Ruffled feathers and screeching school girls
What is taking place in Honduras is a difficult pill for liberal yahoos to swallow. Their feathers are all ruffled over the Honduran Congress and its Supreme Court ordering the military to enforce the laws of their democratic constitution. Such coups, you see, are only acceptable when its a leftist taking a conservative out of power. And when that is the case, the rule of law does not matter to our fine feathered friends. Reverse the situation however, and the liberal yahoos here in South Florida as well as the rest of the country start screeching like bratty, pre adolescent school girls who don't get their way.
The rule of law is the rule of law, and no matter how loud or how often liberals want to screech, it does not change that fact. Attorney Miguel Estrada wrote a great editorial published in the LA Times, which does away with the usually doltish reaction by the left to the events that have transpired in Honduras and gives us a legal view of what happened in Tegucigalpa.
Something clearly has gone awry with the rule of law in Honduras -- but it is not necessarily what you think. Begin with Zelaya's arrest. The Supreme Court of Honduras, as it turns out, had ordered the military to arrest Zelaya two days earlier. A second order (issued on the same day) authorized the military to enter Zelaya's home to execute the arrest. These orders were issued at the urgent request of the country's attorney general. All the relevant legal documents can be accessed (in Spanish) on the Supreme Court's website. They make for interesting reading.
What you'll learn is that the Honduran Constitution may be amended in any way except three. No amendment can ever change (1) the country's borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must "succeed one another" in a "republican form of government."
Estrada goes on to explain that the removal of Zelaya was not only legal, but required by the Honduran constitution. The only questionable act was the forced exile of Zelaya to Costa Rica, but they may have been doing him a favor -- the only other choice they had was to arrest him and toss him into an Honduran jail. Estrada sums up this circumstance quite nicely when he ends his editorial with this.
True, Zelaya should not have been arbitrarily exiled from his homeland. That, however, does not mean he must be reinstalled as president of Honduras. It merely makes him an indicted private citizen with a meritorious immigration beef against his country.
You hear that? They're screeching again...