Interestingly, the Honduran Constitution of 1982 (Honduras: Constitución de 1982) does provide for loss of citizenship for those who “incite, promote or aid in the continuation or re-election of the President” (article 42, translation mine):

ARTICULO 42.- La calidad de ciudadano se pierde:

5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República; y,

Further, Article 239 indicates that anyone who has held the office of chief executive cannot be president or vice president and anyone who proposes reform to that prohibition can be barred from holding public office for ten years:

ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República.

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 (10) años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.

My educated guess on that provision is that it is aimed move at banning past military dictators from pursuing the office than it is a stricture contra re-election, per se.

Additionally, Article 374 bars any amendments regarding the length of the presidential term (amongst other things:

ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.

As such, it is pretty clear why the Supreme Court of Justice ruled against Zelaya’s plebiscite proposal in the first place. It also means that if the vote had been allowed to happen it would have had no legal standing and that there was an alternative route (several, actually) to deal with the situation.

So, while it seems that there is a clear constitutional case against Zelaya’s actions, none of the above justifies arrest and exile as the provisions in question do not give the Supreme Court of Justice the power to summarily rule on these issues. There is an impeachment provision in the Honduran constitution, and that would have been the approach route for the congress to take. Update: I am not clear on this point. I have read a few references to an impeachment mechanisms in secondary sources, but cannot find the provision in the constitution itself. One uncorroborated source tells me that there is no removal provision.

Also, while we are on the topic of constitutional provisions, it is unclear to me at the moment at why the president of Congress was sworn in as president and not the vice president (see Article 242). Update: that question has been answered.

Our complete set of 70-649 test questions and PMI-002 study guides you in exact way so you will pass your real 650-296 exam & testking 70-685 with flying colors of cwna dumps.