As I have mentioned here many times before, truth and reality is like kryptonite to libreals. Get it anywhere near them and they begin to feel nauseous and weak. It is therefore not unusual to see liberals either hide from the truth, or run in the other direction whenever confronted by it. That is why you will not see or hear much about this report issued to Congress by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
The Obama administration, and by extension the state-run media, will completely ignore this report. But thanks to Capitol Hill Cubans and renegade newspapers like the Washington Examiner, we can all read the truth the left prefers to ignore.
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) has issued a “Report for Congress” (LL File No. 2009-002965) on the Honduran Constitution and the removal from office of President Manuel Zelaya.
Here is the Executive Summary:
The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings. The Constitution no longer authorizes impeachment, but gives Congress the power to disapprove of the conduct of the President, to conduct special investigations on issues of national interest, and to interpret the Constitution. In the case against President Zelaya, the National Congress interpreted the power to disapprove of the conduct of the President to encompass the power to remove him from office, based on the results of a special, extensive investigation. The Constitution prohibits the expatriation of Honduran citizens.
Meanwhile, David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner added context to the Report’s findings:
– The Honduran Congress appears to have acted properly in deposing President Manuel Zelaya. Unlike in the United States, the Honduran Congress has the last word when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. Although there is no provision in Honduras’s Constitution for impeachment as such, the body does have powers to disapprove of the president’s official acts, and to replace him in the event that he is incapable of performing his duties. Most importantly, the Congress also has the authority to interpret exactly what that means.
– The Supreme Court was legally entitled to ask the military to arrest Zelaya. The high court, which is the constitutional venue for trials of the president and other high-ranking officials, also recognized the Congress’s ouster of Zelaya when it referred his case back down to a lower court afterward, on the grounds that he was “no longer a high-ranking government official.”
– The military did not act properly in forcibly expatriating Zelaya. According to the CRS report and other news stories, Honduran authorities are investigating their decision, which the military justified at the time as a means of preventing bloodshed. In fact, Zelaya should have been given a trial, and if convicted of seeking reelection, he would have lost his citizenship. But he is still a citizen now, and the Constitution forbids the expatriation of Honduran citizens by their government.
– The proper line of succession was followed after Zelaya’s ouster. Because there was no Vice President in office when Zelaya was removed (he had resigned to run for president), Micheletti was the proper successor, as he had been president of the Congress.
As it has been pointed out a gazillion times by those who base their opinions on facts and the truth, the only beef Zelaya has with the Honduran government was his forced removal from the country. Back in July, Miguel Estrada came to the same conclusion when he said quite succinctly:
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.
But here we go again, basing our opinions on facts and the truth. It is a concept that is quite foreign and seemingly impossible for liberals because embracing the truth would mean turning their backs on everything they have stood for.