Chavez wannabe legally ousted, media calls it a coup.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Sounds a lot like our Media outlets...

[Ddrak]

I do not see anything in Honduran law that makes the actions illegal.

That's probably the difference in our opinions. I don't see anything that makes the actions *legal*. The only authority that can order the military is the executive, so in this case the military acted on their own (ie a coup) or followed an illegal order from the SC.

Kidnapping? That is an allegation not a matter of fact. Zelaya says kidnapped and the Honduran government says he left of his own accord. Zelaya says he did not resign and the government says he did.

Sorry, but the idea that Zelaya resigned, then claimed he didn't is pretty crazy. Similarly the idea that he voluntarily left for Costa Rica is pretty crazy too. Look at the timeline. Is there any place that indicates Zelaya would roll over and play dead rather than self-immolating?

The government has since impeached him and he has outstanding arrest warrants.

So what was the issue with waiting the day or two to ensure a smooth transition instead of pushing the constitutional crisis even further? They played Zelaya's game instead of following proper order.

Closing down a free press? Under a situation of national crisis that dog won't hunt, my friend.

If what they were doing was so above board, why close down foreign reporting?

I do not know yet if it was "by the book" or not. I know that Honduras has a right to self determination and self governance. It is not up to us to dictate to them how to run their affairs short of humanitarian issues or human rights abuses.

If the entire Honduran government sans the President does not have the right to kick the President out of office then who does? Should they go get the permission of Obama or the OAS or the UN?

While they take US money, the US gets to dictate the terms that money continues to flow. Similarly, are you suggesting nations don't have the right to comment on the internal actions of other nations? You're being silly - nations can talk about other nations as much as they want.

You're also swinging a strawman fighting the idea that the the government doesn't have the right to "kick the President out of office". They do, just not the way they went about it.

The fact is that all that you can gripe about is the method by which he was arrested.

Correct, but that's a pretty big "all". It's like "all" we can gripe about is the method voting was done in Iran.

The Congress and the Supreme Court DO have the ability in Honduras to order someone arrested.

Someone is not "The President". That's why there's procedures for impeachment.

The Military of Honduras DOES have the authority to carry out an arrest order.

That's your assertion, and even if true doesn't necessarily apply to The President. There's a good reason for this - it's called separation of powers. There essentially has to be a *trial* before you unseat a President, not just some judge deciding on his own to write an arrest order. In fact, it seems by your argument, anyone with the power to write an arrest order could detain The President, correct?

They jumped the gun. It would have taken a few days for an orderly impeachment to go through and they just had to run around with secret meetings and other stupidity. I guess the banana republic traditions die hard?

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Actually Dd.. our military has the semi-legal authority to act on it's own. All military personnel take an oath to protect the US Constitution from all threats "foreign and domestic". The oath to obey the President takes a back seat to the oath to the Constitution.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I should probably clarify Dd...

Precedent was set in the US for disobeying illegal orders (those that run counter to our Constitution), even if those orders came from the President. Google "Flying Fish" and "John Adams".

[Ddrak]

Actually Dd.. our military has the semi-legal authority to act on it's own. All military personnel take an oath to protect the US Constitution from all threats "foreign and domestic". The oath to obey the President takes a back seat to the oath to the Constitution.

Yeah, I was thinking about that type of thing in the back of my mind. What exactly does that oath mean? It seems that it's possibly even an oxymoron given Posse Comitatus prevents the military from almost all actions in defense of a whole swathe of Constitutional rights. Similarly there's a bunch of stuff the military can't legally do overseas without express permission from one or more branches of government. The whole thing gets incredibly murky.

It's like swearing allegiance to "the flag". All vague symbology and nothing particularly concrete.

Agreed on the point about disobeying illegal orders, and that's exactly what the Honduran military should have done in this case - nothing on any count because as far as I can see in my limited reading, every order given to them was illegal in some form or other.

Dd

[Trollbait]

If what they were doing was so above board, why close down foreign reporting?

Since their own media is so corrupt what reason would they have to believe all media is not corrupt?

Similarly, are you suggesting nations don't have the right to comment on the internal actions of other nations? You're being silly - nations can talk about other nations as much as they want.

Not at all. I said we cannot dictate to them. We can comment all day.

Correct, but that's a pretty big "all". It's like "all" we can gripe about is the method voting was done in Iran.

I would say it would be stupid to gripe about how voting was done. It would be more appropriate to bitch about how the votes were counted.

Someone is not "The President". That's why there's procedures for impeachment.

There sure are. So what? He was impeached. There is nothing saying he cannot be arrested prior to his impeachment. In Honduras there is no immunity from prosecution and arrest for the President. He is the same as any other citizen.

That's your assertion, and even if true doesn't necessarily apply to The President.

It is not MY assertion. It is the constitutional assertion of the Honduran government.

That's your assertion, and even if true doesn't necessarily apply to The President. There's a good reason for this - it's called separation of powers. There essentially has to be a *trial* before you unseat a President, not just some judge deciding on his own to write an arrest order. In fact, it seems by your argument, anyone with the power to write an arrest order could detain The President, correct?

You seem to be ascribing our constitution and separation of power to Honduras. There are essentially 4 branches of government in Honduras. The fourth branch is the military. They have their own Commander in Chief. That Commander in Chief saw the Executive as acting illegally and with the support of the other branches excluding the executive exercised the arrest authority granted by the laws of Honduras.

There essentially has to be a *trial* before you unseat a President, not just some judge deciding on his own to write an arrest order.

That does not appear to be the case in Honduran law. Again you are ascribing our constitution to their country. It was not "some judge". It was the Supreme Court of Honduras.

Here is a great article that gets to the exact point I am trying to make about your assertions, Ddrak:

http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2009 ... ndura.html

June 29, 2009
Was It a Legal Coup in Honduras?

The expulsion of former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya by the Honduras military has sparked a lively debate over whether or not the takeover should be called a "coup". The reason for the debate is simple enough -- "coup" conjures images of a military junta seizing power by extralegal force and repressing all opposition akin to Argentina in the early 1980s. Defenders of the Honduran military action point out that this action was not extralegal and was, in fact, authorized by the legislature and the courts in response to Zelaya's own illegal attempt to extend his power in an imitation of his international mentor, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Critics, however, believe that this is just a rhetorical shill to cover up some kind of bias against Zelaya's leftist politics.

What both sides miss is that a "coup" isn't always extralegal. In short, what is happening in Honduras may be an example of a coup that is not only legal, but mandatory. The oddness of this concept to American minds requires an explanation.

Civil-military relations in the United States are founded on assumptions both inside and outside the military that derive from the work of the late Samuel Huntington in The Soldier and the State. Under Huntington's ideal of "objective civilian control," the military is granted substantial autonomy over a professional sphere of managing the application of violence, but is given no political role. Various forms of "subjective civilian control" where the military becomes embroiled in civilian political struggles are argued by Huntington to be militarily deficient and presumed by most westerners to be morally deficient as well. Americans frequently assume that this ideal is universally shared as an intrinsic component of a democracy.

But this American presumption is more a pretension than an objective description of how societies organize themselves politically. While it is true that American and European consultants make a priority of encouraging developing democracies to adopt Huntingtonian ideals (NATO's "Partnership for Peace" is a notable example, as is the reformed curriculum of the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly-known and still-protested as the "School of Americas"), some countries explicitly endow their military with a role in maintaining democratic governance. For example, in Turkey, the military is constitutionally empowered to act as a check on the potential for Islamic parties to undermine the secular foundations. In 1962 and 1980, the Turkish military undertook coups that were not only seen as legal, but mandatory and necessary. This military influence has continued to function in less aggressive forms during more recent political crises involving the banning of Islamic parties and the selection of the head-of-state.

Like the Turkish military, Latin American armies have a long tradition of political involvement. While in some cases, most notably Argentina, this tradition has been intentionally deconstructed (the disaster of the "dirty war" and defeat in the Falklands War provided a strong impetus for change), officers have continued to hold a widely-accepted political role in other countries. It is worth remembering, for example, that in spite of his pretensions of outrage over this coup in Honduras, Venezualan dictator Hugo Chavez was himself the leader of a coup attempt in 1992.

As more news continues to filter out of Honduras, it appears as if the Honduran military was specifically authorized by a court order to arrest a President that was judged to be out of control. The fact that the American military would never be so authorized should not distract us from the possibility that legal authorizations for military interventions into politics might exist in other countries' constitutional arrangements. The takeover in Honduras might be, in fact, a legal coup.

The author is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. His dissertation forces on variations in the political and policy-making roles of the U.S. military.

from all threats "foreign and domestic"

It is "enemies" not "threats"

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

The oath to obey the President takes a back seat to the oath to the Constitution.

Only if they are in obvious conflict. Military case law indicates that a soldier has an obligation to follow every order unless it is blatantly illegal. A soldier does not have the right or ability to measure every order for legality. The burden of judgement grows as your rank increases.

[Ddrak]

If what they were doing was so above board, why close down foreign reporting?

Since their own media is so corrupt what reason would they have to believe all media is not corrupt?

They don't live in a vacuum. In any case, did you even bother to read articles 73 and 187 of their constitution? It's pretty amusing you use the US as a reference when it suits you but criticize me for doing the same.

Not at all. I said we cannot dictate to them. We can comment all day.

Strawman then. No one is suggesting foreign nations can dictate anything to them, except where there are common interests which need to be considered.

I would say it would be stupid to gripe about how voting was done. It would be more appropriate to bitch about how the votes were counted.

I'd say it's pretty stupid to split hairs on a metaphor when you knew damn well what I meant. Counting the votes is part of the process of voting.

There is nothing saying he cannot be arrested prior to his impeachment. In Honduras there is no immunity from prosecution and arrest for the President. He is the same as any other citizen.

Except he can pardon himself, etc. Whether it's explicitly spelled out or not, the pardoning function of the President makes him immune to prosecution until impeachment. Similarly, the military cannot arrest him as they are constitutionally bound to "respect and implement" any instruction from the President. You see the fallacy of the whole thing yet?

It is not MY assertion. It is the constitutional assertion of the Honduran government.

No, it's your assertion and a pretty loose one at that.

You seem to be ascribing our constitution and separation of power to Honduras. There are essentially 4 branches of government in Honduras. The fourth branch is the military. They have their own Commander in Chief. That Commander in Chief saw the Executive as acting illegally and with the support of the other branches excluding the executive exercised the arrest authority granted by the laws of Honduras.

You're making shit up. There are 3 branches (it directly says so in the constitution). The military is constitutionally bound to carry out the orders of the President. It's is "obedient and not deliberating". You've yet to show any sort of constitutional power of the other two branches to direct the military. Again, I point you to Article 278 seeing you appear confused by that single sentence.

That does not appear to be the case in Honduran law. Again you are ascribing our constitution to their country. It was not "some judge". It was the Supreme Court of Honduras.

Like it was the President and not some citizen, right? You're breaking your own arguments there...

Show me the part of the constitution that refers to removing a sitting President. Come back when you're done, ok?

Here is a great article that gets to the exact point I am trying to make about your assertions, Ddrak

Nothing new there. Just someone trying really, really hard to make a case and ending up wishy-washy on the whole thing. Are you really saying the State Department doesn't have lawyers? How about the State Departments of every other nation calling it illegal? What's the motive? None of them like Zelaya - they just want nations to not break their own rules.

It is "enemies" not "threats"

Whatever - doesn't affect my argument seeing they are synonyms in the context I used it. Way to avoid the issue.

Dd

[Trollbait]

Except he can pardon himself, etc. Whether it's explicitly spelled out or not, the pardoning function of the President makes him immune to prosecution until impeachment. Similarly, the military cannot arrest him as they are constitutionally bound to "respect and implement" any instruction from the President. You see the fallacy of the whole thing yet?

Fallacy? No. If he is not technically the President at the time the military arrests him then they do not have to "respect and implement" any instruction from the President since he is not the President.

Let me ask you this:

If he had already been impeached or there was some mechanism that immediately ended his Presidency for the violation of a law and he did not leave the office or residence of the Presidency then would it have been appropriate for him to be forcibly removed under the direction of the other branches of government?

Whatever - doesn't affect my argument seeing they are synonyms in the context I used it. Way to avoid the issue.

I wasn't avoiding anything. The language of the oath is specific for a reason. Also I was correcting Embar, not you.

[Partha]

If he had already been impeached or there was some mechanism that immediately ended his Presidency for the violation of a law and he did not leave the office or residence of the Presidency then would it have been appropriate for him to be forcibly removed under the direction of the other branches of government?

Argument fail, seeing as how he STILL hasn't been impeached. Oh, and note the nice 'emergency law' passed today that declares parts of the Constitution to be null and void for 'the duration of the emergency'. Funny way to show respect for a Constitution you claimed to have been protecting when you removed the President via military coup.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Fuuny, seeing as he has been impeached.

Later Sunday the Honduran Congress voted him out of office, replacing him with the president of Congress, Roberto Micheletti.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/world ... lobal-home

[Partha]

...except, of course, that they only did it AFTER the coup. Not a legal secession.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

He has still been impeached.

[Trollbait]

Argument fail, seeing as how he STILL hasn't been impeached.

ORLY?

..except, of course, that they only did it AFTER the coup. Not a legal secession.

Except that he was not President when he was arrested.

Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will be immediately relieved of their position [emphasis added] and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

So technically the mechanism of law was triggered and they arrested a private citizen for breaking the law. As we have established the military has the right to do.

[Ddrak]

If he had already been impeached or there was some mechanism that immediately ended his Presidency for the violation of a law and he did not leave the office or residence of the Presidency then would it have been appropriate for him to be forcibly removed under the direction of the other branches of government?

Nope. The issue isn't whether he was President or not in this case (you're still confusing separate things), but whether the military can be issued orders by the SC, and more particularly what a court was doing issuing an arrest warrant prior to impeachment (Article 319.2 specifically requires impeachment prior to issue of the warrant).

Article 239 is a red herring - you still need the impeachment to prove he was actually doing this. They still have the concept of innocent until proven guilty in their constitution.

You're really grasping now.

Dd

[Trollbait]

The issue isn't whether he was President or not in this case

Really? Then why do you keep declaring that only the President can give an order to the military? That is a bullshit argument since you are conflating a military directive with an arrest warrant anyway. Two facts that you cannot dispute are that the Supreme Court can issue a warrant and that the military can arrest people under said warrant.

You argued that this does not apply to Zelaya since he was President. According to the Honduran Constituition he was NOT President at the time. Article 239 does not equivocate. It is spelled out in black and white. Many Honduran lawyers have said that this is exactly the case.....no trial needed. It is the Honduran defense mechanism in their Constitution to avoid dictatorships.

I would suggest, humbly, that the following HONDURAN gentleman knows a bit more about it than you.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html

TEGUCIGALPA, HONDURAS - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.

That is nonsense.

In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.

To understand recent events, you have to know a bit about Honduras's constitutional history. In 1982, my country adopted a new Constitution that enabled our orderly return to democracy after years of military rule. After more than a dozen previous constitutions, the current Constitution, at 27 years old, has endured the longest.

It has endured because it responds and adapts to changing political conditions: Of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed.

It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions – one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.

During these 27 years, Honduras has dealt with its problems within the rule of law. Every successful democratic country has lived through similar periods of trial and error until they were able to forge legal frameworks that adapt to their reality. France crafted more than a dozen constitutions between 1789 and the adoption of the current one in 1958. The US Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1789. And the British – pragmatic as they are – in 900 years have made so many changes that they have never bothered to compile their Constitution into a single body of law.

Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.

Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.

I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law.

Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer, is a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras.

Please read the entire article. This historical context is very relevant.

Article 319.2 specifically requires impeachment prior to issue of the warrant

I would like to know what document you are reading? Article 319 lays out the power of the Supreme Court and make no mention in 319.2 of an impeachment requirement.

2. Meet the offenses of both officers and senior officials of the Republic, when Congress has declared the formation of a cause;

The Honduran Congress had already declared a "formation of cause" on June 26 and again on June 27.

[Lurker]

Zelaya first proposed reforming the constitution in November of 2008. Are you suggesting that he was instantly removed from office in November 2008 and the congress, courts and military allowed a private citizen to run Honduras for eight months?

It makes no sense.

You are misreading that part of the constitution. The section you keep quoting doesn't say nobody can propose changing the Honduran constitution, just that they can't propose changing the term limit provision. It was theorized back in 2008 that Zelaya was trying to change term limits, but he never said what changes he wanted. In fact, he specifically denied wanting to change the term limit provision. That very well may have been his goal, but you can't trigger an instant removal provision because you think someone has a hidden agenda.

[Ddrak]

Then why do you keep declaring that only the President can give an order to the military?

WTF? That doesn't even make sense. I claim the SC can't issue military orders regardless of who is President, and you come back with that? For fuck's sake, at least argue coherently if you want to join into a discussion.

Here. Let me spell it out again seeing you seem to have completely lost the plot:

i) The SC cannot give military orders. It doesn't matter whether it's to arrest the President or shoot a cow. It doesn't matter if Zelaya is President or Mr. Snuffleupagus is President, the President is the only one who can give orders to the military.
ii) The SC cannot give an arrest warrant for the President until impeached (formación de causa) by Congress. This happened *after* the warrant was issued.

According to the Honduran Constituition he was NOT President at the time. Article 239 does not equivocate. It is spelled out in black and white. Many Honduran lawyers have said that this is exactly the case.....no trial needed. It is the Honduran defense mechanism in their Constitution to avoid dictatorships.

Then those Honduran lawyers are just as wrong as you are. The Honduran Constitution states that the right to a defense is inviolable, so the only logical conclusion is a President may not be removed under 239 prior to trial in which he is permitted a defense. In other words, he must be impeached.

Think about it carefully - having a clause in a Constitution that allows anyone to claim the President is no longer the President because he had a hidden agenda, or indirectly supported some action is blatantly stupid. The only legal sense of it is that clause dictates an inviolable means to trigger an impeachment. I know you don't want it to be that way, but there's no other sane interpretation that doesn't violate a whole bunch of other clauses about individual rights and fair trials.

I would suggest, humbly, that the following HONDURAN gentleman knows a bit more about it than you.

I would suggest, humbly, that the HONDURAN gentleman is associated with the faction kicking Zelaya out and would humbly suggest to you that the State Departments of most western nations have perfectly good lawyers, no reason to support Zelaya and came to the opposite conclusion. Who do you believe - someone who has an obvious conflict of interest in not wanting Zelaya restored or someone who is independent?

I would like to know what document you are reading? Article 319 lays out the power of the Supreme Court and make no mention in 319.2 of an impeachment requirement.

...

The Honduran Congress had already declared a "formation of cause" on June 26 and again on June 27.

No they didn't. They didn't impeach him until after the arrest. I can't help it if your Spanish is rusty or you're using some dodgy translation that comes up with stupidity like "formation of a cause".


So, we have:

i) The SC jumps the gun and issues an arrest warrant before Congress issues the indictment/impeachment.
ii) The SC illegally directs the military to arrest Zelaya (though apparently you claim an order to the military isn't a military order - wtf?)
iii) The SC illegally places Zelaya under house arrest (the constitution states arrests must be made in prisons).
iv) Zelaya is illegally flown to Costa Rica, though the anti-Zelaya factions allege that Zelaya (a power mad wannabe dictator) decided he wanted to go there for no obvious reason.
v) Congress finally gets around to impeaching him the NEXT day, which would have cleared up the whole mess legally.

Now, after the fact, we have a bunch of anti-Zelaya zealots trying to pick up the pieces and search for ways to make the whole thing have the facade of legality. Sorry, you fail. It wasn't legal and pretending it was is just an exercise in self-delusion. I understand the hatred for him, and I'm sure he deserved what he got but don't pretend there was even a hint of doing things by the book in taking him out and every time you find a new article which details the history you only dig yourself in deeper.

Dd

[Trollbait]

but you can't trigger an instant removal provision because you think someone has a hidden agenda.

Unless the other branches of government reach that determination. Which obviously they did.

There were many articles and news stories leading up to this situation that made just that claim and there was never a refutation from Zelaya.

The Congressional Committee investigating Zelaya made a determination that Zelaya was acting extra-constitutionally.

There is no military Junta in control of the Honduran government. The government of Honduras has followed their constitution. What exactly is your problem with this?

[Trollbait]

Zelaya is President or Mr. Snuffleupagus is President, the President is the only one who can give orders to the military.

Wrong. The Commander in Chief can also give orders to the military.

The SC cannot give military orders.

Right, but they can give POLICE orders and the military can act as a police role in Honduras.

The SC cannot give an arrest warrant for the President until impeached. This happened *after* the warrant was issued.

The timeline submitted by the congress to the media shows they found (formación de causa) and THEN the arrest warrant was issued from what I am reading. Do you have knowledge different from my own? You could argue that the meetings were secret but I would say you are picking a nit.

a President may not be removed under 239 prior to trial in which he is permitted a defense. In other words, he must be impeached.

Wouldn't that constitutional interpretation be up to the Supreme Court to make? Oh....wait..........

[Lurker]

You are misreading that part of the constitution. The section you keep quoting doesn't say nobody can propose changing the Honduran constitution, just that they can't propose changing the term limit provision. It was theorized back in 2008 that Zelaya was trying to change term limits, but he never said what changes he wanted. In fact, he specifically denied wanting to change the term limit provision. That very well may have been his goal, but you can't trigger an instant removal provision because you think someone has a hidden agenda.

Unless the other branches of government reach that determination. Which obviously they did.

No, they didn't.

Zelaya wasn't removed under the guise of Article 239. It's pure internet fueled fiction that the provision applies, for the reasons I stated here.