Zelaya returns!

[Guardsman Bass]

I imagine that (or something like that) is what the framers of the Honduran constitution were worried about.

IIRC, the 'framers' were the Reagan administration, much like how the post-war Japanese constitution was written by the US as well. This essentially makes it a document imposed on them by an imperial power.

Who gives a fuck? It's been the accepted law of the land in Honduras since 1982, and the Hondurans had plenty of opportunities to change if they didn't care for it during the past 27 years. They did not, instead choosing to add a bunch of amendments to it.

Or are you arguing that Zelaya was somehow above the Constitution that governed the election that brought him to power? And before you point it out, yes, he was removed in a manner that was against the penal code (if not necessarily the Constitution), but they followed the right procedure in picking a successor.

[xerex]

I imagine that (or something like that) is what the framers of the Honduran constitution were worried about.

IIRC, the 'framers' were the Reagan administration, much like how the post-war Japanese constitution was written by the US as well. This essentially makes it a document imposed on them by an imperial power.

Who gives a fuck? It's been the accepted law of the land in Honduras since 1982, and the Hondurans had plenty of opportunities to change if they didn't care for it during the past 27 years. They did not, instead choosing to add a bunch of amendments to it.

eh....isnt the section in question un-amendable ? which is how this thing got started in the first place.

[scythewielder]

I imagine that (or something like that) is what the framers of the Honduran constitution were worried about.

IIRC, the 'framers' were the Reagan administration, much like how the post-war Japanese constitution was written by the US as well. This essentially makes it a document imposed on them by an imperial power.

While it's not a denial for any kind of U.S. influence ostensibly being involved, one way or another, it seems like the process wasn't quite as blatant.

For one, the country wasn't under foreign military occupation and there was an actual Constituent Assembly in place.

The Honduran constitution, the sixteenth since independence from Spain, entered into force on January 20, 1982. Just a week before, Honduras had ended ten years of military rule with the inauguration of civilian president Roberto Suazo Córdova. The constitution was completed on January 11, 1982, by a seventy-one-seat Constituent Assembly that had been elected on April 20, 1980, under the military junta of Policarpo Paz García. The Constituent Assembly was dominated by Honduras's two major political parties, the PLH, which held thirty-five seats, and the PNH, which held thirty-three seats. The small Innovation and Unity Party (Partido de Inovación y Unidad--Pinu) held the remaining three seats.

http://countrystudies.us/honduras/84.htm

[CmdrWilkens]

Keep in mind that this is Latin America, though - there is a history of dictators basically abusing a "no term limits" policy to stay in office forever. Honduras isn't the only country in that area that has term limits on their executive - Mexico limits its President to one term, Colombia limits them to two terms (although the Colombian President is trying to change that), and so forth.

Most of these "no-term" dictators came to power through military coups rather than political referendums.

Aside from the Hugo Chavez example which neatly points to an exception to your rule (and Colombia appears to be trying it as well) I'll go with the fact that you write a constitution to protect against what you can. You can't guard against a military coup by legislation you can only do that by establishing a long term working order where the military subordinates itself to civilian authority. What you CAN do is deny international legitimacy to anyone who does usurp the government and that is why the provision is in there.