My generation is the "baby boom" generation, based on the increase in births that occurred subsequent to WW 2. My generation was fighting in Vietnam in 1966, when you were born. You are a member of a generation subsequent to mine. You did not advocate for succession, however several other conservative members of these forums continually do. Our generations do think differently. Mine was taught that there is never, ever, a legitimate reason for the US military to interfere in the political process of the United States government. Never. There are no circumstances in which we can ever see it happening.
I think you're being a little dramatic, olddaddy. You're taking a discussion about Honduras and somehow translating it into support by some to use military action in our own country against a president who is violating the US Constitution in their opinion. First of all, I don't know of anybody, on this forum or anywhere else, who supports US army tanks rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue to remove a US president because he violated the constitution in that person's opinion. I'm sure there probably are some people out there on the fringes of society who do, but you can find people on the fringes who support anything.
And second, a person's opinion of what is a constitutional violation doesn't even enter into the mix. The constitution spells out in clear terms how an official is to be removed from office. You brought up a hypothetical of what we should do if a president disobeyed the authorities that ruled against him. That's a hypothetical that's almost impossible to imagine because it's never even come close to happening. The closest we're ever come is when Richard Nixon refused to hand his Oval Office tapes over to Congress after it demanded he do so. He appealed to the US Supreme Court and it ruled against him. I posed the scenario of what would happen if a US president disobeyed a Supreme Court ruling. It would create chaos. Well not even Nixon did that. As soon as the court ruled, he turned over the tapes. So your hypothetical is a little to hard to contemplate at this point in our history. That may change sometime in the future, but not right now.
Back on the Zelaya story. I find it interesting that even members of his own party are saying that if he even tries to return to power, he will be arrested immediately. That should show his supporters just how dangerous people close to this story thinks he is.
Originally posted by Fishermage In other words, you are claiming to understand Honduran law and constitutionality better than the Honduran supreme court. I guess the arrogance of Obamafication is contagious.
No, what i am claiming is that democracy has not been upheld in Honduras. The ousted President, voted into power by an electoral process under their current constitution, is still the leader of that nation despite what a bunch of kidnapping gangsters claim. I am saying that the use of the military and the perversion of law does not make a person a president under any form of legitimate democracy.
I am saying that asking the will of the people thru referendum is an important part of the democratic process. I am saying that, prior to the law that the national congress implemented to bar such an event, the president was able to introduce a referendum to ask the people if they wanted to form a constituent assembly to redraft the constitution. I am saying that the people's freedom to make a decision by a public referendum was crushed by their own "government" with a coup d’état.
I am saying that because of this crisis it is more than apparent that their consitution is not sound and obviously needs to be redrafted.
I will also say that instead of looking at Honduras and seeing the United States of America I suggest you look at Honduras and see Honduras - of course you probably won't understand this line.
In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions.
Direct democracy was a proven failure before we even created our republic. This is why there are no direct democracies anywhere -- only democratic, constitutional republics,
Public referendums are potentially dangerous -- people can literally destroy a nation (Or a state, as in california) through referendum. All government actions, even referendums MUST be limited lest the people vote away their rights. Once again it shows the difference between us, I favor LIBERTY, YOU favor democracy. So if it is the will of the people to murder, enslave, and loot their neighbors, you are okay with that. It's the will of the people, so all shall be well.
If referendums are being used to destroy a country's constitution, that's okay with you. Plus, once again you claim to know better than the Honduran people what constitution is best for them.
I am looking at Honduras, and I am saying let the Hondurans work out their own constitutional issues.
I hope you realize how foolish your position is when you examine the history of your nation's own constitution.
You type as if the USA has never made changes to the American constitution; as if the American consitution of today is the exact same one at its original drafting; as if the American consitiution is too sacred to be touched by the hands of common man; as if there are no such thing as the 27 amendments... that's right fella, the men and women of your country have touched that holiest of holies more than several times - the last time being 1992. Note: 1992 and note your not ancient past!
How, pray tell, does constitutional America go about calling a constituent assembly? The answer is by the "majority". That thing by which you hate so much.
I guess it's ok for you Americans to alter your consititution at will since it so darn flawed, but the people of Honduras have absolutly nothing wrong with theirs so why would they want to besmerch such a perfect document?
Actually, it is not a majority that calls a constitutional assembly. Please check your facts.
Neither is our constitution amended by a majority -- fella.
I think any country can alter there constitution -- BY ITS OWN RULES. This would-be dictator was circumventing that, and the Supreme Court and the elected body stopped him. Constitutional, limited democarcy in action.
Article 5 of your consititution - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Definition of majority by Merriam-Webster dictionary "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
It's funny that you have the audacity to quote our constitution at us, while claiming this entire thing isn't about constitutional protection in Honduras, and still trying to act like your viewpoint is superior.
This is EXACTLY about protection of a constitution, and I assure you Fisher knows more about our US constitution than you do.
As for the article 5... I don't think you realize just how much it takes to ammend it. Getting 2/3rds of our states to ratify an emmendment is like a holy grail event now.
I guess it's the word majority that he is fuzzy on?
Majority, according to your definition, is 51%, not 2/3. 2/3 is subsantially more than a majority.
I'm seriously beginning to question Obama's commitment to maintaining and spreading freedom around the world.
Why would he want to do that? Afterall he is a closet Communist.
Well I had to give him the benefit of the doubt. I mean, the president is called the "leader of the free world", so I figure he'd at least go through the motions of trying to defend freedom. My mistake for assuming.
Originally posted by Fishermage In other words, you are claiming to understand Honduran law and constitutionality better than the Honduran supreme court. I guess the arrogance of Obamafication is contagious.
No, what i am claiming is that democracy has not been upheld in Honduras. The ousted President, voted into power by an electoral process under their current constitution, is still the leader of that nation despite what a bunch of kidnapping gangsters claim. I am saying that the use of the military and the perversion of law does not make a person a president under any form of legitimate democracy.
I am saying that asking the will of the people thru referendum is an important part of the democratic process. I am saying that, prior to the law that the national congress implemented to bar such an event, the president was able to introduce a referendum to ask the people if they wanted to form a constituent assembly to redraft the constitution. I am saying that the people's freedom to make a decision by a public referendum was crushed by their own "government" with a coup d’état.
I am saying that because of this crisis it is more than apparent that their consitution is not sound and obviously needs to be redrafted.
I will also say that instead of looking at Honduras and seeing the United States of America I suggest you look at Honduras and see Honduras - of course you probably won't understand this line.
In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions.
Direct democracy was a proven failure before we even created our republic. This is why there are no direct democracies anywhere -- only democratic, constitutional republics,
Public referendums are potentially dangerous -- people can literally destroy a nation (Or a state, as in california) through referendum. All government actions, even referendums MUST be limited lest the people vote away their rights. Once again it shows the difference between us, I favor LIBERTY, YOU favor democracy. So if it is the will of the people to murder, enslave, and loot their neighbors, you are okay with that. It's the will of the people, so all shall be well.
If referendums are being used to destroy a country's constitution, that's okay with you. Plus, once again you claim to know better than the Honduran people what constitution is best for them.
I am looking at Honduras, and I am saying let the Hondurans work out their own constitutional issues.
I hope you realize how foolish your position is when you examine the history of your nation's own constitution.
You type as if the USA has never made changes to the American constitution; as if the American consitution of today is the exact same one at its original drafting; as if the American consitiution is too sacred to be touched by the hands of common man; as if there are no such thing as the 27 amendments... that's right fella, the men and women of your country have touched that holiest of holies more than several times - the last time being 1992. Note: 1992 and note your not ancient past!
How, pray tell, does constitutional America go about calling a constituent assembly? The answer is by the "majority". That thing by which you hate so much.
I guess it's ok for you Americans to alter your consititution at will since it so darn flawed, but the people of Honduras have absolutly nothing wrong with theirs so why would they want to besmerch such a perfect document?
Actually, it is not a majority that calls a constitutional assembly. Please check your facts.
Neither is our constitution amended by a majority -- fella.
I think any country can alter there constitution -- BY ITS OWN RULES. This would-be dictator was circumventing that, and the Supreme Court and the elected body stopped him. Constitutional, limited democarcy in action.
Article 5 of your consititution - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Definition of majority by Merriam-Webster dictionary "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
It's funny that you have the audacity to quote our constitution at us, while claiming this entire thing isn't about constitutional protection in Honduras, and still trying to act like your viewpoint is superior.
This is EXACTLY about protection of a constitution, and I assure you Fisher knows more about our US constitution than you do.
As for the article 5... I don't think you realize just how much it takes to ammend it. Getting 2/3rds of our states to ratify an emmendment is like a holy grail event now.
I guess it's the word majority that he is fuzzy on?
Majority, according to your definition, is 51%, not 2/3. 2/3 is subsantially more than a majority.
No, I know what the definition of majority means since I was the person that explained it to you - here it is again incase you missed it "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
So 2/3 or 66.66% is a majority.
Do you see how foolish your position is? You argue that the people of Honduras can't improve their consititution like every other nation's people, including your own. You argue that the majority should have no voice and the people should blindly follow their political leaders. You argue that a legislative branch has the right to bind executive power with whatever laws they see fit to invent for such a purpose.
In essence you believe that the ends justify the means so long as those ends preserve a nation's constitution, even if the means are constitutionally questionable - after all, you can circumvent the constitution so long as the supreme court backs you up, right?
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
Originally posted by Fishermage In other words, you are claiming to understand Honduran law and constitutionality better than the Honduran supreme court. I guess the arrogance of Obamafication is contagious.
No, what i am claiming is that democracy has not been upheld in Honduras. The ousted President, voted into power by an electoral process under their current constitution, is still the leader of that nation despite what a bunch of kidnapping gangsters claim. I am saying that the use of the military and the perversion of law does not make a person a president under any form of legitimate democracy.
I am saying that asking the will of the people thru referendum is an important part of the democratic process. I am saying that, prior to the law that the national congress implemented to bar such an event, the president was able to introduce a referendum to ask the people if they wanted to form a constituent assembly to redraft the constitution. I am saying that the people's freedom to make a decision by a public referendum was crushed by their own "government" with a coup d’état.
I am saying that because of this crisis it is more than apparent that their consitution is not sound and obviously needs to be redrafted.
I will also say that instead of looking at Honduras and seeing the United States of America I suggest you look at Honduras and see Honduras - of course you probably won't understand this line.
In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions.
Direct democracy was a proven failure before we even created our republic. This is why there are no direct democracies anywhere -- only democratic, constitutional republics,
Public referendums are potentially dangerous -- people can literally destroy a nation (Or a state, as in california) through referendum. All government actions, even referendums MUST be limited lest the people vote away their rights. Once again it shows the difference between us, I favor LIBERTY, YOU favor democracy. So if it is the will of the people to murder, enslave, and loot their neighbors, you are okay with that. It's the will of the people, so all shall be well.
If referendums are being used to destroy a country's constitution, that's okay with you. Plus, once again you claim to know better than the Honduran people what constitution is best for them.
I am looking at Honduras, and I am saying let the Hondurans work out their own constitutional issues.
I hope you realize how foolish your position is when you examine the history of your nation's own constitution.
You type as if the USA has never made changes to the American constitution; as if the American consitution of today is the exact same one at its original drafting; as if the American consitiution is too sacred to be touched by the hands of common man; as if there are no such thing as the 27 amendments... that's right fella, the men and women of your country have touched that holiest of holies more than several times - the last time being 1992. Note: 1992 and note your not ancient past!
How, pray tell, does constitutional America go about calling a constituent assembly? The answer is by the "majority". That thing by which you hate so much.
I guess it's ok for you Americans to alter your consititution at will since it so darn flawed, but the people of Honduras have absolutly nothing wrong with theirs so why would they want to besmerch such a perfect document?
Actually, it is not a majority that calls a constitutional assembly. Please check your facts.
Neither is our constitution amended by a majority -- fella.
I think any country can alter there constitution -- BY ITS OWN RULES. This would-be dictator was circumventing that, and the Supreme Court and the elected body stopped him. Constitutional, limited democarcy in action.
Article 5 of your consititution - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Definition of majority by Merriam-Webster dictionary "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
It's funny that you have the audacity to quote our constitution at us, while claiming this entire thing isn't about constitutional protection in Honduras, and still trying to act like your viewpoint is superior.
This is EXACTLY about protection of a constitution, and I assure you Fisher knows more about our US constitution than you do.
As for the article 5... I don't think you realize just how much it takes to ammend it. Getting 2/3rds of our states to ratify an emmendment is like a holy grail event now.
I guess it's the word majority that he is fuzzy on?
Majority, according to your definition, is 51%, not 2/3. 2/3 is subsantially more than a majority.
No, I know what the definition of majority means since I was the person that explained it to you - here it is again incase you missed it "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
So 2/3 or 66.66% is a majority.
Do you see how foolish your position is? You argue that the people of Honduras can't improve their consititution like every other nation's people, including your own. You argue that the majority should have no voice and the people should blindly follow their political leaders. You argue that a legislative branch has the right to bind executive power with whatever laws they see fit to invent for such a purpose.
In essence you believe that the ends justify the means so long as those ends preserve a nation's constitution, even if the means are constitutionally questionable - after all, you can circumvent the constitution so long as the supreme court backs you up, right?
2/3 is a more than a majority. In our context, if it takes a "majority" to do something, it means 51%. If it takes more than that it takes MORE THAN a majority.
66% is what is known as a super majority in the context we are discussing. It is not a majority (or "simple majority if you want to be a baby about it). If they did something by majority, in the political sense, which is what we are discussing a majority is 51% or higher. YOU were claiming, falsely that is is a MAJORITY that changes our constitution. That would, in context, mean 51%.
I argue that the Honduras can improve their constitution, but only in a constitutional way. Referendum is not -- as stated by THEIR supreme court.
In the Honduras, just like here, the SUPREME COURT is what decides constitutionality. Not YOU, not president Obama, not the UN.
But then, since you know the Honduran constitution better than the Honduran Supreme Court, there is no point in discussing this with you futher. You are the Lord of the Law. I bow before your Omniscience. Please, tell the world what to do.
Originally posted by Fishermage In other words, you are claiming to understand Honduran law and constitutionality better than the Honduran supreme court. I guess the arrogance of Obamafication is contagious.
No, what i am claiming is that democracy has not been upheld in Honduras. The ousted President, voted into power by an electoral process under their current constitution, is still the leader of that nation despite what a bunch of kidnapping gangsters claim. I am saying that the use of the military and the perversion of law does not make a person a president under any form of legitimate democracy.
I am saying that asking the will of the people thru referendum is an important part of the democratic process. I am saying that, prior to the law that the national congress implemented to bar such an event, the president was able to introduce a referendum to ask the people if they wanted to form a constituent assembly to redraft the constitution. I am saying that the people's freedom to make a decision by a public referendum was crushed by their own "government" with a coup d’état.
I am saying that because of this crisis it is more than apparent that their consitution is not sound and obviously needs to be redrafted.
I will also say that instead of looking at Honduras and seeing the United States of America I suggest you look at Honduras and see Honduras - of course you probably won't understand this line.
In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions.
Direct democracy was a proven failure before we even created our republic. This is why there are no direct democracies anywhere -- only democratic, constitutional republics,
Public referendums are potentially dangerous -- people can literally destroy a nation (Or a state, as in california) through referendum. All government actions, even referendums MUST be limited lest the people vote away their rights. Once again it shows the difference between us, I favor LIBERTY, YOU favor democracy. So if it is the will of the people to murder, enslave, and loot their neighbors, you are okay with that. It's the will of the people, so all shall be well.
If referendums are being used to destroy a country's constitution, that's okay with you. Plus, once again you claim to know better than the Honduran people what constitution is best for them.
I am looking at Honduras, and I am saying let the Hondurans work out their own constitutional issues.
I hope you realize how foolish your position is when you examine the history of your nation's own constitution.
You type as if the USA has never made changes to the American constitution; as if the American consitution of today is the exact same one at its original drafting; as if the American consitiution is too sacred to be touched by the hands of common man; as if there are no such thing as the 27 amendments... that's right fella, the men and women of your country have touched that holiest of holies more than several times - the last time being 1992. Note: 1992 and note your not ancient past!
How, pray tell, does constitutional America go about calling a constituent assembly? The answer is by the "majority". That thing by which you hate so much.
I guess it's ok for you Americans to alter your consititution at will since it so darn flawed, but the people of Honduras have absolutly nothing wrong with theirs so why would they want to besmerch such a perfect document?
Actually, it is not a majority that calls a constitutional assembly. Please check your facts.
Neither is our constitution amended by a majority -- fella.
I think any country can alter there constitution -- BY ITS OWN RULES. This would-be dictator was circumventing that, and the Supreme Court and the elected body stopped him. Constitutional, limited democarcy in action.
Article 5 of your consititution - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Definition of majority by Merriam-Webster dictionary "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
It's funny that you have the audacity to quote our constitution at us, while claiming this entire thing isn't about constitutional protection in Honduras, and still trying to act like your viewpoint is superior.
This is EXACTLY about protection of a constitution, and I assure you Fisher knows more about our US constitution than you do.
As for the article 5... I don't think you realize just how much it takes to ammend it. Getting 2/3rds of our states to ratify an emmendment is like a holy grail event now.
I guess it's the word majority that he is fuzzy on?
Majority, according to your definition, is 51%, not 2/3. 2/3 is subsantially more than a majority.
No, I know what the definition of majority means since I was the person that explained it to you - here it is again incase you missed it "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
So 2/3 or 66.66% is a majority.
Do you see how foolish your position is? You argue that the people of Honduras can't improve their consititution like every other nation's people, including your own. You argue that the majority should have no voice and the people should blindly follow their political leaders. You argue that a legislative branch has the right to bind executive power with whatever laws they see fit to invent for such a purpose.
In essence you believe that the ends justify the means so long as those ends preserve a nation's constitution, even if the means are constitutionally questionable - after all, you can circumvent the constitution so long as the supreme court backs you up, right?
2/3 is a more than a majority. In our context, if it takes a "majority" to do something, it means 51%. If it takes more than that it takes MORE THAN a majority.
66% is what is known as a super majority in the context we are discussing. It is not a majority (or "simple majority if you want to be a baby about it). If they did something by majority, in the political sense, which is what we are discussing a majority is 51% or higher. YOU were claiming, falsely that is is a MAJORITY that changes our constitution. That would, in context, mean 51%.
I argue that the Honduras can improve their constitution, but only in a constitutional way. Referendum is not -- as stated by THEIR supreme court.
In the Honduras, just like here, the SUPREME COURT is what decides constitutionality. Not YOU, not president Obama, not the UN.
But then, since you know the Honduran constitution better than the Honduran Supreme Court, there is no point in discussing this with you futher. You are the Lord of the Law. I bow before your Omniscience. Please, tell the world what to do.
Don't start nit-picking, fella. Your words were "In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions." I've proved I'm of the right opinion despite what sort of "majority" it is.
The Honduran Supreme court declared his referendum illegal not unconsititutional. It was declared illegal because of the law that the national congress introduced for the specific purpose of preventing Zelaya from opening the constitution.
There are no grounds for military use. There are no grounds for replacing the duly elected president with an imposter. There are no grounds for using the military to exile a president. There are no grounds for committing forgery to make it look like Zelaya resigned. Aside from that law that tied the hands of Zelaya, and now that he has declared that he no longer wishes to touch the consitiution, there is no reason why Zelaya can not return to his position as President.
There are other possiblities to resolve issues without resorting to military action and a coup d'état. There are better solutions to solving democratic problems without rolling out the tanks and stationing them infront of the presidents abode.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
Originally posted by Fishermage In other words, you are claiming to understand Honduran law and constitutionality better than the Honduran supreme court. I guess the arrogance of Obamafication is contagious.
No, what i am claiming is that democracy has not been upheld in Honduras. The ousted President, voted into power by an electoral process under their current constitution, is still the leader of that nation despite what a bunch of kidnapping gangsters claim. I am saying that the use of the military and the perversion of law does not make a person a president under any form of legitimate democracy.
I am saying that asking the will of the people thru referendum is an important part of the democratic process. I am saying that, prior to the law that the national congress implemented to bar such an event, the president was able to introduce a referendum to ask the people if they wanted to form a constituent assembly to redraft the constitution. I am saying that the people's freedom to make a decision by a public referendum was crushed by their own "government" with a coup d’état.
I am saying that because of this crisis it is more than apparent that their consitution is not sound and obviously needs to be redrafted.
I will also say that instead of looking at Honduras and seeing the United States of America I suggest you look at Honduras and see Honduras - of course you probably won't understand this line.
In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions.
Direct democracy was a proven failure before we even created our republic. This is why there are no direct democracies anywhere -- only democratic, constitutional republics,
Public referendums are potentially dangerous -- people can literally destroy a nation (Or a state, as in california) through referendum. All government actions, even referendums MUST be limited lest the people vote away their rights. Once again it shows the difference between us, I favor LIBERTY, YOU favor democracy. So if it is the will of the people to murder, enslave, and loot their neighbors, you are okay with that. It's the will of the people, so all shall be well.
If referendums are being used to destroy a country's constitution, that's okay with you. Plus, once again you claim to know better than the Honduran people what constitution is best for them.
I am looking at Honduras, and I am saying let the Hondurans work out their own constitutional issues.
I hope you realize how foolish your position is when you examine the history of your nation's own constitution.
You type as if the USA has never made changes to the American constitution; as if the American consitution of today is the exact same one at its original drafting; as if the American consitiution is too sacred to be touched by the hands of common man; as if there are no such thing as the 27 amendments... that's right fella, the men and women of your country have touched that holiest of holies more than several times - the last time being 1992. Note: 1992 and note your not ancient past!
How, pray tell, does constitutional America go about calling a constituent assembly? The answer is by the "majority". That thing by which you hate so much.
I guess it's ok for you Americans to alter your consititution at will since it so darn flawed, but the people of Honduras have absolutly nothing wrong with theirs so why would they want to besmerch such a perfect document?
Actually, it is not a majority that calls a constitutional assembly. Please check your facts.
Neither is our constitution amended by a majority -- fella.
I think any country can alter there constitution -- BY ITS OWN RULES. This would-be dictator was circumventing that, and the Supreme Court and the elected body stopped him. Constitutional, limited democarcy in action.
Article 5 of your consititution - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Definition of majority by Merriam-Webster dictionary "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
It's funny that you have the audacity to quote our constitution at us, while claiming this entire thing isn't about constitutional protection in Honduras, and still trying to act like your viewpoint is superior.
This is EXACTLY about protection of a constitution, and I assure you Fisher knows more about our US constitution than you do.
As for the article 5... I don't think you realize just how much it takes to ammend it. Getting 2/3rds of our states to ratify an emmendment is like a holy grail event now.
I guess it's the word majority that he is fuzzy on?
Majority, according to your definition, is 51%, not 2/3. 2/3 is subsantially more than a majority.
No, I know what the definition of majority means since I was the person that explained it to you - here it is again incase you missed it "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
So 2/3 or 66.66% is a majority.
Do you see how foolish your position is? You argue that the people of Honduras can't improve their consititution like every other nation's people, including your own. You argue that the majority should have no voice and the people should blindly follow their political leaders. You argue that a legislative branch has the right to bind executive power with whatever laws they see fit to invent for such a purpose.
In essence you believe that the ends justify the means so long as those ends preserve a nation's constitution, even if the means are constitutionally questionable - after all, you can circumvent the constitution so long as the supreme court backs you up, right?
2/3 is a more than a majority. In our context, if it takes a "majority" to do something, it means 51%. If it takes more than that it takes MORE THAN a majority.
66% is what is known as a super majority in the context we are discussing. It is not a majority (or "simple majority if you want to be a baby about it). If they did something by majority, in the political sense, which is what we are discussing a majority is 51% or higher. YOU were claiming, falsely that is is a MAJORITY that changes our constitution. That would, in context, mean 51%.
I argue that the Honduras can improve their constitution, but only in a constitutional way. Referendum is not -- as stated by THEIR supreme court.
In the Honduras, just like here, the SUPREME COURT is what decides constitutionality. Not YOU, not president Obama, not the UN.
But then, since you know the Honduran constitution better than the Honduran Supreme Court, there is no point in discussing this with you futher. You are the Lord of the Law. I bow before your Omniscience. Please, tell the world what to do.
Don't start nit-picking, fella. Your words were "In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions." I've proved I'm of the right opinion despite what sort of "majority" it is.
The Honduran Supreme court declared his referendum illegal not unconsititutional. It was declared illegal because of the law that the national congress introduced for the specific purpose of preventing Zelaya from opening the constitution.
There are no grounds for military use. There are no grounds for replacing the duly elected president with an imposter. There are no grounds for using the military to exile a president. There are no grounds for committing forgery to make it look like Zelaya resigned. Aside from that law that tied the hands of Zelaya, and now that he has declared that he no longer wishes to touch the consitiution, there is no reason why Zelaya can not return to his position as President.
There are other possiblities to resolve issues without resorting to military action and a coup d'état. There are better solutions to solving democratic problems without rolling out the tanks and stationing them infront of the presidents abode.
Once again, since you are the Lord of All Law, and since YOU know, in your omniscience, more about Honduran Law than the Honduran supreme court -- I shall allow you to continue to live in Wickersham's world where Wickersham's law reigns supreme.
Also, since you are so find of jumping your definitions out of context and going from political theory into set theory and back again, you are obbviously lord of Lingusitics as well. Good day to you.
You showed off ignorance of the American Constitution, then got caught, then switched disciplines to wiggle out of it, then called me a nitpicker. Amusing.
Originally posted by Fishermage In other words, you are claiming to understand Honduran law and constitutionality better than the Honduran supreme court. I guess the arrogance of Obamafication is contagious.
No, what i am claiming is that democracy has not been upheld in Honduras. The ousted President, voted into power by an electoral process under their current constitution, is still the leader of that nation despite what a bunch of kidnapping gangsters claim. I am saying that the use of the military and the perversion of law does not make a person a president under any form of legitimate democracy.
I am saying that asking the will of the people thru referendum is an important part of the democratic process. I am saying that, prior to the law that the national congress implemented to bar such an event, the president was able to introduce a referendum to ask the people if they wanted to form a constituent assembly to redraft the constitution. I am saying that the people's freedom to make a decision by a public referendum was crushed by their own "government" with a coup d’état.
I am saying that because of this crisis it is more than apparent that their consitution is not sound and obviously needs to be redrafted.
I will also say that instead of looking at Honduras and seeing the United States of America I suggest you look at Honduras and see Honduras - of course you probably won't understand this line.
In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions.
Direct democracy was a proven failure before we even created our republic. This is why there are no direct democracies anywhere -- only democratic, constitutional republics,
Public referendums are potentially dangerous -- people can literally destroy a nation (Or a state, as in california) through referendum. All government actions, even referendums MUST be limited lest the people vote away their rights. Once again it shows the difference between us, I favor LIBERTY, YOU favor democracy. So if it is the will of the people to murder, enslave, and loot their neighbors, you are okay with that. It's the will of the people, so all shall be well.
If referendums are being used to destroy a country's constitution, that's okay with you. Plus, once again you claim to know better than the Honduran people what constitution is best for them.
I am looking at Honduras, and I am saying let the Hondurans work out their own constitutional issues.
I hope you realize how foolish your position is when you examine the history of your nation's own constitution.
You type as if the USA has never made changes to the American constitution; as if the American consitution of today is the exact same one at its original drafting; as if the American consitiution is too sacred to be touched by the hands of common man; as if there are no such thing as the 27 amendments... that's right fella, the men and women of your country have touched that holiest of holies more than several times - the last time being 1992. Note: 1992 and note your not ancient past!
How, pray tell, does constitutional America go about calling a constituent assembly? The answer is by the "majority". That thing by which you hate so much.
I guess it's ok for you Americans to alter your consititution at will since it so darn flawed, but the people of Honduras have absolutly nothing wrong with theirs so why would they want to besmerch such a perfect document?
Actually, it is not a majority that calls a constitutional assembly. Please check your facts.
Neither is our constitution amended by a majority -- fella.
I think any country can alter there constitution -- BY ITS OWN RULES. This would-be dictator was circumventing that, and the Supreme Court and the elected body stopped him. Constitutional, limited democarcy in action.
Article 5 of your consititution - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Definition of majority by Merriam-Webster dictionary "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
It's funny that you have the audacity to quote our constitution at us, while claiming this entire thing isn't about constitutional protection in Honduras, and still trying to act like your viewpoint is superior.
This is EXACTLY about protection of a constitution, and I assure you Fisher knows more about our US constitution than you do.
As for the article 5... I don't think you realize just how much it takes to ammend it. Getting 2/3rds of our states to ratify an emmendment is like a holy grail event now.
I guess it's the word majority that he is fuzzy on?
Majority, according to your definition, is 51%, not 2/3. 2/3 is subsantially more than a majority.
No, I know what the definition of majority means since I was the person that explained it to you - here it is again incase you missed it "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
So 2/3 or 66.66% is a majority.
Do you see how foolish your position is? You argue that the people of Honduras can't improve their consititution like every other nation's people, including your own. You argue that the majority should have no voice and the people should blindly follow their political leaders. You argue that a legislative branch has the right to bind executive power with whatever laws they see fit to invent for such a purpose.
In essence you believe that the ends justify the means so long as those ends preserve a nation's constitution, even if the means are constitutionally questionable - after all, you can circumvent the constitution so long as the supreme court backs you up, right?
2/3 is a more than a majority. In our context, if it takes a "majority" to do something, it means 51%. If it takes more than that it takes MORE THAN a majority.
66% is what is known as a super majority in the context we are discussing. It is not a majority (or "simple majority if you want to be a baby about it). If they did something by majority, in the political sense, which is what we are discussing a majority is 51% or higher. YOU were claiming, falsely that is is a MAJORITY that changes our constitution. That would, in context, mean 51%.
I argue that the Honduras can improve their constitution, but only in a constitutional way. Referendum is not -- as stated by THEIR supreme court.
In the Honduras, just like here, the SUPREME COURT is what decides constitutionality. Not YOU, not president Obama, not the UN.
But then, since you know the Honduran constitution better than the Honduran Supreme Court, there is no point in discussing this with you futher. You are the Lord of the Law. I bow before your Omniscience. Please, tell the world what to do.
Don't start nit-picking, fella. Your words were "In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions." I've proved I'm of the right opinion despite what sort of "majority" it is.
The Honduran Supreme court declared his referendum illegal not unconsititutional. It was declared illegal because of the law that the national congress introduced for the specific purpose of preventing Zelaya from opening the constitution.
There are no grounds for military use. There are no grounds for replacing the duly elected president with an imposter. There are no grounds for using the military to exile a president. There are no grounds for committing forgery to make it look like Zelaya resigned. Aside from that law that tied the hands of Zelaya, and now that he has declared that he no longer wishes to touch the consitiution, there is no reason why Zelaya can not return to his position as President.
There are other possiblities to resolve issues without resorting to military action and a coup d'état. There are better solutions to solving democratic problems without rolling out the tanks and stationing them infront of the presidents abode.
Once again, since you are the Lord of All Law, and since YOU know, in your omniscience, more about Honduran Law than the Honduran supreme court -- I shall allow you to continue to live in Wickersham's world where Wickersham's law reigns supreme.
Also, since you are so find of jumping your definitions out of context and going from political theory into set theory and back again, you are obbviously lord of Lingusitics as well. Good day to you.
You showed off ignorance of the American Constitution, then got caught, then switched disciplines to wiggle out of it, then called me a nitpicker. Amusing.
I thought it was their constitution that I knew more about, now it seems to be their laws, why the change of heart?
I never changed my definition of majority - majority is any number above 1/2, I'm sorry, but using qualifiers like "super" or "mega" or "hyper" doesn't change the fact that the will of the majority rules - we like to call it democracy.
What I find amusing is that you perceive that I've used some wrangling and are condeming me here for it, but you applaud men that did the exact same to remove a constitutionally elected national leader. I guess all I need now is a judge to agree with me and, in your eyes, I'll be justified to do anything I want with you?
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
I'm seriously beginning to question Obama's commitment to maintaining and spreading freedom around the world.
Why would he want to do that? Afterall he is a closet Communist.
Well I had to give him the benefit of the doubt. I mean, the president is called the "leader of the free world", so I figure he'd at least go through the motions of trying to defend freedom. My mistake for assuming.
A more accurate way to know what is the right thing to do is watch Obama's reaction and assume the opposite. He waited until riots were pretty much suppressed in Iran to say anything. He is on TV talking nonstop every day about what light bulbs we can use and how he inherited all his problems but, doesn't have time for any meaningful issues. He continues to be wrong on every single foreign policy issue.
Hmmm.. with a laundry list of leaders siding on the same side as Obama.
All of them with advisors who spent their life studying internation politics... VS a couple of random guys on MMORPG.com You can scramble all you want, but guys who understand whats going on FAR better than 99% of us could even pretend to understand.
You can scream communism and cry marxism, but at the end of the day your just a little person on a forum trying to "fight the machine"
Your about 30 years too late to jump on that boat and be taken seriously.
By laundry list do you mean countries like Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba? Do we really to be in lock step with them?
Hmmm.. with a laundry list of leaders siding on the same side as Obama.
All of them with advisors who spent their life studying internation politics... VS a couple of random guys on MMORPG.com You can scramble all you want, but guys who understand whats going on FAR better than 99% of us could even pretend to understand.
You can scream communism and cry marxism, but at the end of the day your just a little person on a forum trying to "fight the machine"
Your about 30 years too late to jump on that boat and be taken seriously.
Or you can look at all the chief executives and think hmmmm, which side do THEY have a vested interest in backing? The one where their Supreme Courts and Congresses can remove them from power?
It's not just random guys on MMORPG.com. We are discussing this because people are out there discussing this, and presumably very bright people are giving many of the arguments we are giving here on both sides. I thinkhowever it is a prety creepy thing to assume that anything coming out of the "leaders" of the world as expressed at the UN are any more wualified than a bunch of gamers to know right from wrong, even IF it is their field and not ours.
Hmmm.. with a laundry list of leaders siding on the same side as Obama.
All of them with advisors who spent their life studying internation politics... VS a couple of random guys on MMORPG.com You can scramble all you want, but guys who understand whats going on FAR better than 99% of us could even pretend to understand.
You can scream communism and cry marxism, but at the end of the day your just a little person on a forum trying to "fight the machine"
Your about 30 years too late to jump on that boat and be taken seriously.
Or you can look at all the chief executives and think hmmmm, which side do THEY have a vested interest in backing? The one where their Supreme Courts and Congresses can remove them from power?
It's not just random guys on MMORPG.com. We are discussing this because people are out there discussing this, and presumably very bright people are giving many of the arguments we are giving here on both sides. I thinkhowever it is a prety creepy thing to assume that anything coming out of the "leaders" of the world as expressed at the UN are any more wualified than a bunch of gamers to know right from wrong, even IF it is their field and not ours.
I'm sure most world leaders get a little queasy at the idea of a head of state being ousted by its citizens. Besides the Three Amigos (as someone put it), Chavez, Castro and Ortega, keep in mind that about two-thirds of the countries that make up the UN are run by dictators. Simply because they managed to crawl to the top of their respective banana republics, what makes people think they have any credibility at all?
It reminds me of a quote by William F. Buckley jr. He said, "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University." I value the opinions of many people on this board (even some of those with whom I disagree) more so than most of the talking heads I see on TV.
Okay, I am going to modify my position slightly after reading more and thinking more.
I accept the Honduran Supreme Court, the Congress ordering the military to remove him (do they even have a federal police that would have done it like adept of Justice or an FBI? I don't know).
Anyway I am in favor of what they did UNTIL his exile. he is still honduran and if he is guilty of anything, charge him properly and settle it.
That's my only prpblem with this thing. Otherwise I support it.
Addendum, after reading some more, he ought to be brought back, possibly arrested and be tried and/impeached or both -- whatever the law requires. That is what should be gently, diplomatically encouraged. he should not be brought back as a victorious leader, but as a law-breaking leader who needs to be dealt with whatever the law requires.
It seems that the congress, the supreme court and the military ALSO violated the constitution, which provides for impeachment and removal, like our constitution.
They definitely should just have arrested him and then went through with constitutional removal through the normal impeachment process.
Still we should MOSTLY stay out of it and let the Honduras be the Honduras.
Looks like Zelaya tried to return to Honduras today but his plane wasn't allowed to land. It circled the runway several times, but the Honduras military blocked it. A crowd of several thousand looked on. After the failed attempt, Zelaya's plane flew to El Salvador before it ran out of fuel. He vowed to try again tomorrow or the next day.
This should make for interesting drama. Will he keep trying until he either succeeds or is arrested? Or will he eventually give up and quit? I'm sure supporters like Chavez and Ortega are trying to come up a way to help him.
Comments
I think you're being a little dramatic, olddaddy. You're taking a discussion about Honduras and somehow translating it into support by some to use military action in our own country against a president who is violating the US Constitution in their opinion. First of all, I don't know of anybody, on this forum or anywhere else, who supports US army tanks rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue to remove a US president because he violated the constitution in that person's opinion. I'm sure there probably are some people out there on the fringes of society who do, but you can find people on the fringes who support anything.
And second, a person's opinion of what is a constitutional violation doesn't even enter into the mix. The constitution spells out in clear terms how an official is to be removed from office. You brought up a hypothetical of what we should do if a president disobeyed the authorities that ruled against him. That's a hypothetical that's almost impossible to imagine because it's never even come close to happening. The closest we're ever come is when Richard Nixon refused to hand his Oval Office tapes over to Congress after it demanded he do so. He appealed to the US Supreme Court and it ruled against him. I posed the scenario of what would happen if a US president disobeyed a Supreme Court ruling. It would create chaos. Well not even Nixon did that. As soon as the court ruled, he turned over the tapes. So your hypothetical is a little to hard to contemplate at this point in our history. That may change sometime in the future, but not right now.
Back on the Zelaya story. I find it interesting that even members of his own party are saying that if he even tries to return to power, he will be arrested immediately. That should show his supporters just how dangerous people close to this story thinks he is.
No, what i am claiming is that democracy has not been upheld in Honduras. The ousted President, voted into power by an electoral process under their current constitution, is still the leader of that nation despite what a bunch of kidnapping gangsters claim. I am saying that the use of the military and the perversion of law does not make a person a president under any form of legitimate democracy.
I am saying that asking the will of the people thru referendum is an important part of the democratic process. I am saying that, prior to the law that the national congress implemented to bar such an event, the president was able to introduce a referendum to ask the people if they wanted to form a constituent assembly to redraft the constitution. I am saying that the people's freedom to make a decision by a public referendum was crushed by their own "government" with a coup d’état.
I am saying that because of this crisis it is more than apparent that their consitution is not sound and obviously needs to be redrafted.
I will also say that instead of looking at Honduras and seeing the United States of America I suggest you look at Honduras and see Honduras - of course you probably won't understand this line.
In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions.
Direct democracy was a proven failure before we even created our republic. This is why there are no direct democracies anywhere -- only democratic, constitutional republics,
Public referendums are potentially dangerous -- people can literally destroy a nation (Or a state, as in california) through referendum. All government actions, even referendums MUST be limited lest the people vote away their rights. Once again it shows the difference between us, I favor LIBERTY, YOU favor democracy. So if it is the will of the people to murder, enslave, and loot their neighbors, you are okay with that. It's the will of the people, so all shall be well.
If referendums are being used to destroy a country's constitution, that's okay with you. Plus, once again you claim to know better than the Honduran people what constitution is best for them.
I am looking at Honduras, and I am saying let the Hondurans work out their own constitutional issues.
I hope you realize how foolish your position is when you examine the history of your nation's own constitution.
You type as if the USA has never made changes to the American constitution; as if the American consitution of today is the exact same one at its original drafting; as if the American consitiution is too sacred to be touched by the hands of common man; as if there are no such thing as the 27 amendments... that's right fella, the men and women of your country have touched that holiest of holies more than several times - the last time being 1992. Note: 1992 and note your not ancient past!
How, pray tell, does constitutional America go about calling a constituent assembly? The answer is by the "majority". That thing by which you hate so much.
I guess it's ok for you Americans to alter your consititution at will since it so darn flawed, but the people of Honduras have absolutly nothing wrong with theirs so why would they want to besmerch such a perfect document?
Actually, it is not a majority that calls a constitutional assembly. Please check your facts.
Neither is our constitution amended by a majority -- fella.
I think any country can alter there constitution -- BY ITS OWN RULES. This would-be dictator was circumventing that, and the Supreme Court and the elected body stopped him. Constitutional, limited democarcy in action.
Article 5 of your consititution - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Definition of majority by Merriam-Webster dictionary "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
It's funny that you have the audacity to quote our constitution at us, while claiming this entire thing isn't about constitutional protection in Honduras, and still trying to act like your viewpoint is superior.
This is EXACTLY about protection of a constitution, and I assure you Fisher knows more about our US constitution than you do.
As for the article 5... I don't think you realize just how much it takes to ammend it. Getting 2/3rds of our states to ratify an emmendment is like a holy grail event now.
I guess it's the word majority that he is fuzzy on?
Majority, according to your definition, is 51%, not 2/3. 2/3 is subsantially more than a majority.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Why would he want to do that? Afterall he is a closet Communist.
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
Why would he want to do that? Afterall he is a closet Communist.
Well I had to give him the benefit of the doubt. I mean, the president is called the "leader of the free world", so I figure he'd at least go through the motions of trying to defend freedom. My mistake for assuming.
No, what i am claiming is that democracy has not been upheld in Honduras. The ousted President, voted into power by an electoral process under their current constitution, is still the leader of that nation despite what a bunch of kidnapping gangsters claim. I am saying that the use of the military and the perversion of law does not make a person a president under any form of legitimate democracy.
I am saying that asking the will of the people thru referendum is an important part of the democratic process. I am saying that, prior to the law that the national congress implemented to bar such an event, the president was able to introduce a referendum to ask the people if they wanted to form a constituent assembly to redraft the constitution. I am saying that the people's freedom to make a decision by a public referendum was crushed by their own "government" with a coup d’état.
I am saying that because of this crisis it is more than apparent that their consitution is not sound and obviously needs to be redrafted.
I will also say that instead of looking at Honduras and seeing the United States of America I suggest you look at Honduras and see Honduras - of course you probably won't understand this line.
In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions.
Direct democracy was a proven failure before we even created our republic. This is why there are no direct democracies anywhere -- only democratic, constitutional republics,
Public referendums are potentially dangerous -- people can literally destroy a nation (Or a state, as in california) through referendum. All government actions, even referendums MUST be limited lest the people vote away their rights. Once again it shows the difference between us, I favor LIBERTY, YOU favor democracy. So if it is the will of the people to murder, enslave, and loot their neighbors, you are okay with that. It's the will of the people, so all shall be well.
If referendums are being used to destroy a country's constitution, that's okay with you. Plus, once again you claim to know better than the Honduran people what constitution is best for them.
I am looking at Honduras, and I am saying let the Hondurans work out their own constitutional issues.
I hope you realize how foolish your position is when you examine the history of your nation's own constitution.
You type as if the USA has never made changes to the American constitution; as if the American consitution of today is the exact same one at its original drafting; as if the American consitiution is too sacred to be touched by the hands of common man; as if there are no such thing as the 27 amendments... that's right fella, the men and women of your country have touched that holiest of holies more than several times - the last time being 1992. Note: 1992 and note your not ancient past!
How, pray tell, does constitutional America go about calling a constituent assembly? The answer is by the "majority". That thing by which you hate so much.
I guess it's ok for you Americans to alter your consititution at will since it so darn flawed, but the people of Honduras have absolutly nothing wrong with theirs so why would they want to besmerch such a perfect document?
Actually, it is not a majority that calls a constitutional assembly. Please check your facts.
Neither is our constitution amended by a majority -- fella.
I think any country can alter there constitution -- BY ITS OWN RULES. This would-be dictator was circumventing that, and the Supreme Court and the elected body stopped him. Constitutional, limited democarcy in action.
Article 5 of your consititution - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Definition of majority by Merriam-Webster dictionary "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
It's funny that you have the audacity to quote our constitution at us, while claiming this entire thing isn't about constitutional protection in Honduras, and still trying to act like your viewpoint is superior.
This is EXACTLY about protection of a constitution, and I assure you Fisher knows more about our US constitution than you do.
As for the article 5... I don't think you realize just how much it takes to ammend it. Getting 2/3rds of our states to ratify an emmendment is like a holy grail event now.
I guess it's the word majority that he is fuzzy on?
Majority, according to your definition, is 51%, not 2/3. 2/3 is subsantially more than a majority.
No, I know what the definition of majority means since I was the person that explained it to you - here it is again incase you missed it "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
So 2/3 or 66.66% is a majority.
Do you see how foolish your position is? You argue that the people of Honduras can't improve their consititution like every other nation's people, including your own. You argue that the majority should have no voice and the people should blindly follow their political leaders. You argue that a legislative branch has the right to bind executive power with whatever laws they see fit to invent for such a purpose.
In essence you believe that the ends justify the means so long as those ends preserve a nation's constitution, even if the means are constitutionally questionable - after all, you can circumvent the constitution so long as the supreme court backs you up, right?
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
No, what i am claiming is that democracy has not been upheld in Honduras. The ousted President, voted into power by an electoral process under their current constitution, is still the leader of that nation despite what a bunch of kidnapping gangsters claim. I am saying that the use of the military and the perversion of law does not make a person a president under any form of legitimate democracy.
I am saying that asking the will of the people thru referendum is an important part of the democratic process. I am saying that, prior to the law that the national congress implemented to bar such an event, the president was able to introduce a referendum to ask the people if they wanted to form a constituent assembly to redraft the constitution. I am saying that the people's freedom to make a decision by a public referendum was crushed by their own "government" with a coup d’état.
I am saying that because of this crisis it is more than apparent that their consitution is not sound and obviously needs to be redrafted.
I will also say that instead of looking at Honduras and seeing the United States of America I suggest you look at Honduras and see Honduras - of course you probably won't understand this line.
In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions.
Direct democracy was a proven failure before we even created our republic. This is why there are no direct democracies anywhere -- only democratic, constitutional republics,
Public referendums are potentially dangerous -- people can literally destroy a nation (Or a state, as in california) through referendum. All government actions, even referendums MUST be limited lest the people vote away their rights. Once again it shows the difference between us, I favor LIBERTY, YOU favor democracy. So if it is the will of the people to murder, enslave, and loot their neighbors, you are okay with that. It's the will of the people, so all shall be well.
If referendums are being used to destroy a country's constitution, that's okay with you. Plus, once again you claim to know better than the Honduran people what constitution is best for them.
I am looking at Honduras, and I am saying let the Hondurans work out their own constitutional issues.
I hope you realize how foolish your position is when you examine the history of your nation's own constitution.
You type as if the USA has never made changes to the American constitution; as if the American consitution of today is the exact same one at its original drafting; as if the American consitiution is too sacred to be touched by the hands of common man; as if there are no such thing as the 27 amendments... that's right fella, the men and women of your country have touched that holiest of holies more than several times - the last time being 1992. Note: 1992 and note your not ancient past!
How, pray tell, does constitutional America go about calling a constituent assembly? The answer is by the "majority". That thing by which you hate so much.
I guess it's ok for you Americans to alter your consititution at will since it so darn flawed, but the people of Honduras have absolutly nothing wrong with theirs so why would they want to besmerch such a perfect document?
Actually, it is not a majority that calls a constitutional assembly. Please check your facts.
Neither is our constitution amended by a majority -- fella.
I think any country can alter there constitution -- BY ITS OWN RULES. This would-be dictator was circumventing that, and the Supreme Court and the elected body stopped him. Constitutional, limited democarcy in action.
Article 5 of your consititution - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Definition of majority by Merriam-Webster dictionary "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
It's funny that you have the audacity to quote our constitution at us, while claiming this entire thing isn't about constitutional protection in Honduras, and still trying to act like your viewpoint is superior.
This is EXACTLY about protection of a constitution, and I assure you Fisher knows more about our US constitution than you do.
As for the article 5... I don't think you realize just how much it takes to ammend it. Getting 2/3rds of our states to ratify an emmendment is like a holy grail event now.
I guess it's the word majority that he is fuzzy on?
Majority, according to your definition, is 51%, not 2/3. 2/3 is subsantially more than a majority.
No, I know what the definition of majority means since I was the person that explained it to you - here it is again incase you missed it "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
So 2/3 or 66.66% is a majority.
Do you see how foolish your position is? You argue that the people of Honduras can't improve their consititution like every other nation's people, including your own. You argue that the majority should have no voice and the people should blindly follow their political leaders. You argue that a legislative branch has the right to bind executive power with whatever laws they see fit to invent for such a purpose.
In essence you believe that the ends justify the means so long as those ends preserve a nation's constitution, even if the means are constitutionally questionable - after all, you can circumvent the constitution so long as the supreme court backs you up, right?
2/3 is a more than a majority. In our context, if it takes a "majority" to do something, it means 51%. If it takes more than that it takes MORE THAN a majority.
66% is what is known as a super majority in the context we are discussing. It is not a majority (or "simple majority if you want to be a baby about it). If they did something by majority, in the political sense, which is what we are discussing a majority is 51% or higher. YOU were claiming, falsely that is is a MAJORITY that changes our constitution. That would, in context, mean 51%.
I argue that the Honduras can improve their constitution, but only in a constitutional way. Referendum is not -- as stated by THEIR supreme court.
In the Honduras, just like here, the SUPREME COURT is what decides constitutionality. Not YOU, not president Obama, not the UN.
But then, since you know the Honduran constitution better than the Honduran Supreme Court, there is no point in discussing this with you futher. You are the Lord of the Law. I bow before your Omniscience. Please, tell the world what to do.
fishermage.blogspot.com
No, what i am claiming is that democracy has not been upheld in Honduras. The ousted President, voted into power by an electoral process under their current constitution, is still the leader of that nation despite what a bunch of kidnapping gangsters claim. I am saying that the use of the military and the perversion of law does not make a person a president under any form of legitimate democracy.
I am saying that asking the will of the people thru referendum is an important part of the democratic process. I am saying that, prior to the law that the national congress implemented to bar such an event, the president was able to introduce a referendum to ask the people if they wanted to form a constituent assembly to redraft the constitution. I am saying that the people's freedom to make a decision by a public referendum was crushed by their own "government" with a coup d’état.
I am saying that because of this crisis it is more than apparent that their consitution is not sound and obviously needs to be redrafted.
I will also say that instead of looking at Honduras and seeing the United States of America I suggest you look at Honduras and see Honduras - of course you probably won't understand this line.
In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions.
Direct democracy was a proven failure before we even created our republic. This is why there are no direct democracies anywhere -- only democratic, constitutional republics,
Public referendums are potentially dangerous -- people can literally destroy a nation (Or a state, as in california) through referendum. All government actions, even referendums MUST be limited lest the people vote away their rights. Once again it shows the difference between us, I favor LIBERTY, YOU favor democracy. So if it is the will of the people to murder, enslave, and loot their neighbors, you are okay with that. It's the will of the people, so all shall be well.
If referendums are being used to destroy a country's constitution, that's okay with you. Plus, once again you claim to know better than the Honduran people what constitution is best for them.
I am looking at Honduras, and I am saying let the Hondurans work out their own constitutional issues.
I hope you realize how foolish your position is when you examine the history of your nation's own constitution.
You type as if the USA has never made changes to the American constitution; as if the American consitution of today is the exact same one at its original drafting; as if the American consitiution is too sacred to be touched by the hands of common man; as if there are no such thing as the 27 amendments... that's right fella, the men and women of your country have touched that holiest of holies more than several times - the last time being 1992. Note: 1992 and note your not ancient past!
How, pray tell, does constitutional America go about calling a constituent assembly? The answer is by the "majority". That thing by which you hate so much.
I guess it's ok for you Americans to alter your consititution at will since it so darn flawed, but the people of Honduras have absolutly nothing wrong with theirs so why would they want to besmerch such a perfect document?
Actually, it is not a majority that calls a constitutional assembly. Please check your facts.
Neither is our constitution amended by a majority -- fella.
I think any country can alter there constitution -- BY ITS OWN RULES. This would-be dictator was circumventing that, and the Supreme Court and the elected body stopped him. Constitutional, limited democarcy in action.
Article 5 of your consititution - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Definition of majority by Merriam-Webster dictionary "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
It's funny that you have the audacity to quote our constitution at us, while claiming this entire thing isn't about constitutional protection in Honduras, and still trying to act like your viewpoint is superior.
This is EXACTLY about protection of a constitution, and I assure you Fisher knows more about our US constitution than you do.
As for the article 5... I don't think you realize just how much it takes to ammend it. Getting 2/3rds of our states to ratify an emmendment is like a holy grail event now.
I guess it's the word majority that he is fuzzy on?
Majority, according to your definition, is 51%, not 2/3. 2/3 is subsantially more than a majority.
No, I know what the definition of majority means since I was the person that explained it to you - here it is again incase you missed it "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
So 2/3 or 66.66% is a majority.
Do you see how foolish your position is? You argue that the people of Honduras can't improve their consititution like every other nation's people, including your own. You argue that the majority should have no voice and the people should blindly follow their political leaders. You argue that a legislative branch has the right to bind executive power with whatever laws they see fit to invent for such a purpose.
In essence you believe that the ends justify the means so long as those ends preserve a nation's constitution, even if the means are constitutionally questionable - after all, you can circumvent the constitution so long as the supreme court backs you up, right?
2/3 is a more than a majority. In our context, if it takes a "majority" to do something, it means 51%. If it takes more than that it takes MORE THAN a majority.
66% is what is known as a super majority in the context we are discussing. It is not a majority (or "simple majority if you want to be a baby about it). If they did something by majority, in the political sense, which is what we are discussing a majority is 51% or higher. YOU were claiming, falsely that is is a MAJORITY that changes our constitution. That would, in context, mean 51%.
I argue that the Honduras can improve their constitution, but only in a constitutional way. Referendum is not -- as stated by THEIR supreme court.
In the Honduras, just like here, the SUPREME COURT is what decides constitutionality. Not YOU, not president Obama, not the UN.
But then, since you know the Honduran constitution better than the Honduran Supreme Court, there is no point in discussing this with you futher. You are the Lord of the Law. I bow before your Omniscience. Please, tell the world what to do.
Don't start nit-picking, fella. Your words were "In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions." I've proved I'm of the right opinion despite what sort of "majority" it is.
The Honduran Supreme court declared his referendum illegal not unconsititutional. It was declared illegal because of the law that the national congress introduced for the specific purpose of preventing Zelaya from opening the constitution.
There are no grounds for military use. There are no grounds for replacing the duly elected president with an imposter. There are no grounds for using the military to exile a president. There are no grounds for committing forgery to make it look like Zelaya resigned. Aside from that law that tied the hands of Zelaya, and now that he has declared that he no longer wishes to touch the consitiution, there is no reason why Zelaya can not return to his position as President.
There are other possiblities to resolve issues without resorting to military action and a coup d'état. There are better solutions to solving democratic problems without rolling out the tanks and stationing them infront of the presidents abode.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
No, what i am claiming is that democracy has not been upheld in Honduras. The ousted President, voted into power by an electoral process under their current constitution, is still the leader of that nation despite what a bunch of kidnapping gangsters claim. I am saying that the use of the military and the perversion of law does not make a person a president under any form of legitimate democracy.
I am saying that asking the will of the people thru referendum is an important part of the democratic process. I am saying that, prior to the law that the national congress implemented to bar such an event, the president was able to introduce a referendum to ask the people if they wanted to form a constituent assembly to redraft the constitution. I am saying that the people's freedom to make a decision by a public referendum was crushed by their own "government" with a coup d’état.
I am saying that because of this crisis it is more than apparent that their consitution is not sound and obviously needs to be redrafted.
I will also say that instead of looking at Honduras and seeing the United States of America I suggest you look at Honduras and see Honduras - of course you probably won't understand this line.
In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions.
Direct democracy was a proven failure before we even created our republic. This is why there are no direct democracies anywhere -- only democratic, constitutional republics,
Public referendums are potentially dangerous -- people can literally destroy a nation (Or a state, as in california) through referendum. All government actions, even referendums MUST be limited lest the people vote away their rights. Once again it shows the difference between us, I favor LIBERTY, YOU favor democracy. So if it is the will of the people to murder, enslave, and loot their neighbors, you are okay with that. It's the will of the people, so all shall be well.
If referendums are being used to destroy a country's constitution, that's okay with you. Plus, once again you claim to know better than the Honduran people what constitution is best for them.
I am looking at Honduras, and I am saying let the Hondurans work out their own constitutional issues.
I hope you realize how foolish your position is when you examine the history of your nation's own constitution.
You type as if the USA has never made changes to the American constitution; as if the American consitution of today is the exact same one at its original drafting; as if the American consitiution is too sacred to be touched by the hands of common man; as if there are no such thing as the 27 amendments... that's right fella, the men and women of your country have touched that holiest of holies more than several times - the last time being 1992. Note: 1992 and note your not ancient past!
How, pray tell, does constitutional America go about calling a constituent assembly? The answer is by the "majority". That thing by which you hate so much.
I guess it's ok for you Americans to alter your consititution at will since it so darn flawed, but the people of Honduras have absolutly nothing wrong with theirs so why would they want to besmerch such a perfect document?
Actually, it is not a majority that calls a constitutional assembly. Please check your facts.
Neither is our constitution amended by a majority -- fella.
I think any country can alter there constitution -- BY ITS OWN RULES. This would-be dictator was circumventing that, and the Supreme Court and the elected body stopped him. Constitutional, limited democarcy in action.
Article 5 of your consititution - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Definition of majority by Merriam-Webster dictionary "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
It's funny that you have the audacity to quote our constitution at us, while claiming this entire thing isn't about constitutional protection in Honduras, and still trying to act like your viewpoint is superior.
This is EXACTLY about protection of a constitution, and I assure you Fisher knows more about our US constitution than you do.
As for the article 5... I don't think you realize just how much it takes to ammend it. Getting 2/3rds of our states to ratify an emmendment is like a holy grail event now.
I guess it's the word majority that he is fuzzy on?
Majority, according to your definition, is 51%, not 2/3. 2/3 is subsantially more than a majority.
No, I know what the definition of majority means since I was the person that explained it to you - here it is again incase you missed it "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
So 2/3 or 66.66% is a majority.
Do you see how foolish your position is? You argue that the people of Honduras can't improve their consititution like every other nation's people, including your own. You argue that the majority should have no voice and the people should blindly follow their political leaders. You argue that a legislative branch has the right to bind executive power with whatever laws they see fit to invent for such a purpose.
In essence you believe that the ends justify the means so long as those ends preserve a nation's constitution, even if the means are constitutionally questionable - after all, you can circumvent the constitution so long as the supreme court backs you up, right?
2/3 is a more than a majority. In our context, if it takes a "majority" to do something, it means 51%. If it takes more than that it takes MORE THAN a majority.
66% is what is known as a super majority in the context we are discussing. It is not a majority (or "simple majority if you want to be a baby about it). If they did something by majority, in the political sense, which is what we are discussing a majority is 51% or higher. YOU were claiming, falsely that is is a MAJORITY that changes our constitution. That would, in context, mean 51%.
I argue that the Honduras can improve their constitution, but only in a constitutional way. Referendum is not -- as stated by THEIR supreme court.
In the Honduras, just like here, the SUPREME COURT is what decides constitutionality. Not YOU, not president Obama, not the UN.
But then, since you know the Honduran constitution better than the Honduran Supreme Court, there is no point in discussing this with you futher. You are the Lord of the Law. I bow before your Omniscience. Please, tell the world what to do.
Don't start nit-picking, fella. Your words were "In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions." I've proved I'm of the right opinion despite what sort of "majority" it is.
The Honduran Supreme court declared his referendum illegal not unconsititutional. It was declared illegal because of the law that the national congress introduced for the specific purpose of preventing Zelaya from opening the constitution.
There are no grounds for military use. There are no grounds for replacing the duly elected president with an imposter. There are no grounds for using the military to exile a president. There are no grounds for committing forgery to make it look like Zelaya resigned. Aside from that law that tied the hands of Zelaya, and now that he has declared that he no longer wishes to touch the consitiution, there is no reason why Zelaya can not return to his position as President.
There are other possiblities to resolve issues without resorting to military action and a coup d'état. There are better solutions to solving democratic problems without rolling out the tanks and stationing them infront of the presidents abode.
Once again, since you are the Lord of All Law, and since YOU know, in your omniscience, more about Honduran Law than the Honduran supreme court -- I shall allow you to continue to live in Wickersham's world where Wickersham's law reigns supreme.
Also, since you are so find of jumping your definitions out of context and going from political theory into set theory and back again, you are obbviously lord of Lingusitics as well. Good day to you.
You showed off ignorance of the American Constitution, then got caught, then switched disciplines to wiggle out of it, then called me a nitpicker. Amusing.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Why would he want to do that? Afterall he is a closet Communist.
The Official God FAQ
No, what i am claiming is that democracy has not been upheld in Honduras. The ousted President, voted into power by an electoral process under their current constitution, is still the leader of that nation despite what a bunch of kidnapping gangsters claim. I am saying that the use of the military and the perversion of law does not make a person a president under any form of legitimate democracy.
I am saying that asking the will of the people thru referendum is an important part of the democratic process. I am saying that, prior to the law that the national congress implemented to bar such an event, the president was able to introduce a referendum to ask the people if they wanted to form a constituent assembly to redraft the constitution. I am saying that the people's freedom to make a decision by a public referendum was crushed by their own "government" with a coup d’état.
I am saying that because of this crisis it is more than apparent that their consitution is not sound and obviously needs to be redrafted.
I will also say that instead of looking at Honduras and seeing the United States of America I suggest you look at Honduras and see Honduras - of course you probably won't understand this line.
In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions.
Direct democracy was a proven failure before we even created our republic. This is why there are no direct democracies anywhere -- only democratic, constitutional republics,
Public referendums are potentially dangerous -- people can literally destroy a nation (Or a state, as in california) through referendum. All government actions, even referendums MUST be limited lest the people vote away their rights. Once again it shows the difference between us, I favor LIBERTY, YOU favor democracy. So if it is the will of the people to murder, enslave, and loot their neighbors, you are okay with that. It's the will of the people, so all shall be well.
If referendums are being used to destroy a country's constitution, that's okay with you. Plus, once again you claim to know better than the Honduran people what constitution is best for them.
I am looking at Honduras, and I am saying let the Hondurans work out their own constitutional issues.
I hope you realize how foolish your position is when you examine the history of your nation's own constitution.
You type as if the USA has never made changes to the American constitution; as if the American consitution of today is the exact same one at its original drafting; as if the American consitiution is too sacred to be touched by the hands of common man; as if there are no such thing as the 27 amendments... that's right fella, the men and women of your country have touched that holiest of holies more than several times - the last time being 1992. Note: 1992 and note your not ancient past!
How, pray tell, does constitutional America go about calling a constituent assembly? The answer is by the "majority". That thing by which you hate so much.
I guess it's ok for you Americans to alter your consititution at will since it so darn flawed, but the people of Honduras have absolutly nothing wrong with theirs so why would they want to besmerch such a perfect document?
Actually, it is not a majority that calls a constitutional assembly. Please check your facts.
Neither is our constitution amended by a majority -- fella.
I think any country can alter there constitution -- BY ITS OWN RULES. This would-be dictator was circumventing that, and the Supreme Court and the elected body stopped him. Constitutional, limited democarcy in action.
Article 5 of your consititution - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Definition of majority by Merriam-Webster dictionary "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
It's funny that you have the audacity to quote our constitution at us, while claiming this entire thing isn't about constitutional protection in Honduras, and still trying to act like your viewpoint is superior.
This is EXACTLY about protection of a constitution, and I assure you Fisher knows more about our US constitution than you do.
As for the article 5... I don't think you realize just how much it takes to ammend it. Getting 2/3rds of our states to ratify an emmendment is like a holy grail event now.
I guess it's the word majority that he is fuzzy on?
Majority, according to your definition, is 51%, not 2/3. 2/3 is subsantially more than a majority.
No, I know what the definition of majority means since I was the person that explained it to you - here it is again incase you missed it "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"
So 2/3 or 66.66% is a majority.
Do you see how foolish your position is? You argue that the people of Honduras can't improve their consititution like every other nation's people, including your own. You argue that the majority should have no voice and the people should blindly follow their political leaders. You argue that a legislative branch has the right to bind executive power with whatever laws they see fit to invent for such a purpose.
In essence you believe that the ends justify the means so long as those ends preserve a nation's constitution, even if the means are constitutionally questionable - after all, you can circumvent the constitution so long as the supreme court backs you up, right?
2/3 is a more than a majority. In our context, if it takes a "majority" to do something, it means 51%. If it takes more than that it takes MORE THAN a majority.
66% is what is known as a super majority in the context we are discussing. It is not a majority (or "simple majority if you want to be a baby about it). If they did something by majority, in the political sense, which is what we are discussing a majority is 51% or higher. YOU were claiming, falsely that is is a MAJORITY that changes our constitution. That would, in context, mean 51%.
I argue that the Honduras can improve their constitution, but only in a constitutional way. Referendum is not -- as stated by THEIR supreme court.
In the Honduras, just like here, the SUPREME COURT is what decides constitutionality. Not YOU, not president Obama, not the UN.
But then, since you know the Honduran constitution better than the Honduran Supreme Court, there is no point in discussing this with you futher. You are the Lord of the Law. I bow before your Omniscience. Please, tell the world what to do.
Don't start nit-picking, fella. Your words were "In my opinion, constitutions trump votes. In your opinion, majorities trump constitutions." I've proved I'm of the right opinion despite what sort of "majority" it is.
The Honduran Supreme court declared his referendum illegal not unconsititutional. It was declared illegal because of the law that the national congress introduced for the specific purpose of preventing Zelaya from opening the constitution.
There are no grounds for military use. There are no grounds for replacing the duly elected president with an imposter. There are no grounds for using the military to exile a president. There are no grounds for committing forgery to make it look like Zelaya resigned. Aside from that law that tied the hands of Zelaya, and now that he has declared that he no longer wishes to touch the consitiution, there is no reason why Zelaya can not return to his position as President.
There are other possiblities to resolve issues without resorting to military action and a coup d'état. There are better solutions to solving democratic problems without rolling out the tanks and stationing them infront of the presidents abode.
Once again, since you are the Lord of All Law, and since YOU know, in your omniscience, more about Honduran Law than the Honduran supreme court -- I shall allow you to continue to live in Wickersham's world where Wickersham's law reigns supreme.
Also, since you are so find of jumping your definitions out of context and going from political theory into set theory and back again, you are obbviously lord of Lingusitics as well. Good day to you.
You showed off ignorance of the American Constitution, then got caught, then switched disciplines to wiggle out of it, then called me a nitpicker. Amusing.
I thought it was their constitution that I knew more about, now it seems to be their laws, why the change of heart?
I never changed my definition of majority - majority is any number above 1/2, I'm sorry, but using qualifiers like "super" or "mega" or "hyper" doesn't change the fact that the will of the majority rules - we like to call it democracy.
What I find amusing is that you perceive that I've used some wrangling and are condeming me here for it, but you applaud men that did the exact same to remove a constitutionally elected national leader. I guess all I need now is a judge to agree with me and, in your eyes, I'll be justified to do anything I want with you?
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
Why would he want to do that? Afterall he is a closet Communist.
Well I had to give him the benefit of the doubt. I mean, the president is called the "leader of the free world", so I figure he'd at least go through the motions of trying to defend freedom. My mistake for assuming.
A more accurate way to know what is the right thing to do is watch Obama's reaction and assume the opposite. He waited until riots were pretty much suppressed in Iran to say anything. He is on TV talking nonstop every day about what light bulbs we can use and how he inherited all his problems but, doesn't have time for any meaningful issues. He continues to be wrong on every single foreign policy issue.
Hmmm.. with a laundry list of leaders siding on the same side as Obama.
All of them with advisors who spent their life studying internation politics...
VS a couple of random guys on MMORPG.com
You can scramble all you want, but guys who understand whats going on FAR better than 99% of us could even pretend to understand.
You can scream communism and cry marxism, but at the end of the day your just a little person on a forum trying to "fight the machine"
Your about 30 years too late to jump on that boat and be taken seriously.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
By laundry list do you mean countries like Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba? Do we really to be in lock step with them?
I'm a random person who happens to be right.
Or you can look at all the chief executives and think hmmmm, which side do THEY have a vested interest in backing? The one where their Supreme Courts and Congresses can remove them from power?
It's not just random guys on MMORPG.com. We are discussing this because people are out there discussing this, and presumably very bright people are giving many of the arguments we are giving here on both sides. I thinkhowever it is a prety creepy thing to assume that anything coming out of the "leaders" of the world as expressed at the UN are any more wualified than a bunch of gamers to know right from wrong, even IF it is their field and not ours.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Or you can look at all the chief executives and think hmmmm, which side do THEY have a vested interest in backing? The one where their Supreme Courts and Congresses can remove them from power?
It's not just random guys on MMORPG.com. We are discussing this because people are out there discussing this, and presumably very bright people are giving many of the arguments we are giving here on both sides. I thinkhowever it is a prety creepy thing to assume that anything coming out of the "leaders" of the world as expressed at the UN are any more wualified than a bunch of gamers to know right from wrong, even IF it is their field and not ours.
I'm sure most world leaders get a little queasy at the idea of a head of state being ousted by its citizens. Besides the Three Amigos (as someone put it), Chavez, Castro and Ortega, keep in mind that about two-thirds of the countries that make up the UN are run by dictators. Simply because they managed to crawl to the top of their respective banana republics, what makes people think they have any credibility at all?
It reminds me of a quote by William F. Buckley jr. He said, "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University." I value the opinions of many people on this board (even some of those with whom I disagree) more so than most of the talking heads I see on TV.
Okay, I am going to modify my position slightly after reading more and thinking more.
I accept the Honduran Supreme Court, the Congress ordering the military to remove him (do they even have a federal police that would have done it like adept of Justice or an FBI? I don't know).
Anyway I am in favor of what they did UNTIL his exile. he is still honduran and if he is guilty of anything, charge him properly and settle it.
That's my only prpblem with this thing. Otherwise I support it.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Addendum, after reading some more, he ought to be brought back, possibly arrested and be tried and/impeached or both -- whatever the law requires. That is what should be gently, diplomatically encouraged. he should not be brought back as a victorious leader, but as a law-breaking leader who needs to be dealt with whatever the law requires.
It seems that the congress, the supreme court and the military ALSO violated the constitution, which provides for impeachment and removal, like our constitution.
They definitely should just have arrested him and then went through with constitutional removal through the normal impeachment process.
Still we should MOSTLY stay out of it and let the Honduras be the Honduras.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Looks like Zelaya tried to return to Honduras today but his plane wasn't allowed to land. It circled the runway several times, but the Honduras military blocked it. A crowd of several thousand looked on. After the failed attempt, Zelaya's plane flew to El Salvador before it ran out of fuel. He vowed to try again tomorrow or the next day.
This should make for interesting drama. Will he keep trying until he either succeeds or is arrested? Or will he eventually give up and quit? I'm sure supporters like Chavez and Ortega are trying to come up a way to help him.