currently president of the National Autonomous of Soccer of Honduras.]
-----------------
So, he talks about re-election of the President, and specifically mentions at least one former president coming back, just to make it sound fair, to make it sound like he's being altruistic by proposing such a thing, to make it sound like he's not in it for himself. Of course he plays to the crowd by bringing up presidents he knows they hate, so they all know he's really talking about opening up the possibility for himself.
In the face of this, anyone want to dare say Zelaya never proposed, discussed, incited or intended to change the Constitutional rules about presidential re-election?
Thanks, Allen. I updated the article to put your translation on the front page.
There is a lot of nit-picking about what happened on June 28. Those same people completely ignore all the other times Zelaya violated the constitution and laws. He usurped functions of other members of government, he failed to perform duties assigned to the president, he violated other court orders, he withheld operating funds in order to control other branches of government....the list goes on and on!
Does anyone know where to find the entire video? I watched this on television and I was pretty sure he was impaired during this. I thought that I had a link to it, but interestingly, that video has been removed from YouTube.
Words are very important in law. Your interpretation can be wrong if you don't know fully the meaning of the word or if you miss its context.
A proposal is a PROPOSAL. And a guessing announcement of an unverified event is just that: a guessing announcement of an unverified event.
There is no intent here. Only and exclusively a guessing announcement of an unverified event.
When this video appeared I showed it to very alert people from different professions and asked them to tell me what that guy was saying or intending to do. The conclusion was overwhelming: He is guessing that there is going to be a Constitutional Assembly and that in it people are going to discuss reelection.
It could be circumspection, but the cruel reality and the bottom line is nothing else than a guessing announcement of an unverified event.
Regarding Why your opinion doesn't matter, I recomend to read --specially if you understand about law-- this document:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20356728/Honduras-Constitutional-Law-Issues
Better get a copy of this one before it too disappears.
His proposal that the next constitutional assembly will consider reelection of presidents is just that -- a proposal, which is prohibited by the constitution. Whether it was his intent to be reelected himself doesn't matter.
"a guessing announcement of an unverified event" -- Haha. Are those the new buzzwords? I see that you have used that phrase 3 times.
Individuals can pick at the details but in the end, the Supreme Court makes the final decision, just as it does in the US. Going back to the abortion example, how many times has that been picked to death? But has the US ever had a president who declared the courts wrong and whipped crowds into a frenzy to go raid abortion clinics?
John Behives, I have a few question for you. What actions would Zelaya have had to taken in order to violate 239? Specifically, what would he have had to do in order to meet the legal definition of "proposes its reform"?
OK, Jon Troll Legal Expert Behives Who Consults His Own Peer Legal Experts From Different Professions,
Try this on for size.
The original constitution can be found at: http://www.congreso.gob.hn/constituciones/CONSTITUCION%201982%20DECRETO%20131-82.pdf
As far as I can tell, Article 42 has never been amended from its original form.
It reads, in part:
"Article 42. The quality of citizen is lost:
...
5. For inciting, promoting, or supporting continuism or the re-election of the President of the Republic ..."
Now where do you get this language about it requiring a formal proposal?
The language here clearly says you LOSE YOUR CITIZENSHIP for inciting, promoting or supporting re-election of the President.
If you can look at the video above and say he didn't do any of that, you are in line with the first Jesuits, who pledged that if the Pope said something was black, they were to declare it black even if their own eyes told them it was white. Only Zelaya is your Pope.
------------
Finally, you're blathering when you say "he's guessing that there is going to be a Constitutional Assembly and that in it people are going to discuss reelection." That is total garbage.
He clearly says that re-election IS a topic of the next National Constitutional Assembly, not that he hopes it will be, or thinks it might be, or guesses it might be. He also says "WE" will open the opportunity for "him" [one of the former presidents he mentions] in the next National Constitutional Assembly. By saying WE he includes himself.
In a longer version of the same speech (captured in another video on YouTube), he also says not even the Virgin Mary can stop his survey/poll.
Doesn't sound like speculation or guessing to me. Go ahead, call the sky red, or white or clear or whatever.
You can find "experts" to back up almost anything.
A different legal expert who is actually an attorney from Honduras, who originally called the removal a "coup" but then backtracked when he saw the evidence, writes this: http://www.nowpublic.com/world/honduras-removal-president-legal-constitution-has-vaccine
This point-- that Zelaya actually provably and demonstrably was pursuing re-election-- is something that the Zelayistas simply cannot allow, because it validates the entire removal and destroys their whole case. That is why they push back so hard against it.
The Constitution is clear about the PROPOSAL for a reason.
Every Honduran can wish and say that he wants to be president for ever, even the president. That is not illegal anywhere in Honduras. The Constitution does not stop the wishes or thoughts of any Honduran citizen, including the president.
What the Constitution wants to stop is the realization of those wishes and states clearly that no proposal can be accepted and no-one can promote it. If you were familiar with government proposals or Congressional proposals, then you would know what is a proposal and what it isn't.
The video shows only a guessing announcement of an unverified event. That is NEVER a proposal. If that is a proposal why Congressmen would bother in wrting proposals with such detail to stand a congressional debate?
Article 239:
"The citizen who has occupied the title of Executive Power [the Presidency] will be unable to be President or Vice President.
The one who breaks this disposition or proposes its reform, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO SUPPORT IT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, will cease immediately in the occupation of their various charges, and will remain unable for ten years to exercise any public function."
That, plus the language in Article 42, pretty much covers Zelaya's actions.
Further, Article 4:
"...The form of government is republican, democratic and representative. It is exercised by three powers: Legislative, Executive and Judicial, complementary and independent and without relations of subordination.
"The regular change in power [Spanish 'alternabilidad'] in the exercise of the Presidency of the Republic is obligatory.
Infraction of this norm constitutes the crime of treason to the Homeland."
Two things: 1) Zelaya whips up the crowd by basically saying the "Court of Injustice" is taking away their (his) power, and that the "barbarians" in the Congress are doing so as well. He basically puts himself above all the other branches by saying they cannot check his power. 2) As we have seen he is trying to stay in power, or at least re-open the possibility of future re-election, which the rest of the Constitution makes clear is not allowed.
By these articles, he is 1) immediately stripped of his position, 2) no longer a citizen (though that part may be subject to trial) and 3) commits treason.
Finally, Article 3:
"No one owes obedience to a usurper government nor to those who assume functions or public positions by force of arms or using methods or procedures that break or do not recognize what this Constitution and the laws establish. The acts done by such authorities are null. The people have the right to resort to insurrection in defense of the Constitutional order."
I know the Zelayistas have been using this article to incite insurrection, but in fact it is Zelaya himself who was using "methods or procedures that break or do not recognize ... this Constitution" by attempting to circumvent the "articles set in stone" with his National Constitutional Assembly. That clause is aimed directly at the heart of the techniques used by Chavez and his followers, whereby they weaken checks and balances, and take over democratic institutions, to override limits and eventually undermine democracy itself. It is Zelaya who first committed the acts of treason and whose illegal decrees and actions had to be declared "null."
John, you don't address the language in Article 42. I wonder why. It uses broad language such as "incite, promote or support." Put in that context, it is quite unnatural and unreasonable to require that "propose" be interpreted in the most strictly legislative sense of "submit a written proposal before Congress."
"Propose" has always meant more than that-- one can make a proposal verbally as well as in writing, and that is quite different from simply "wishing" for something. It also means putting forth the idea of actually doing it, as Zelaya does in this video. He also "incites," "promotes" and "supports" re-election.
The "articles set in stone" are very strict and strong out of necessity. Zelaya breaches them in both letter and spirit. To speak of there being a "reason" to interpret "propose" in the most strict sense out of caution to convict people who merely "wish" to be president is actually backwards. Given the local history of caudillos, there is plenty of reason these articles were written-- and should be interpreted-- as strictly as possible against potential usurpers of presidential power. Obviously these articles don't apply to an average citizen "wishing" to be President again, because they have never been President before in the past. When it comes to a current or former President, however, there is every reason to keep a tight reign on them even inciting or verbally suggesting these rules should be changed. Those around them will interpret their wishes as commands, and you end up with a dictatorship.
The point of this post is that president Zelaya proposed reelection and violated art. 239. To proof that it shows a video with a guessing announcement of an unverified event, as I explained earlier. No one can say that Zelaya was certain and that the event was already approved by all Hondurans.
The loosing of citizenship is also clear and the video is proof that president Zelaya did not incite for his re-election neither promoted his re-election nor supported his re-election. If there is something you don't find anywhere in that video is president Zelaya making any mention of his re-election.
Someone could be kind enough to show me where in Mr. Allen's transcript president Zelaya invites people to re-elect him, promotes his re-election or support his re-election, because in the video it does not exist and I though that maybe it could be found in the transcript, but I don't find it there either.
John, the articles don't require proposing to re-elect oneself, they simply require proposing re-electing the President, any President. Zelaya doesn't have to say "he" himself wants to be re-elected. All he has to do is support changing the Constitutional articles regarding re-election of the President, and the restrictions kick in.
This line of argumentation is so weak, I wonder what else you have to stand on.
All of these legal contortions are an attempt to subvert the spirit of the law by taking the most favorable literal interpretation, to set up circumstances by which the law itself can be undermined. Again, this is EXACTLY what we've seen with the neo-dictators like Chavez, Ortega and the others. Except Zelaya was such an incompetent, he started too late in consolidating his power in the various institutions and he ran out of time. He had to start pushing quickly to accomplish his rewrite of the Constitution before his term expired, and he made mistakes. The remaining institutions were strong and wise enough to stop him dead in his tracks.
John, As someone who isn't an expert in Honduran Congressional law, I was asking you to define "proposal" for me. Clearly, the word proposal may have different meanings. Your argument seems to be that in the constitution it refers to a very specific legal process, rather than the more generic meaning of the word. (e.g., I propose that we have arroz con pollo for dinner.) However, unless you tell me specifically how you interpret the word proposal in this legal context, it’s difficult for me to follow your logic. I may not be a constitutional scholar, but I am bright enough to follow a well-reasoned argument if the other side is willing to define their terms.
Had you satisfied me with an answer, it would be easier to ask my next question. As it is, I will have to assume that the referendum that Zelaya was attempting to hold on June 28 did not meet your legal definition of a proposal. I will assume that you define a proposal as a formal proposal presented to Congress. So how do you describe the vote of June 28? If not a proposal, what was it? Was it a legal process, one that the President is legally able to undertake? Or was it an illegal process, either because the President is restricted from taking such action or because that power resides with another governmental entity?
Either way, the vote planned for June 28 was to work toward Zelaya’s desire to convene a Constitutional Assembly where Presidential “re-election is the topic.” The referendum was about voting for a Constitutional Assembly, with the goal of removing term limits, whether for Zelaya or other Presidents, past or present. This is not conjecture on my part, because it was clearly stated by Zelaya.
If the June 28 vote was a legal process, your position must be that article 239 prohibits the President from proposing the reform of term limits through Congress but allows for the President to work toward such reforms outside of a formal proposal to Congress. Such an interpretation causes a much greater Constitutional conundrum, as it breaks down the idea of separation of powers. It allows the President to create new processes to work toward a goal that is prohibited by the Constitution, and it removes the other branches of government from the process. Is there no concept of original intent within the discipline of Honduran Constitutional scholarship? If a narrow reading of the word “proposal” violates the intent of the Constitution, it becomes necessary to broaden the interpretation of the word to allow integrity of the Constitution as a whole.
If the June 28 vote was an illegal process, then of course your position must be that 239 prohibits legal proposals to end Presidential term limits but allows illegal methods to end term limits. But that would just be silly, now wouldn’t it?
John, you are sounding like a broken record parroting those magic words that you want everyone to believe -- while ignoring everything everyone else replies to your statements or asks questions of you. Unless you have something new to add, I won't be posting any more of these repetitious comments. I'm sure that Rosemary will welcome and bless your comments.
Once again, the constitution does not require that someone propose *their own* reelection, only that they propose reelection of any president.
And the constitution does not state that "to propose reelection" requires a written legal document. It could not be any clearer that Zelaya proposes reelection of presidents in this video, no matter how you try to define 'propose.' So, no matter how many times you try to tell us that the sky is green, we are still seeing blue.
I find it comical how John keeps repeating "a guessing announcement of an unverified event" as if it were some sort of cross he uses to magically ward off the vampires (aka gaping holes) in his reasoning.
Somehow I'm reminded of the Roman Polanski vampire comedy "The Fearless Vampire Killers" where the titular heroes try to use a cross against a Jewish vampire and he just smiles and says "oy, have you got the wrong vampire!"
Quoting Mr. Behives: "What the Constitution wants to stop is the realization of those wishes [re-election] and states clearly that no proposal can be accepted and no-one can promote it".
Well, in that case, didn't our Constitution work like a charm?? We are getting a new president, come January 27, whether the "international community" likes it or not.
some people like to argument others love to type.
Anon. 4.
Re: Mr. Beehives [obviously a pseudonym]:
The word that best describes, in my opinion, the argumentation of this fellow is the non-Philosophy definition of CASUISTRY.
A very appropriate Nineteenth-Century Central American / Spanish term for it was JESUITICO = Jesuitical.
I wish that he would take his little mind games and play elsewhere.
Only a lawyer could argue the sky is not blue.
Regardless of Zelaya's semantics. It is clear he intended to do away with the Congess and Supreme court ala Chavez. He self incriminated himself.
One could choose to believe the lies that he wanted to do away with term limits and that it was not intended for him. TIn most countries that may be constitutional. However, that is still unconstitutional in Honduras and grounds for self dismissal.
Let us not forget. Zelaya had repeated warnings and knew he could be arrested. He said so himself on national tv. He said they were too scared to do it. That is because they pre warned the US they would blame them for the coup. The US had already declared they would not support Honduras in his removal. See earlier links from La Gringa.
Dated August 19 US Ambassador Hugo Lorens knew everything. Also the follow up to that post is August 21 The chain of events in the days before June 28th
Great courage was demonstrated from June 28th until now in order to keep Honduras a free country!
People who defend a coup d'État and the dictorship in Honduras are plain fascists. Zelaya was no able to run for reelection as the elections any way were going to take place before a possible referendum about the constitution. And anyway. The current constitution in Honduras was written in the transition from the last dictatorship (before the current one) in 1983. A law is just an expression of a political relation of power and it was time for Honduras' people to consider changing it
Here comes another one calling white black, and black white.
The government of Micheletti is the *ANTI* dictatorship. Zelaya was the one aiming to be the dictator, and fortunately was stopped.
Zelaya was the one who first attempted his own constitutional coup, and again, was stopped. Micheletti did NOT commandeer the army, nor seize power unconstitutionally. He was next-in-line for the Presidency because the vice president had earlier resigned.
I suppose you want Nixon back? Gerald Ford was a dictator and a fascist coupist, right?
People who defend a coup d'État and the dictorship in Honduras are plain fascists. Zelaya was no able to run for reelection as the elections any way were going to take place before a possible referendum about the constitution. And anyway: The current constitution in Honduras was written in the transition from the last dictatorship (before the current one) in 1983. A law is just an expression of a political relation of power and it was maybe time for Honuras' people to consider changing it
If you read your history ,you will know that Nixon willingly and publickly resigned . Ford who replaced him ,granted a public pardon . No comparison with the gansta undecover of darness holdup by the military , then the sham letter of resignation .with a forged signature ... Then we complain about the crime in this country . If this treatmet of a president is Ok , then where does that leave the rest of us common people .
Of course the comparisons are not completely parallel. The point is, Zelaya was removed constitutionally, and Micheletti was installed constitutionally. There *WAS* no "gansta undecover of darness holdup by the military," there was a constitutional arrest of a president who did not obey the law, just as Nixon did not obey the law. Zelaya was removed by order of the Supreme Court and by the Congress; Nixon was about to be removed by Congress before he resigned. Nixon at least had a sense of shame, whereas Zelaya has none.
Or if you care, a closer parallel is Rod Blagojevich of Illinois.
Now, to say that only restoring Zelaya will return Honduras to democracy, is like saying only restoring Nixon would restore the U.S. to democracy. Or, just look at all the list of countries that have had an ACTUAL coup, and yet are considered to have somehow come back to democracy.
But again, Zelaya's group, and you, like to call black white and white black. Zelaya was the wannabe dictator; Zelaya was attempting a coup, and Honduras stopped him.
Post a Comment