echo the following moral blackmail: it describes the removal of this individual "prima facie" as a coup, and automatically everyone is unable to rationally analyze what happened in that country, so risk of being described as a coup. This blackmail is unacceptable and certainly not accept it. I
against Pinochet was active in politics and voted for all candidates of the conclusion. I opposed that brought Pinochet, it thought it could legally be tried in England. In my blog I have witnessed it: Rinse
http://sociedad-y-derecho.blogspot.com/ that, I have moral authority to rule: I have a glass house. NON
COUP
1 .- The Constitution of Honduras has the following article: Article 239 .- The citizen who has held the title of Executive Power can not be President or Designee.
who violates this provision, or proposed for reform, and support those who directly or indirectly, immediately cease carrying out their respective positions, and shall be disqualified for ten years to exercise any public function.
2 .- Former President Zelaya had called for a survey tendiende to reform the constitution (see news ), despite the opposition of Congress, the Judiciary and the Electoral Tribunal (see news ).
"On June 24, Zelaya announced that deposed General Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, head of the Joint Chiefs of Honduras, after he refused to distribute voting cards to the controversial visit. Shortly thereafter, the Minister of Defence and the Chiefs of the three branches of the Armed Forces of Honduras resigned. The Supreme Court voted unanimously against the measure and ordered the General to remain in office "http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Zelaya
In a Shiite left, which supports Zelaya, recognizes this:
The Legal perspective blow-Polític to
"Having taken all these measures, ignoring complaints, threats and insults, President Zelaya situation within the State, from the Liberal Party, the media, the military leadership and the elites themselves Honduran which had belonged, was not only isolation, but of outright hostility. They turned against all members of Congress (liberals included), except for five of a leftist party called the Democratic Unification Party, turned against the Supreme Court in full and many other judges, and the Court Supreme Electoral left him some of his colleagues in the executive branch, the military leadership was challenged and threatened. " Http://www.tercerainformacion.es/spip.php?article9744
Rule of Law:
Under the rule of law there are three branches, separated, in a perfect balance: the Executive, Legislature and the judiciary. Everyone has their areas of action and constitutional limitations. This separation of powers and the necessary balance has been a triumph of the human race, and nobody know.
The way how to resolve conflicts such powers within a state, is a question of law and not for the interference of other states or international organizations.
In Honduras, Zelaya despite being isolated politically, insisted on violating the Constitution and behave like a despot. All this prompted the Congress to oppose his plan and support its removal. The judiciary did the same and, politically, to his own party, the Liberal quto you back.
So, he left office is absolutely justified, in light of the aforementioned constitutional provision. Maybe if the form had to be another (his imprisonment would have been ideal), so no one would confuse world public opinion, with the idea that it is a coup.
being so obvious that it is disturbing that journalists lose all objectivity: Guillier in its program of 24 hours did a panegyric of this individual, losing all status as a journalist. Never dared to question the reasons why the people, Congress, the judiciary, his party, the church turned its back. I never asked him whether he wished or no re-election or if you try again. Painful.
authorities have not done better, the departure of the ambassador of Honduras is the height of the ridiculous law. INTERNATIONAL LAW
run over by the OAS
soon.
0 comments:
Post a Comment