The defenders of the coup d'état in Honduras say that the deposition of Zelaya seeks protection in the article 239 of the Constitution of that country (http://www.honduras.net/honduras_constitution.html)..



All Constitution should be interpreted in a systematic way. The Constitutions count norms that are solemnity-applicable and norms that depend on regulation (these norms of contained validity are called constitutional norms of suspended effect).



The norm that refers the popular sovereignty is solemnity-applicable. In Honduras there is no popular mandate without election. The usurper that occupies Honduran President's position was not chosen by the people, therefore, he doesn't have any constitutional legitimacy.



The rule that prescribes the loss of elective mandate doesn't dispose which will be the necessary formalities for the withholding of the mandate. Therefore, this norm is not and it cannot be considered solemnity-applicable. As it is a constitutional norms of suspended effect, it should have been object of infra-constitutional regulation.



The mandate attributed to the President only extinguishes with his end. His/her repeal is measured exceptional that cannot be resolved without formal accusation, defense right and decision for the competent Tribunal in the form of the constitution or of the Law that treats of the ACTION OF IMPEDIMENT.

"ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Designado.

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."

Should you ignore once again the warning of this article in order to give credit to your thoughts about the so called "dictatorship" only Zelaya defenders think we live on?

*The Constitution

The Constitution is quick and sharp. As soon as Zelaya called the Assembly is as soon as he lost his right on the Executive branch (hell, even his citizenship if we touch Article 42). The military is FORCED to make our Constitution valid and proceed with all legal means to remove Zelaya.

*Zelaya's Exile

Was the exile legal? No, but it was the only choice the new goverment had in order to avoid a major massacre (done by the paid and still blind followers of Zelaya) and even more confusion from the media (the first days, CNN and all international media repeated what Zelaya told them, yet their cover their ears to us).

At this rate not even them have been able to fully justify themselves (and also don't mention the constitution whenever the discuss this issue, which is bad), but it takes some research and common sense to know what's the best choice.

*No "coup"

The "US Library of Congress" studied the case and denied the so called "coup" (which you can ask anybody in here, we don't live militarized). Fact that the interventionist presidents (most of them, influenced by Venezuelan oil and politcal relations with Chavez) and other cells (OEA/ONU) are trying to ignore in a desperate attempt to put Zelaya back on power (and probably continue the ALBA, justify the downded "narc-planes", the money Zelaya stole/wasted, his multiple bank accounts and the referendum of Honduras which at this rate won't happen).

*Zelaya's crimes

People speak about Mich's goverment as a "dictatorship" and "de facto" and don't seem to understand their meaning. We don't live in Cuba (or Venezuela, a masked democracy) and the Constitution was respected with Zelaya's removal.

"Red shirt" people ignore that this referendum is not a poll (it was to be done taking IDs and ink to the fingers, namely a VOTING) and upon it's obvious effectiveness it would overthrow the current State into the new Constitution created by the Assembly (which Zelaya called during June 25). He wanted re-election and the Constitution countered him with Article 239 (Chapter 6) which removes anybody who even PROPOSES it's change (that's why current candidate for the National party, Pepe Lobo, refrains from mentioning this issue).

Considered a "high treason" crime (among the other 18 flagrant violations he did while being a President), makes you lose your quality as a citizen (due Title 2: Nationality and Citizenship / Chapter 3 / Article 42 / 5th Addendum of our Constitution):

5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República; y,

And now that he's just a individual with no citizenship, he admitted in public that he won by corruption and NOW is calling the insurrection; violating the 4th Addendum of the same article:

4. Por coartar la libertad de sufragio, adulterar documentos electorales o emplear medios fraudulentos para burlar la voluntad popular;

From Brazil's Embassy as a "Guest" (President Lula denies involvement but he still calls it a "coup" and treats Zelaya as a "president" while Zelaya himself admitted he feels better "not being it" while in México).

I can go on and on and on with how obvious this whole incident is. But in the end, you'll just ignore me (because is the best for you), isn't'? ;)