Ignoring the self-evident invalidity of the “both articles are unconvincing. They’ve been passed around for a few months now.” attempt at rhetoric, I think stephen completely fails to understand Cassel’s argument. Cassel focuses on the due process of law owed to Zelaya with regard to whether or not he actually violated 239. They do not argue that had it been proven that he violated the law, that the arrest warrant would not be legitimate. They argue that there is no proof that his “opinion-survey” calling for a constituional convention (not a term-extension necessarily) did amount to such a violation in the absence of a legitimate trial. Regardless of the branch issuing the warrant, the claim that he violated 239 has not been proven up, period. In addition, he argues that the idea that the article is self-executing (even in the face of blatant proof) is not enough without a procedural mechanism for implementation (mainly because it is not clear what the procedure is for actual removal in the case where the president does”immediately cease in the exercise of his office.”

Personally, I think that Zelaya was trying to find a back-door way to sneak in another term which would in fact have violated the Honduran constitution. But as stupid a move as that was, respect for the rule of law AND for basic principles of due process require one to view his removal from power as suspect–again in the absence of an actual adjudication of the matter. The military’s “procedural errors” are quite significant here. The exile is merely the straw that broke the back of public opinion; it’s not the legal reason his removal from power qua “preemptive strike” is unconstitutional.

An arrest in and of itself doesn’t mean that anybody is guilty of anything. They never proved that Zelaya did what they accused him of. Of course, military dictatorships like Micheletti’s regime, don’t play by those rules.

They deported him and then used their hired Washingtion DC lobbyist, Lanny Davis, to link Zelaya to the boogie man Chavez. This is all propaganda, and there is nothing legal about it.

Shame on Hillary. What a lying hypocrite she is.

I fully agree, and have acknowledged that procedural errors were made in Zelaya’s arrest. However, this author as with previous authors do fail to draw a connection between those errors and Zelaya’s return to power. They should rearrest him correctly and he should be in jail. That doesn’t change the current situation.

While the authors focus on the legislative actions, the judicial ones are being ignored.

The international court may or may not be a good venue for this. Perhaps they will nullify the democratic elections this month to do so.

Well, Ramon, as far as your last statement is concerned. My baggage is out in the open. Please feel free to read my articles before casting stones. Also, read my research at

http://www.stephenanuno.com

Please post links to your own writings so we may evaluate those as well for objectivity.

The arrest was not legitimate. There were due process violations, according to reports Zelaya was not read fully informed of the charges against him, and the armed forces came to get him instead of the state police, which is the entity that the Honduran Constitution says should execute these legal decisions.

You can read more about it here:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/20/honduras-manuel-zelaya-law-library-opinions-contributors-coup.html

I don’t know why you keep saying that the Zelaya arrest warrant was valid.

Frankly, this fiasco would be perfect for an International Court to adjudicate.

As for the commenters having a political agenda, I see you link to Newt Gingrich’s “Americano.” Your claim to being a “poor professor who is interested in democracy” is tinged with its own baggage.

The answer to the Berkeley piece is that Congress did not issue the warrant. The judicial branch did, ie. the supreme court. Congress swore in the President of Congress, the next ranking elected official since there is no Vice President, when Zelaya was arrested. This is a red herring and avoids the issue of Zelaya’s legitimate arrest, which is what you and Anna want desperately to focus everyone’s attention away from.

If Obama is so sure of his decision not to support the Micheletti government, why aren’t you posting HIS brief, authored by his legal team? You can’t because he won’t publish it. Why not? It would be interesting to read Obama’s legal justification for supporting Zelaya, but like you and Anna, I can only guess that his reasons have more to do with politics than the law.

I know it’s not the US Constitution, but look at this link with this letter from a professor from UC Berkeley addressed to the Library of Congress:

http://quotha.net/node/385

Specifically, look at this:

“In fact, on May 7, 2003, the Honduran Supreme Court had nullified the claimed power of the Congress to interpret the Constitution. Thus, it is not surprising that the Honduran Congress made no such claim on June 28, since they no longer could assert such authority, which the Supreme Court had rejected.”

You might also want to read the article by ND Professor Cassel:

http://www.nd.edu/~ndlaw/news/ASIL.pdf