academic site|c.v.

RSS .92| RSS 2.0
Follow PoliBlog on Facebook
Follow me on Twitter
Sunday, June 28, 2024
By Steven L. Taylor

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.

The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.

39 Responses to “Looking to the Honduran Constitution”

  • el
  • pt
    1. IriiAguilar Says:

      Because the real vice-president actually quit his position in order to pursue his career as a presidential candidate, which actually is quite illegal (You can’t actually resign that position). If I’m not mistaken, our Constitution states that.

    2. Steven L. Taylor Says:

      That would answer that question-thanks.

    3. Alpha Says:

      Pardon my ignorance in proper political language, I am an engineer, not a student of law. In fact, up until this point I have tried to steer clear of such political business. Anyway, I shall attempt to translate as literally as possible.

      ARTICULO 242.- Si la falta del Presidente fuere absoluta, el Designado que elija al efecto el Congreso Nacional ejercerá el Poder Ejecutivo por el tiempo que falte para terminar el período constitucional. Pero si también faltaren de modo absoluto los tres designados, el Poder Ejecutivo será ejercido por el Presidente del Congreso Nacional, y a falta de este último, por el Presidente de la Corte Suprema de Justicia por el tiempo que faltare para terminar el período constitucional.

      Article 242. - If the absence of the President were absolute, the Designate chosen by the National Congress shall serve the Executive Power for the time remaining until the constitutional period ends. But if the three Designates should fail to be present in an absolute manner, the Executive Power shall be enforced by the president of the National Congress, and in his absence to this latter, by the President of Supreme Court of Justice for the remaining time of the constitutional period.

      “Designate” refers to article 236 where it says that the president and 3 presidential designates shall be elected only through popular vote.

      Now, the president, blatantly disregarded the laws and the several, i repeat, SEVERAL, warnings from the other governing powers along with his presidential Designates and his entire “cabinet” (that’s what we call his elected officials) who knowingly complied with his unconstitutional orders. Because the president and his three Designates had been removed, (vice president resigned) the placement of Roberto Micheletti, president of the National Congress is not only legal, but constitutionally mandated.

      Oh yeah, by the way, I am Honduran, born and bred, living in the capital city and for the first time in ages, I am extremely proud of my country and its governing powers.
      I hope this helped clarify a few things.

    4. Steven L. Taylor Says:

      For what it is worth, I am not defending in any way Zelaya’s behavior. I still question, however, the actions taken against him and believe that there were other legal avenues to pursue. I take the point about constitutional succession now that I know that VP Santos resigned. However, nothing you are telling me here provides a constitutional basis for arresting and exiling an elected president. As such, I continue to maintain that it was a coup.

    5. Alpha Says:

      Oh no, maybe I came across different than what I intended. I by no means intend to justify his extradition. I realize his removal was far from tasteful. However there are circumstantial events that must be taken into account. Still it is not my intention to convince you of any particular point of view. As you said, there is no constitutionally defined action to follow in these cases. Finally, we Honduran’s define a Coup d’Etat (Golpe de Estado in Spanish) as forceful removal of the governing powers, abolition of the constitution and forceful taking of the power by the “offenders.” Yes, he was forcefully removed, however the other powers (including the armed forces) have showed no intention of holding office beyond that stipulated by the constitution nor have they intended to abolish or even tamper with the constitution, further more, they have acted strictly within the boundaries of it and in its defense. These are the reasons why we are not calling this a Coup d’Etat, but rather a destitution of a president declared incapable.

    6. On the Honduran Coup Says:

      [...] Looking to the Honduran Constitution [...]

    7. George Says:

      The vice president resigned in December to run for the presidency, which would seem to be illegal according to article 239. Imagine that, both the president and vice president violating the constitution flagrantly - and being punished for it! Maybe that’s why all the heads of state around the world are condemning this - they don’t want to be held accountable for violating their constitutions either.

      Can you do a full translation of article 239, by the way? I think that’s the most important one in this ordeal, as it provides the basis for which the Supreme Court had the president arrested.

    8. George Says:

      Scratch that, says only that the head of the executive branch cannot be to the presidency or vice presidency, again. Maybe the vice president saw it as very likely that Zelaya would get removed from office, so in order to keep his presidential aspirations alive, he resigned.

    9. Lizard_King Says:

      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.

      The citizen that has [in the past] carried out the role of the Executive can’t be President or Vice President of the Republic. He who breaks that law or proposes its reform, along with those those who support him directly or indirectly, will immediately cease carrying out their respective charges and remain unable to serve in any public office for a period of ten years.

    10. PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Zelaya’s (Doomed) Plebiscite Says:

      [...] is interesting for two reasons. 1) It does not advocate (or even mention re-election-which is a constitutional no-no) and 2) since the proposal constituent assembly would be elected concurrently with the next [...]

    11. 4sure Says:


      Can you translate Article #42 Section 5 and give your opinion on whether this section of the Constitution could have supported Zelaya’s extradition (not to mention section 2 of the same section)?

    12. Juan Says:

      Most important is “who and why” was the Constitution written in 1982. As of December 1981 the country had been under military rule for 10 years! The statement “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” is naive at its core. The military have always dominated politics in Honduras and need no Constitution to do as they wish.

      To think that the Armed Forces yielded the government back to civilian hands without leaving their imprint in the Constitution is, again, naive. The four years law is meant to fit their needs, not the other way around.

      Looking at a list of past Presidents, you see the presence of the Armed Forces and the need to have longer terms for the Presidency actually makes sense to help establish civilian rule.

      Now, how does a conservative businessman (a logger!) moves to the “left” in a short period of time? Personal or political forces?

    13. Fruits and Votes » Prof. Shugart's Blog » Text of aborted Honduran plebiscite Says:

      [...] in November, when his successor was due to be elected. The constitution has language that makes it impossible to amend for reelection, which would explain the need for a constituent assembly. (A constituent assembly could declare [...]

    14. Publius Says:

      Constitutional law is a funny thing. Most often constitutions that provide for co-equal branches of government assume that any given branch will -eventually— yield to the power of the other two. But what happens when it doesn’t.

      An example: Nixon turned over the Watergate tapes when ordered to do so by the US Sup. Ct. What if he didn’t? What exactly could the head of the Judicial branch (the S.Ct.) do to the head of the Executive branch?

      Example 2: Nixon doesn’t resign, instead he gets impeached and convicted. Regardless, he refuses to leave office and his cabinet and departments continue to remain loyal to him. What happens? Presumably by operation of the Constitution he is “removed” (regardless if he continues to squat in the White House). Ford becomes president and does what? Orders the police to forcibly remove Nixon. hmmm sound familiar. Now maybe he doesn’t get exiled…but who is to say.

    15. Steven L. Taylor Says:

      Well, in general one writes laws/rules of any kind under the assumption that they will be followed to one degree or another.

      But in regards to your scenario, there would have been some actual process, not a summary judgment, an arrest and an exile.

      I am to the point in this conversation where I am actually floored that so many people don’t see the missing step that took place in the Honduran example and how it was really an act of brute force, not of an orderly, legal process.

    16. andy Says:

      Good work, Steven L. Taylor.

      We need to barrage CNN with this. They are absolutely deceiving the country about this issue.

    17. Publius Says:

      No, I get your point. I’m just not so sure it happened as you suggest. My understanding is that there were multiple rulings from the Honduran Supreme Ct that Zelaya choose to ignore. And that the removal took place after a vote of the Honduran congress. I’m not sure how much due process is called for by the Honduran constitution for removal from office. But if a would be dictator is threatening to destroy the principles of the democracy, decisive action may be necessarily expedient. Zelaya was trying to create a constitutional crisis so that HE could re-write provisions of the constitution and install himself permanently in power. This is the same strategy Morales employed in Bolivia. Either way there was going to be a constitutional crisis provoked. Once that occurred, it is better for democracy that the institution holding the cards be one that power is vested in many rather than the branch where power is held by an individual.

    18. Lily Says:

      Thank you Steven for framing the issues in a comprehensible way. It has occurred to me that perhaps the people have been filled with fear ( by radio talk show hosts, perhaps??)and thus have been misled. My only gauge of whether this was the right thing to do -complicated constitutional issues aside—is to see who is disadvantaged by Zelaya’s removal, and who gains. If the campesinos and the students are upset, then I suspect there is cause for concern, as it seems Zelaya’s attempt to get a sense of the people’s will has been thwarted and we really don’t know how they would have voted… It’s my understanding the vote in this survey/poll/referendum would have been non-binding anyway, so this action by the other branches of government certainly seems an over-reaction.

    19. George Says:

      Steven, I’ll refer to what Publius wrote and ask you just what exactly the other branches of government were supposed to do in this situation.

      Every political institution had declared that what Zelaya did was illegal, and there are certain provisions in the constitution that would remove Zelaya as president for simply being found to have violated them - which he was by the Supreme Court.

      The Congress voted to impeach and remove him. The Electoral Tribunal never verified the petition to have this referendum, Congress never approved of the petition with a 2/3 vote as required by the constitution, and thus it was completely illegal for Zelaya to by-pass both of them and still have the referendum.

      It seems that people (the media and diplomats especially) have been fooled by how things look, rather than what the facts actually are. Yes, it looks scary when the military removes a leader from the presidential palace, but don’t you care what the facts are?

      If Bush tried to illegally have the military help him carry out a referendum in the United States, against every law governing such things, against the Supreme Court, against Congress, against election authorities - you’d rather see him be able to hold an illegal referendum than being removed from office? The laws of the land don’t matter as long as you wrap yourself in the guise of “democracy”?

      That’s a chilling message to send to countries around the world - that as long as you call your aims democratic, you can do whatever the hell you want.

    20. Steven L. Taylor Says:


      It is never better for democracy for force to become the method of solving a dispute.


      The idea the the only thing that could be done was the pre-dawn arrest, exile and replacement of the legally elected president is an absurd assertion.

      And I think you need to reread your own final sentence and think about what the justification was the actions we are discussing.

    21. Steven L. Taylor Says:

      By the way, if anyone can provide the exact constitutional and legal justification for what happened, I would love to see it-and that is not a sarcastic request.

    22. Publius Says:

      “It is never better for democracy for force to become the method of solving a dispute.”

      Who enforced the U.S. Supreme Ct.’s opinion in Brown v. Board of Ed.? As I recall, it was the Army. Do you remember Little Rock?

    23. Steven L. Taylor Says:

      Actually, it would have been the National Guard.

      And the dispute itself was settled via a legitimate court ruling.

    24. Publius Says:

      A National Guard that was federalized, under the control of the Secretary of Defense and had guns. Sounds like an army to me. Clearly the issue was settled in everyone’s mind if we had to use a military force to enforce it. So force might not be the means to solve a dispute, but it may be necessary to enforce the resolution. Legitimcy is in the eyes of the beholder.

    25. Steven L. Taylor Says:

      My initial point was less about the tool of the execution, but the source of its power.

      Regardless, there is a difference, whether you wish to admit it or not, between lawfully executing a constitutional order (and after quite a bit of time had past) and sending the military to roust the president out of bed before dawn and kick him out of the country whilst enforcing a media blackout and then curtailing press and assembly rights.

      But, without a doubt, legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder, as often is truth and beauty.

      At the end of the day, I think we have to agree that you (and a number of other commenters) find nothing wrong with the way in which Zelaya was removed from power. I do, and that is based not just on the events of the last several days but a great deal of time studying such events. It is likely not to be good for Honduras, but then again, time will tell.

      (There is, btw, a legal distinction between the army and the National Guard, but I will grant that is a picking a nit.)

    26. Steven L. Taylor Says:

      I just re-read what I wrote:

      “It is never better for democracy for force to become the method of solving a dispute.”

      I would note that the emphasis there is “force” as the means of settling the dispute. Obviously police, and other armed have to be used to enforce a given legal ruling. But Bernie Madoff, though arrested by people with guns (and soon to be guarded by them) isn’t going to jail because someone with a gun was involved, but because he contravened laws and that contravention was determined through a lengthy, transparent process. It wasn’t force that settled the issue.

    27. Publius Says:

      No, its a distasteful way to handle things. I merely meant to point out, via my comments, that the courts and legislature have little (if any) ability to carry out their decisions if the executive does not enforce them. [“Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” –Pres. Jackson upon his disagreement with a Supreme Ct. ruling.] A serious constitutional problem arises if the decision of the judiciary [and in this case the legislature] is against the executive and the executive does not yield. Our system has never been so tested because when faced with decisions that directly affected the office of the Presidency, our presidents have always yielded. Zelaya was not yielding.

      —I’ve enjoyed the debate, thanks for hosting it.

    28. Steven L. Taylor Says:

      You You are correct-courts and legislatures require some form of executive mechanism to put their rulings and laws into practice-no argument there.

      And yes, there was a serious constitutional crisis in Honduras, and Zelaya helped create it. I still believe that the SCJ and congress of Honduras could have handled it differently/better.

      Thanks for the discussion.

    29. George Says:


      Imagine if you will that President Bush did not yield to the Supreme Court on their decision on military commissions. Imagine further that, instead of passing a new law to make military commissions legal, Congress passed a law that outlawed them explicitly and called on the president to stop using them. Imagine even further that President Bush did not heed any of these other two branches of government, and kept on going with military commissions. Further still, imagine that Congress impeached, convicted, and removed him from office over this. Lastly, imagine that President Bush, upon being impeached and removed from office, defiantly stayed in the White House, using the Secret Service as his personal security force to resist removal or arrest.

      Are you seriously telling me that it would have been unimaginable, uncalled for, and illegitimate for the National Guard to go in and forcibly remove President Bush from the White House upon a court order to do so?

      If that is what you believe, and that is clearly what Obama, the UN, OAS, and quite a few others believe, then you are telling the world that the highest judicial and legislative powers of a government can be peaceably ignored, and the executive power rules all.

      I think it would be a dangerous precedent to push the rationale that one cannot rely on the executive branch yielding to the judicial branch, much less both it and the legislative branch combined.

      For all the bleating from people about Bush, Cheney, and the Unitary Executive theory, here the same people are wrapping themselves in the Omnipotent Executive theory - all because they’re letting themselves be fooled by the symbolism of the military removing a president.

    30. Steven L. Taylor Says:


      If it came to Bush not wanting to go, I can’t image it would require a pre-dawn rousting and a news blackout whilst he was arrested. Think about those two facts.

      Second, he would have then been exiled by force.

      And if you think that i am arguing about some Ominpotent Executive Theory, you haven’t read much of what I have written. I will repeat myself at least in part: Zelaya deserved political sanctions. He may have even deserved arrest and trial. But he deserved some form of due process, as one would expect in a democracy. Rousting him from bed before dawn to arrest, exile and remove him from power is a coup is not a democratically reasonable and legal process. And again, I would note as I posted yesterday, the government was so proud of its actions that Honduran media was off the air:

      The censoring of the press began on Sunday before dawn. Honduran media remained off the air while Zelaya was expelled from the country in an airplane.

      Does this really sounds like a proper process that will be good for Honduran democracy?

    31. George Says:

      1. Of course it wouldn’t require a pre-dawn rousting in the case of Bush - he wouldn’t have to be forcibly removed at all, which is kind of the point. Zelaya, however, was defying orders that he remove himself from the presidential palace. Pre-dawn is as good a time as any to remove someone from a place they don’t want to be removed from. What, you’d have preferred in the middle of the night instead? What’s the meaning of this? There is none.

      2. News blackout while he was arrested - it just so happens that all of the private media in Honduras hates Mr. Zelaya as much as most of the people there. If they chose to play mariachi music while all this happened, so what? Again - means nothing to the facts at hand.

      These “facts” you drawn attention to are merely distractions, deflections, from the heart of the matter.

      3. He was not exiled by force. If you sincerely believe this, then please tell me why the military would choose to send him to Costa Rica. Random draw? Costa Rica offered him political asylum, and he went there of his own choice. Sticking around in Honduras to face possible criminal charges probably didn’t sit well with him.

      4. “But he deserved some form of due process, as one would expect in a democracy.”

      Jesus Christ, read the Constitution. If Congress voted to impeach and remove the president from office, so be it. That’s all the “due process” that is needed to remove a president from power. OR have you forgotten how impeachment works in the United States?

      5. “Rousting him from bed before dawn to arrest, exile and remove him from power is a coup is not a democratically reasonable and legal process.”

      You’re right - they should have jailed him and kept him in Honduras to indict him for criminal charges rather than letting him skip off to Costa Rica to hold press conferences and then fly to New York to make a speech at the UN. Instead, the Honduran government opted to let him go, and have his political asylum elsewhere.

      If Zelaya returns to Honduras, he will face this “due process” that you’re bleating about. Since when did anyone have to go through a legal process before being arrested? Have you all lost your minds?

      “Oh, hey there mister drug dealer, here’s a notice for you to show up in court.”
      “Eh, for what?”
      “Oh, we’re going to arrest you next Tuesday because we’ve got evidence that you’ve sold cocaine on the streets.”
      “Alright, see you next Tuesday. You will stick around, won’t you?”

      Seriously, is this how people think the law works? Have the media completely mushed everyone’s brains into not knowing a single thing about how anything works anymore?

      6. “the government was so proud of its actions that Honduran media was off the air”

      For one, you have no idea whether this happened or not. Secondly, so what? If the media chose to do that, who cares? Arresting Mr. Zelaya would be quite unpopular with about 30% of the population, why stoke the fire basically tell everyone to start rioting right when it’s going on?

      I mean, seriously. Does anyone know how impeachment works anymore? How an arrest is made and why? Anyone? Madness.

    32. Steven L. Taylor Says:

      Read the Miami Herald story that is linked from the post I linked in my comment.

      I mean, seriously. Does anyone know how impeachment works anymore? How an arrest is made and why? Anyone? Madness.

      Yes, it is always a quick process without hearings or evidence that results in the immediate exile and removal of the president. How silly of me.

      Your hypothetical drug dealer gets far more due process than that.

    33. George Says:

      Actually, the Congress has been presiding over this issue for some time, and after the Supreme found that Zelaya violated the Constitution, I’m not sure what more evidence they need to deliberate over than that. What you’re saying is that, even though the law says that Congress can impeach the president (there’s no requirements for longevity of deliberation or anything else), you’re not satisfied with how they did it anyways. Even if they did it completely legally, and with the Supreme Court as a witness.

      My hypothetical drug dealer would not get prior warning that he was about to be arrested, no. I was only talking about what happens before being arrested - which is what is comparable to before Zelaya was arrested.

      But hey, let’s just go with the whole “Supreme Court and Congress can go fuck themselves” idea. Sounds great. Why even have them at all, let’s just depose them all and let the president rule alone.

      Ah, wait a minute… Isn’t that… Oh, yes that’s exactly what Zelaya wanted. How odd that one would reach that logical conclusion from your arguments. How odd indeed.

    34. Steven L. Taylor Says:

      Odd, if anything, because it wasn’t what I said. You are more than entitled to your opinion and I have clearly expressed mine in a variety of posts at this point.

    35. George Says:

      I’m just taking your sentiments and applying them to the real world. You don’t feel like an impeachment should work this way, even though it’s fully legit. You subscribe to all the fanciful tales from Zelaya, most of which don’t even make sense. Like your belief that he was exiled by force to Costa Rica. I ask again - why would the military send him there? Have you ignored the reports of him receiving political asylum there?

      Zelaya chose to leave the country so that he didn’t risk facing the law - which he will face if he comes back. Then he will be prosecuted and given all the due process that you, incorrectly, believe he should have received as part of his impeachment and removal from office.

      If we are to follow what you and others are saying about this incident, it is to come away with the idea that a president can disregard the Supreme Court and Congress, along with every other political institution in a country, for some Greater Good. In this case, the Greater Good is the continued hold on power by a Mr. Zelaya.

      What a frightening message to send around the world, that the United States of America believes it to be of utmost importance that presidents are allowed to openly and brazenly defy the highest judicial body in their country, and the legislative branch to boot. Welcome to a brave new (fascist) world, I guess. Thanks, Obama!

    36. Steven L. Taylor Says:

      The problem is that the legitimacy of the entire affair is very much in question.

      And what in Heaven’s name does Obama have to do with it? Indeed, you reveal yourself as someone who is forming their opinion based not on knowledge of the region or the basic facts of the situationbut because you think it falls into some pre-determined ideological/political game.

      Further, you aren’t reading what I am writing, because I haven’t said anything about eschewing congress, the courts or the Greater Good. I have, on numerous occasions, noted Zelaya’s own culpability in this mess. Again, I am not sure why you even want to argue with me, as you are clearly not taking what I have to say seriously.

    37. George Says:

      The problem is that no one questioned the validity of what Zelaya was doing, and now everyone is only questioning the legitimacy of what everyone in the Honduran government - except the president - has done.

      Look at this from a mathematical perspective. What are the odds that Zelaya did something wrong, contra the entire rest of the political institutions in the country? Having read some of the statements this man has made, I don’t even need to consider whether that significantly small probability is even realistic.

      What does Obama have to do with it? The state leader that is most trusted around the world according to the latest global polls? The leader of the free world, if you will? He came out and told the world that what a collective government of Honduras did, sans the president, was “not legal” and that the president should be reinstated, mentioning absolutely nothing of the reasons why perhaps the president was also in the wrong.

      When the president of the United States comes out and says something like that, especially a (currently) popular one, it has weight, it resonates, it influences, it dictates. The message the the president has now given the world, in which many are following, is that the president of a country may do as he pleases, disregard the two other branches of government entirely - and get the support of the United States in doing so.

      If you don’t see the problem with that, may the moon and stars help us all, because we’re on a very, very scary path towards a future that I cannot imagine wanting to take part in.

    38. Steven L. Taylor Says:

      The problem is that no one questioned the validity of what Zelaya was doing

      That is simply not the case, and you haven’t read all my posts on the subject if you wish to assert that.

      What Obama does or does say is irrelevant to whether or not the Honduran government acted properly. That is simply the case.

    39. George Says:

      OK, Steven, maybe you did, but the media and the Obama administration sure hasn’t. They haven’t even hinted that Zelaya may have done something wrong, at least I haven’t heard anything approaching that.

      “What Obama does or does say is irrelevant to whether or not the Honduran government acted properly”

      Most certainly, especially since Obama is completely wrong.

    blog advertising is good for you

    Visitors Since 2/15/03

    Take a Look At This!
    Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics



    Powered by WordPress