Remember when Perry said:
For one thing, the Public Prosecutor is bringing to trial the 5 generals accused of ‘abuse of authority’ for exiling Zelaya. The Honduran Supreme Court has just assigned a judge to hear the case.
From La Gringa:
Honduran military found not guilty
Honduras’ Supreme Court President Jorge Rivera issued his verdict absolving the military commanders from abuse of authority and illegal expatriation of former President Manuel Zelaya on the grounds that there was a real and imminent danger to life and property in the country, from both foreigners and Zelaya’s followers. The judge pointed to the actual violence instigated by Zelaya and his followers and his motto: Restitution or death.
From Jorge Gallardo:
The courts declared the Armed Forces not guilty of violating the law for sending Zelaya into exile. According to this report, the defense was able to prove using intelligence reports that Venezuela and Cuba were taking part in the attempt to eliminate the Honduran constitution and that there were over 900 armed agents from Venezuela, Nicaragua and Spain in Honduras taking part in these political activities.
Since this is the only accusation that has been leveled against the institutions that took part in Zelaya’s removal, it means that the arguments to promote an amnesty are only meant to protect Zelaya for the 24 counts of abuse of power, malfeasance, fraud, etc., against the Honduran people and his cohorts for similar charges against them.
This morning, the most popular early morning talk show featured a group of the defense attorneys. Most of them were civilian lawyers. They agreed that if at any time they had suspected that the trial was going to be a sham, they would have resigned immediately.
On the contrary, they were expecting to breeze through on the “state of necessity” argument and it turned out that the prosecution had prepared a counterargument. The prosecution argued that “state of necessity” didn’t apply because the consequences were part of the duties that the Armed Forces are supposed to deal with. For instance, a fireman can’t argue that he didn’t try to stop a fire because he feared for his life, because he has been trained for that and it is his duty to fight the fire.
Much more at the link.
President-elect Porfirio Lobo will be inaugurated tomorrow, hopefully ending this unfortunate chapter. Deporse President Manuel Zelaya deserved to be kicked out, and in fact had to be kicked out, due to Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution. Unfortunately, the Constitution didn’t provide for a neat or standard way to get rid of him, so the Supreme Court and the Congress sort of made it up as they went along. In the end, despite the messiness, Honduras held its previously scheduled elections, and a new, democratically-elected president will take office tomorrow.
It’s now time for the United States and our State Department to get over it, and get out of the way.
Dana’s citation: “Honduras’ Supreme Court President Jorge Rivera issued his verdict absolving the military commanders from abuse of authority and illegal expatriation of former President Manuel Zelaya on the grounds that there was a real and imminent danger to life and property in the country, from both foreigners and Zelaya’s followers. “
Well of course, Dana, the Honduran Supreme Court was itself part of the conspiracy to oust Zelaya from power by a coup. That is a fact! So now the same Supreme Court gets to try their fellow military conspirators, and find them innocent. Surprise, surprise!!
You are a mighty naive man, Dana, to keep pounding on this clearly illegal coup, unable still to absorb what really happened.
I am the last to defend Zelaya for his bizarre behavior, and I am the last to defend the perpetrators of the coup, the Supreme Court and some powerful legislators, for carrying out this coup when by existing law Zelaya had only a few more months in office. This was potentially a very destabilizing move, which is what worried the our State Department, rightly so!
Come to think of it, the whole situation was rather bizarre, making your defense of this coup rather bizarre as well. The Hondurans are pretty lucky that it ended well, at least it appears to have so far.
I do agree with your final statement.
People don’t understand because neither the US State Department nor the media have any interest in reporting the many, many crimes committed by Zelaya, which began within weeks of his being elected, not in June 2008. Honduras put up with it for far too long, just trying to wait it out until his term was over, but finally took action when Zelaya was about to turn the country over to Chávez. There was much more than “bizarre behavior”.
By the way, the whole pajama thing was a LIE!
Zelaya was not wearing pajamas
Talk about bizarre and conspiratorial. Jose Insulza of the OAS and no doubt the State Department saw the video several months ago, but as of yesterday, the mainstream media is still reporting that Zelaya was removed in his pajamas.
Dana, sorry I didn’t get back to you. There are 71 Nacionalista congressmen — so anything Pepe Lobo wants, including amnesty, will pass the congress.
I hope that your readers will read the whole article (linked above). There is an important point after the spot where you broke.
Thanks for caring about Honduras. There is a grand cover-up in the US State Department, including drug ties, corruption, and US bank accounts.
Viva Honduras! Viva Los Comandantes! Viva Rivera! Viva El Presidente Lobo!
Thanks, La Gringa, for your comments. Getting chummy with Chavez was no doubt part of the reason for Zelaya’s removal, a fact which lib critics here tend to ignore. Seems like the people of Honduras recognized a skunk when they saw one, and wanted to get the stink out of the country!
And yet again, Perry is totally lost in his delusions. But what can you expect from a man who doesn’t believe words in Constitutions have meaning?
Read here how Petro-Rich Hugo goes begging for $$$$’s because he’s going broke in that new Socialist Haven of Venezuala. You know BO’s & Castro’s good friend. Maybe Castro can lend him a buck or two.
http://www.thefoxnation.com/hugo-chavez/2010/01/26/chavez-begs-foreign-after-running-economy-ground
La Gringa: “By the way, the whole pajama thing was a LIE! “
I don’t think that is the most important issue here.
To me, the issue is one of a conspiracy between the Honduran Supreme Court and the Congress to carry out a coup, and with only five months before Zelaya’s term was due to end.
And then, one of the conspirators, Supreme Court President Jorge Rivera, gets to preside over the trial of the Honduran Armed Forces, who were ordered to deport Zelaya. This is not justice! An independent Judge should have been chosen.
It is unfortunate that we need to rely on a blog, one which contains unsubstantiated allegations. With all due respect, I choose to rely on our own State Department, who saw fit to speak out against this coup. I just don’t see them as supporting the wishes of 900 agents from the likes of “Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, etc”.
And La Gringa, you give no evidence for this allegation: “There is a grand cover-up in the US State Department, including drug ties, corruption, and US bank accounts.” Without it, frankly, I don’t believe you!
And speaking of Nicaragua, Dana, do you support the Reagan era Iran-Contra affair led by Ollie North, a perversion of the will of Congress? I ask, because I see a parallel anti-left attitude at play here, that would naturally play out in support of a coup d’etat promoted by the Right.
I don’t think that we here have all the facts in this case yet.
John H.: “But what can you expect from a man who doesn’t believe words in Constitutions have meaning?”
Completely untrue! My point, documented with careful research, is that the context of the written words of the Constitution has to be taken into account with regard interpretations to be made now 200 years down the line. So kindly stop misrepresenting my views.
Eric: “Getting chummy with Chavez was no doubt part of the reason for Zelaya’s removal, a fact which lib critics here tend to ignore. “
Documentation please, of your “fact”!
Honduras’ Constitution isn’t 200 years old, Perry. And “shall make no law” in our Constitution means precisely that. When you reject that, you reject the meaning of the words. So I did not misrepresent.
Perry, stop demanding documentation. I mean, seriously. You have a proven track record on that.
John H.:“So I did not misrepresent.”
John, you are a total hoot! You are free to state your own views and your objections to what I write, but you are not free to restate my words. I never have said that the “words in the Constitution have no meaning”. Of course they have meaning, which I believe we must first understand their meaning in the context of when they were written, then in the context of how they would apply today. That’s what the SCOTUS is supposed to do, when they are not behaving as activists.
Now what about my opinion do you not understand? Whether you agree or not, your choice!
On documentation, I’ll am waiting for Eric to furnish it.
On documentation, I am still waiting for you to admit to all the documentation that has been provided you over the past several months which proved you exactly wrong on many, many occasions. But I’ll not hold my breath on that one. You’re a known commodity, Perry.
And when SCOTUS looks to the Constitution to determine what the Constitution says and then makes a decision on the Constitutionality of a thing, that is not activism; that is constructionism. It is the liberal judge that makes up things out of whole cloth or looks to Europe, ignoring the words of the Constitution who is activist.
When SCOTUS overturns a century old precedent, and interferes with Congressional acts, that, by definition, certainly is judicial activism.
You wingnuts are so partisan and hypocritical, that when judicial activism suits you, you are all for it, when not, you are against it.
On documentation, I note that Eric won’t furnish it, because he never does. And you rarely do yourself, John, so stop your griping.
Perry, you are rather loose with your definitions of the terms “judicial activism” and “rarely”.
Perry:
Eric: “Getting chummy with Chavez was no doubt part of the reason for Zelaya’s removal, a fact which lib critics here tend to ignore. “
Documentation please, of your “fact”!
Perry, this topic has been discussed more than a half-dozen times on this blog and this is well documented on this site. You know it, I know it, and the people who read this site know it.
I don’t live on this Blog 24/7, so I’m not liable for meeting your demands immediately. Also, as both John and York have stated, you just ignore it when cited, so why should we bother?
PS Zeleya getting chummy with Chavez seems to be a well established fact, and part of the reason he got the boot. If you don’t like that, it’s not my problem …
Yorkshire:
Because it was discussed on this forum does not make it a fact, especially when Eric asserts it. To Eric, most anything he says is a fact. It is always too much trouble for him to document stuff, so I call him on it to prove my point.
Bush got chummy with Putin for a while, without knowing more, do we knee-jerk the idea that Bush might have Communist sympathies? Come on, you folks get charged up over the flimsiest of evidence. Is there any documented evidence that Chavez had any undue influence over Zelaya’s policies.
So far, it looks to me that Zelaya had some enemies in high places in the Honduran power structure, so they decided to oust him with a coup, five months before his term was up. To confront his enemies, and further his own ideology, he wanted to circulate a referndum to see if Hondurans favored changing the Constitution to permit an additional term. Is this an act that deserves the action of a coup.
Perhaps there are valid reasons to impeach the man, but to depend on a blogger for the some of the allegations is hardly valid evidence. And to witness what appears to be a conspiracy, then have the trial of the army who conducted the coup presided over by a judge who was one of the alleged co-conspirators somehow seems questionable to me. Our State Department thought so too.
There are missing details here. To rely on a blogger who may be siding with the conspirators, who makes allegations against Zelaya, is questionable.
I am not defending Zelaya per se, as he may be a real kook, perhaps even dangerous. Nevertheless, I am opposing the coup; I believe Hillary Clinton, in the absence of any other credible information. I know it is difficult for you rabid anti-communists to view this situation with other than a jaundiced eye.
I could say the sky is blue, and you’d demand a citation!
Sorry, but John is right. When a law butts up against the Constitution, the proper role of the Court is to rule in favor of the latter. That’s not “Activism” it’s simply called doing their job.
PS I would note that it has generally been the tradition of the Supreme Court, both liberal and conservative, to rule in favor of ever expanding rights and freedoms. This case is no exception. Lacking a compelling reason to strike down free speech, they ruled in favor of expanding it instead.
Eric:
This is not just my disagreeing with the decision of five Republicans who favor big business over the rest of us re election money. Four current Justices also disagreed, as well as former Republican Justice Sandra Day O’Connor , who gave the same precedent breaking and campaign finance arguments I gave.
Perry wrote:
Clearly somebody has to be wrong! I’ll admit to having been flabbergasted when the Supreme Court upheld the McCain-Feingold Restriction on Speech Act in McConnell v Federal Election Commission. I was also very disappointed when President Bush signed the infernal thing into law. (And I was just annoyed when every political ad ended with some version of “I’m Barack Obama and I approved this ad.”)
It seems to me that the four justices in the minority — and former Justice O’Connor — thought very much along the lines that Perry gives us: not upholding the BCRA would cause all sorts of problems, regardless of what the plain words of the Constitution plainly say. There must, therefore, be some modern interpretation of current conditions we must take into account. There is, somehow, a greater good than simply obeying the specific terms in that eighteenth century document.
To me, that does violence to the whole idea of having a written Constitution. I think that the current majority managed to get it right this time.
If our friends on the left want the Constitution to mean something other than what it actually says, I think that they should propose actual amendments to the Constitution.
Except the Court wasn’t ruling about “Business vs Us”, it was ruling on expanding free speech. The fact that certain people may not like that speech is irrelevant, indeed, a famous man once stated that it is precisely that speech which is most detested that most deserves protection. That’s why Nazis get to march through Jewish neighborhoods, why the Communist Party has a right to exist, why Larry Flynt can publish Hustler magazine, and so forth. Like I said, it’s part of the tradition in this country to ever expand rights and freedoms, and this Court’s ruling was no exception.
You people are wasting your time w/Perry. If he doesn’t take his Geritol, his thought processes are even worse than they are when he DOES take a swill!
No matter WHAT facts you present to him, Perry’s religious dogma-like attachment to delusion cannot be broken. Ever.
Eric:
All the examples you gave, Eric, involve the free speech of people, not Corporations, which I believe was the intent of our eighteenth century framers in the context of their time. There were no huge corporations then.
The confusion in Congress and on the SCOTUS seems to center on this point, and relate especially to election campaigns.
One outcome of this latest ruling not yet mentioned is that it enables foreign corporations to lobby our government and to be active in election campaigns. Wouldn’t it be proper to call this an unintended consequence? I hope another case comes up that enables the SCOTUS to take another look at this horrible ruling that has the potential for corporate spending on elections to swamp the voices of the people.
I will note again, Perry, that you never give a mea culpa when people produce documentation you continuously demand “or they’re liars.” You never admit you are wrong about the facts presented. And you regularly “never saw that before,” even when Yorkie wrote an article with “that” in its header (HR3400) days before. You have a huge integrity gap. And it’s very annoying. I suggest you start repairing your integrity gap forthwith.
Oh, and don’t demand people be silent and make themselves unable to type, as you have on multiple occasions.
Perry wrote:
Let me quote the first two amendments:
and
Note that the Second Amendment specifies “the people,” but the First does not.
What are corporations but groups of people?
Since this is about the Supremes of Hondo, how about BO dissing the US Supremes last night? Basically he told them they made the wrong decision and it was bad. And he did this in front of the world. I think this was a cheap shot at the Justices and it may come back to bite him in the ass.
Actually, they were groups of people. The first two examples were extreme political parties, the last a pornography corporation. Why should the American Nazi Party get free speech, but not, say, Target? Why should the Hustler publishing corp get free speech, but not McDonalds?
Heh, I’ve heard rumor that Sotomayor is influencing Kennedy on the Court. Something like her views are so messed up, he cannot cast his vote on her side. That’s a plus for the country. And Obama’s childish “attack everyone” mode could add more push to the swing vote.
While I like to think the Supremes are not swayed by a vindictive spirit, I have to wonder if a couple thoughts are going through some minds in all this:
1) She’s so far off-kilter that her decisions will be wrong so I will decide on the other side.
2) He’s a vindictive megalomaniac so the decisions he wants will be bad for the country.
All people are human (so far) and have to fight human weaknesses, including the Supremes. And I hold the Supremes to a very high standard and believe, for the most part, emotion is not involved in their decision-making. But perception is likely to have a nudge-factor, especially now.
Well, I’m not sure I would object if Honda got to buy political ads, after all, they do a lot of business here, hire a lot of Americans, and are affected by the laws politicians pass, just like an American company is.
At any rate, I’m not scared of this ruling the way you seem to be. There’s already a ton of free speech out there, this will just add to it a bit. And besides, money will only get you so far in politics. I was in CA when Mike Huffington, an oil heir, spent a ton of his own money, about $30 million (a record at the time) to run against Dianne Feinstein in the Senate. Well, he lost, and lost mainly because he was a lousy candidate and the voters saw that despite all the campaign ads he ran. Conversely, in my state, two outsiders, Paul Wellstone and Jesse Ventura, got elected to high office despite running on shoestring budgets. Indeed, it was their “Maverick” status, the appearance of not being insiders beholden to special interests, that really seemed to appeal to voters.
And, ultimately, I think what you guys are doing is selling the voters short. You don’t trust them to sift through all the kinds of political speech out there, and come to sensible conclusions. You think they’re gullible sheep who will easily be swayed by slick political ads. I don’t. In fact, too much business support could hurt a candidate with the voters. Democracy is a lot stronger and more robust that you guys give it credit for.
Eric, have you seen the videos and graphs that showed the voters going in to pull the (D) lever were by-and-large vastly less informed than the voters going in to pull the (R) lever? Ask the (D) voters “who said this” type questions, giving them a range of Palin-McCain-Biden-Obama and they either don’t know or they missattribute the quote.
PS One more thing, Perry. It’s been brought up several times that media corporations already have almost unlimited free speech rights. Newspapers can print political editorials and opinion pieces, and even directly endorse candidates; TV networks can put on liberal or conservative commenters (Olbermann, Hannity, etc.), all of which influence the political process, and that’s OK because it’s Free Speech. Yet other businesses cannot exercise political free speech, at least not until this ruling. Indeed, it was this very discrepancy that seemed to motivate several of the Justices.
So, to put it simply – how do you feel about media corporations having free speech, Perry? Should the New York Times be forced to shut up because they generally endorse Democrats, for example? Should the movie studios who fund Mike Moore be silenced because his films invariably attack Republicans and promote a far left agenda?
I have yet to see you provide a consistent answer to these questions, indeed, any answer at all.
I don’t know if I’d go that far. I assume that voters, whether R or D, generally know what they’re voting for. I don’t think people are stupid, I think they can look at all the political info out there, from blogs and newspapers to yes, paid political ads, and form their own conclusions. I don’t think, as Perry seems to do, that they need to be “Protected” from the “Wrong” kind of speech.
Eric, you’re more charitable than I am.
Well John, I guess you can find a few idiots anywhere …
PS Still waiting for Perry to address my point about media corporations vs non-media corps. Would like to see him give a consistent answer on why one should get free speech and the other not.
PPS Perry, still waiting …
http://yalepress.yale.edu/Yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300089011
Read this book:
Origins of the Bill of Rights
by Leonard W. Levy
Americans resorted to arms in 1775 not to establish new liberties but to defend old ones, explains constitutional historian Leonard W. Levy in this fascinating history of the origins of the Bill of Rights. Unencumbered by a rigid class system, an arbitrary government, or a single established church squelching dissent, colonial Americans understood freedom in a far more comprehensive and liberal way than the English, Levy shows. He offers here a panoramic view of the liberties secured by the first ten amendments to the Constitution—a penetrating analysis of the background of the Bill of Rights the meanings of each provision of the amendments.
In colonial America, political theory, law, and religion all taught that government was limited. Yet the framing and ratification of the Bill of Rights—in effect a bill of restraints upon the national government—was by no means assured. Levy illuminates the behind-the-scenes maneuverings, public rhetoric, and political motivations that led to each provision. The omission of a bill of rights in the original constitution presented the most serious obstacle to its adoption, despite Federalist claims that a bill of rights was unnecessary. Opponents of the Constitution claimed that inclusion of only some liberties—such as the right to habeas corpus and freedom from ex post facto laws—meant that all other liberties would be lost. But, Levy demonstrates, the people of the United States, aided by a persistent James Madison and by traditions of freedom, had the good sense to support both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Leonard W. Levy is Mellon Professor Emeritus at the Claremont Graduate School and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Southern Oregon State College. He is the author of thirty-six books, includingOrigins of the Fifth Amendment, for which he received a Pulitzer Prize.
Eric: “PPS Perry, still waiting [in Free Speech: Media Corporations v Non-media Corporations] …”
Sorry, I missed the latter comments in this thread somehow.
Since we are talking here about free speech wrt contributions to a political campaign, the restrictions we could/should place on corporations is independent of what their product is, therefore should be the same for media and non-media corporations.
If I said one should not be restricted and the other restricted, I misspoke. Both should have the same restrictions regarding corporate speech.
Note that regarding the product of media corporations, communications, including speech, there should be no restrictions on their product. So in that sense, media corporations are a special case. One last point, if the media corporation is a subsidiary to a non-media corporation, they would be restricted from speaking for their parent.
Yorkshire:
Your Levy piece does not refute my point about the differences in context between now and 200 years ago when our Constitution was framed.
To get this thread back to the original topic, it seems that even the inauguration of a democratically-elected president in Honduras isn’t good enough for some people:
More at the link.
Perry:
Yorkshire:
Your Levy piece does not refute my point about the differences in context between now and 200 years ago when our Constitution was framed.
Read the book and all the reference material first.
“Progressives”: Burning a flag, making/selling pornography, hanging a crucifix in urine = free speech.
However, a corporation giving money to a preferred candidate in an election = IN NO WAY PROTECTED BY 1ST AMENDMENT!
Amazing.
Here’s some news of BO’s buddy Hugo Chavez. Seems like Hugo doesn’t like dissent.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/29/terrorist-twitter-threatens-hugo-chavezs-stranglehold-media/
Further, they insist that the taxpayers fund it, or else it’s a form of “CENSORSHIP!”
Amazing indeed …