Wikipedia

Talk:Constitution of Honduras

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Article 102

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Currently the article has no details of the constitution's provisions. I added "Article 102 states that no Honduran can be expatriated or handed over to a foreign State." It has twice been removed. I do not understand why.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

You could ask CieloEstrellado (talk · contribs), the user who reverted your edit; but if I was to guess a reason I would suggest that simply listing Article 102 without mentioning the other articles in the constitution just looks you are trying to make a political point. I suggest you discuss it with CieloEstrellado. Astronaut (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
The removal was inappropriate. NPOV sentences stating articles of the Constitution of Honduras are obviously relevant to the Constitution of Honduras. As there are nothing directly relating to the content of the Constitution, it is natural popular/newsworthy sections will be discussed first by third-party news sources, and hence the first to be cited. I have taken steps to undo the undo, incorporating the material into a new section. Int21h (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

CieloEstrellado (talk · contribs) has reverted these edits four times now. A mention of Wikipedia:Three revert rule is in order. His reason of "lack of context" is solved by adding material, not removing it. His claim may or may not be true, but with no material other than this, there is no reason for removal at this point, as it is a stub. I have notified the user, and if this cannot be resolved, I will submit it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for more attention on the problem. Int21h (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Power to depose the president?

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is this mentioned anywhere in the constitution? Would be good to have the relevant article(s).93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

There's a video by Cloe Buckingham in the right-hand margin of this blog, which sets out some of the relevant articles of the Constitution:

http://honduras-not-a-military-coup.blogspot.com/

In the meantime, as Mr. Zelaya was removed on Judicial Warrant of the unanimous 15-Judge bench of the Supreme Court of Honduras, pursuant to LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, it it not possible nor logical to call judicial process a COUP unless the Supreme Court itself has be impeached as not being a COMPETENT COURT. The references in the world press and media to a "military" "coup" are politically motivated because Mr. Zelaya's apparent real goal was to overthrow the existing Constitution in order to link up Central America with South American Union (UNASUR) and North American Union (fusion of Canada-USA and Mexico) via "ALBA". Zelaya's "charity" to the poor and to workers was therefore self-serving to bring them over to his side.

I would like to point out that in an emergency, legal proceedings such as injunctions can be held ex-parte. The wording in the Motion for Zelaya's arrest refers to an "interlocutory" arrest, which suggests that the arrest was an emergency measure to protect the Constitution pending further proceedings. Someone in the military, however, exceeded the jurisdiction authorized on the face of the arrest warrant when they decided unilaterally to deport the man. This does not convert the situation into a "military" coup. It is a judicially warranted constitutional process of removal of Zelaya for several counts of cause, including perjury, usurpation and treason. To put this into perspective, imagine the Supreme Court of the United States ordering the removal of an elected official for perjury, usurpation and treason. Unless that Court were shown to be incompetent, its order would have to stand under the Rule of Law and be respected, save for appropriate recourse, and as always, saving the people's right of freedom of expression. Would you report an arrest warrant by the Supreme Court of the United States as a "military coup"? The communist goal of creating anarchy and chaos in the civilized world of the Rule of Law is only advanced by the complete failure to distinguish between LAWFUL acts done under law, and acts done in violation of it.

I would strongly suggest that given the Judicial Duty to Control the Executive, and the lack of any evidence that the Supreme Court of Honduras was incompetent (either itself deposed, or ultra vires) at the time it issued the Arrest Warrant), that Wikipedia clean up its typical act of echoing politically correct public press, and stop calling this a "military" coup.

I would more strongly suggest that Wikipedia hire people who know what they are talking about instead of relying on amateurs checking links on other sites to see what everyone says, in order to adopt the majority view, as opposed to what's factually correct. The majority of links of official publications, press and media, are owned and operated by the multinational corporations who also control our governments and who themselves are behind the disintegration of national constitutions for the purpose of bringing in one-world government by these same multinationals. It would be nice if people could report the facts with less naiveté.

Moreover, a "military" coup by definition requires a military government. There is no military government in Honduras, it is a civilian government UNDER (legal term) the Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.131.188 (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

"'military' coup by definition"? Definitions of words and phrases in English are largely defined by usage, not by institutions, as in French. So such a requirement is not necessary for usage. (But usage is necessary for the requirement, which as a result of this debate I do not see.) As for the legalese of the coup, these things are largely political debates, and as such should be relegated to the political arena, not Wikipedia. Even the word "coup" should only be used in reference to external citations. Int21h (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Article 374

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not sure, but it appears article 374 is not adequately translated:

Existing text

ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.
  • Artículo interpretado por Decreto 169/1986
ARTICLE 374.- It is not possible to reform, in any case, the preceding article, the present article, the constitutional articles referring to the form of government, to the national territory, to the presidential period, the prohibition to serve again as President of the Republic, the citizen who has performed under any title in consequence of which she/he cannot be President of the Republic in the subsequent period.[6]

My perceived fixes (underlined):

ARTICLE 374.- It is not possible to reform, in any case, the preceding article, the present article, the constitutional articles referring to the form of government, to the national territory, to the presidential period, to the prohibition to serve again as President of the Republic, the citizen who has carried out [the reform] under any title and the referring one cannot be President of the Republic for the subsequent period.

I'm also asking on spanish wikipedia, as a boost. CB...(ö) 04:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Somebody should post the constitution

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Where can I find the Constitution of Honduras?

This whole article consists of editorialization, which is unfortunate but unavoidable since the actual constitution is probably in Spanish.

Nevertheless, someone should post a link to the actual (that is, current) constitution of Honduras. 216.99.219.122 (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Have you tried maybe the external links section? --LjL (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The way to find world Constitutions is the "Constitution Finder," here" http://confinder.richmond.edu/

Use the drop-down list to select Honduras and it brings you to this:

http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.131.188 (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there any post-coup opposition to a constituent assembly?

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While there have been many, many reliable sources that claim that Zelaya violated the constitution by calling for a non-binding poll about whether or not to vote about whether or not to organise a constituent assembly, i am not aware of any claims after the coup d'etat claiming that the calls for a constituent assembly by the wide coalition of grassroots social groups Frente Nacional contra el Golpe de Estado en Honduras and CODECO are illegal. For example, have any Hondurans been legally charged, legally or illegally detained, or exiled, on the grounds that they called for the holding of a constituent assembly? Has the Supreme Court issued a legal detention order against the (presumably) hundreds of thousands or millions of supporters of these groups, or declared the calls for a constituent assembly by these groups to be a violation of the Constitution?

Until then, NPOV gives us only one POV for the post-28 June calls for a constituent assembly subsection. Boud (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

constitutional crisis vs coup d'etat NPOV

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some of these edits are contrary to the difficult consensus built at Talk:2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis. The only consensus we have regarding "constitutional crisis vs coup d'etat" is that there are varying POVs regarding which aspect is more important, i.e. both POVs need to be present unless it is clear that in a specific context one is more relevant, or unless it is very impractical to include both, as in the title of the article 2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis. Please see Talk:2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis.

In these edits:

  1. the edit in the section From 2006 to 28 June 2009 removes the NPOV reference to both POVs;
  2. the first edit in the section Since 28 June 2009 inserts the POV "legitimate ouster of President Zelaya". Please have a look at the debate on Talk:2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis and i think you'll find that the constitutional crisis vs coup d'etat debate concerns the article as a whole. The varying POVs concern whether or not the constitutional crisis related to the coup d'etat of 28 June was more important than the coup d'etat itself. The minority POV (held by the Honduran de facto government and some prominent people in the USA) is that the constitutional crisis was more important and morally justified the coup d'etat. The majority POV (held by nearly every government in the world, human rights organisations, etc.) is that the coup d'etat was unjustified and is of more significance than the constitutional crisis in general.
  3. the other two changes, essentially from "coup" to "removal of Zelaya" seem OK by NPOV to me, since as i understand it, "removal of Zelaya" avoids making a claim as to whether the coup was morally or legally legitimate or not, and the specific fact that it was the military who removed Zelaya, without any previous legal process based on the legal concepts of presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, etc., can be dropped at these points in the text without this being POV.

So i'm reverting just the first two of these four changes. Boud (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Who wrote the Constitution of Honduras?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I'm brand new at this, so please forgive me if I'm not doing it exactly right. I'm requesting more information on the history of how the current Constitution of Honduras was written. So far, all Wikipedia has said is that it was written by a constituent assembly. I have been told that John Negroponte wrote the bulk of it and imposed it on the constituent assembly. Is this accurate? What role, if any, did Negroponte (and the US) play in its writing?

LetJusticeRoll (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Disagree with part of the article

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can he be Micheleti recognize as president?

1) If we read Article 3 of the 1982 Constitution of Honduras says:

  • Article 3- No one owes obedience to a usurper government or to those who assume public office or employment by force of arms or using means or procedures that violate or are not aware that this Constitution and the laws. Acts verified by such authorities are zero. people are entitled to resort to insurrection in defense of constitutional order.[1]

2) And Decree 131 of the Constituent Assembly:

  • Section 3-No one owes obedience to a usurper government or to anyone who assumes public office or employment by force of arms or using means or procedures that violate or are not aware that this Constitution and the laws. Acts verified by such authorities are zero. People have the right to resort to insurrection in defense of constitutional order.
  • Perhaps what should happen is that the Armed Forces, if the Supreme Court has the authority to replace the democratically elected President ordered the Armed Forces has to do the same armed forces had to be an interim government and declare a new election within a short time. or the same Micheleti without preaching from the rooftops that he is now President of Honduras and it should be recognized as such. Except better views.--Ccrazymann (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Incorrect references or vandalized

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Many references do not support what is said, should be replaced with correct sources.Ccrazymann (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Constitution of Honduras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Constitution of Honduras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constitution_of_Honduras&oldid=1206779408"