Comments on: Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Good Neighbor

By: brian

brian — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 05:27:04 +0000

Micheletti Tried to Change the Honduran Constitution 1985

Posted by Kristin Bricker – July 10, 2009 at 9:02 pm
He Wanted to Extend President Roberto Suazo Córdoba’s Term

by TeleSUR
translated by Kristin Bricker

In the rallies that were held this Friday in the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa, a fact rarely discussed in national and international press–but well-known throughout the Honduran population–was made public: Roberto Micheletti’s attempt to modify this Central American country’s Constitution in 1985.

Popular organizations, teachers union members, union leaders, and the general public, in addition to demanding the reinstatement of Honduras’ legitimate and constitutional president, Manual Zelaya, vocalized coup leader Roberto Micheletti’s public attempt [to change the Constitution].

In 1985, he tried to turn the Honduran National Congress into a National Constitutional Assembly in order to reform the same Magna Carta that the coup leaders are now defending as their transcendental symbol during the current political crisis.

Members of Congress and politicians accuse Manuel Zelaya of trying to extend his term and change the Honduran Constitution, but what he tried to do was hold a non-binding opinion poll. Micheletti, on the other hand, did want to [extend the president's term and change the Constitution] 24 years ago.

Zelaya’s proposal is far from what happened in 1985 when then-congressman Roberto Micheletti (who has been a member of Congress for 28 years) called a Constitutional Assembly to extend the mandate of the president of that era, Roberto Suazo Córdoba.

On October 24, 1985, two years after the current Constitution was approved, various members of Congress, lead by Micheletti, tried to introduce a proposal calling for a National Constitutional Assembly.

The legislators requested the suspension of various constitutional articles, the same ones that, ironically, are now used by the coup authorities to legitimize Zelaya’s ouster. Those articles are 373, 374, and 375, which refer to the mechanisms for reforming and defending the Constitution.

As the Bolivarian News Agency’s special correspondent in Tegucigalpa, Antonio Nuñez Aldazoro, describes, in that era the proposal caused a commotion and was suspended, due to the fact that at that time Micheletti’s actions were considered treason, and opposition legislators from the Nationalist Party knew that the Constitutional Assembly’s only goal was to extend Liberal President Suazo Cordoba’s presidency.

It’s worth noting that 24 years ago the effects of the low-intensity war were still being felt, as well as the so-called “Contra” scandal and US President Ronald Reagan’s security doctrine. At that time Honduras was still considered to be the United States’ base of operations in Central America.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2009/07/micheletti-tried-change-honduran-constitution-1985

By: Mulga Mumblebrain

Mulga Mumblebrain — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:09:10 +0000

Obama is, in my opinion, far more dangerous than Bush because he presents the dissembling, lying, face of the confidence-man, whereas Bush was all brutish candour. Obama, the House Negro par excellence, poses as the ‘New America’ by dint of no other quality but his ethnic background, and a facile agility with meaningless rhetoric, already revealed as so much verbiage by the reality of his first few months of rule. His real actions are precisely the same, if not worse, already, than those of Bush, yet the nong-nongs who ‘invested’ so much ‘hope’ in his rise refuse to see what is right in front of their faces. They have been conned. The Yankee Moloch has a bright, shining, new face, darker in complexion, but the message stays the same, as it must, as it cannot but be. Indeed Obama’s plainly conniving, misleading and deceptive persona seems to me to be far more sinister and malignant than Bush ever was.

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:33:56 +0000

lichen, I heard you’re a racist because you think people who are anti-imperialist who believe that imperialism is racism, are racist.

By: lichen

lichen — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:54:29 +0000

Yes, exactly; many who claim to be anti-imperialist are really full of the racist hubris that their leading politicians carry; and, further, they use this guised anti-imperialism to support the government killing of protesters.

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:46:31 +0000

Michael Kenny,

So, if there is a history of US intrusion, if there are hundreds of millions put into such an intrusion, this is a “chuckle”? This is “hubris” on the part of people who would connect those rather obvious dots?

Yours is a bogus argument. Argue on merits of your “facts” not some phonied up notion that if some (few as it may be) Americans (and many non-Americans please be reminded) arrive at certain understandings about what their government does, has done and been capable of doing, it is hardly some kind of daaaaaa “racism”.

Now come back with your facts.

By: Ken Hoop

Ken Hoop — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:27:38 +0000

Well, and Cockburn just became an American, I believe.

By: Michael Kenny

Michael Kenny — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:44:01 +0000

“Jeremy Scahill, George Ciccariello-Maher and Alexander Cockburn argue that the U.S. must have been involved at some level”
I always chuckle at the inability of Americans to imagine that anything might happen in the world without the US being involved. It “must have been involved”! Maybe, and maybe not. But don’t forget that behind that assumption lies the very hubris, indeed racism, that has got the US into the mess it is now in.

By: brainfood

brainfood — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:31:32 +0000

Interestingly, the Honduran Constitution of 1982 does provide for loss of citizenship for those who “incite, promote or aid in the continuation or re-election of the President” http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html (article 42):
ARTICULO 42.- La calidad de ciudadano se pierde: 5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República.
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 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.