I think other Presidents beat out Clinton on that - unless we know something about Hillary's lovers

Its going to be interesting to see how the situation turns out in Honduras. Both sides are claiming to be in the right, but I think the Wall Street Journal spells it out very well.

It seems as if the Honduran President was trying to circumvent the constitution, the Supreme Court of Honduras ruled in that way, the President told a military leader not to abide by the ruling of the court, he told the President he had to obey the court, the military guy was fired, and then the military used force to remove the President for violating the Constitution and the orders of the court.

If this is indeed the case, I am concerned that Obama administration is coming to the defense of the ousted President.

If Clinton had been impeached but refused to leave office I'd still have been concerned if the Army came in of its own accord and gave him the boot (or if the military had intervened to put a stop to Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre).

I assume that Honduras has a criminal justice system independent of the military and if so that strikes me as the appropriate forum if indeed the president was engaged in criminal activity.

ETA: And having given my immediate gut reaction to just that WSJ article I'll go try and find out myself what exactly is going on. Then maybe I'll offer an informed opinion too.

Ok, slightly more informed opinion:

Pretty much what I said before. The political institutions of Honduras had ruled his actions illegal. However, there are political and legal solutions to this and the military acting on its own (apparently the claim after a couple days that the military was acting on orders from the supreme court have iffy documentation and the supreme court doesn't have authority to issue such orders anyway) is never a good idea.

As for Obama supporting the wrong guy, you may think that, but he's hardly alone. Not a single single government or international organization has expressed support for what the military did in Honduras.

To me the obvious solution is for him to be returned to power and for the national legislature to proceed with impeachment proceedings if those are warranted.

Military coups never end well.

And besides, the Honduran president has never produced a birth certificate proving his eligibility to be elected in the first place! I heard he was born in Nicaragua!

...And, he's Muslim!

It was more than political institutions rulings his actions illegal. It was the supreme court. I have incredibly mixed reactions. I am not in support of the Honduran military seizing control, but just what is the appropriate reaction when the President goes against the ruling of the Supreme Court of his country? It would hardly seem as if the justice department would have any recourse (that would be adhered to) if he has already violated those rulings.

Not a good situation either way. And yes, I know that governments all over are condemning it.

What evidence do you have of that? Did they try to arrest him? Did they try to try him for his crimes?

Should the military be sent to remove those in charge of the Connecticut firefighters because they've just been found to be in violation of Constitutional law by the Supreme Court?

The same issue exists in this country.

What would happen if the Supreme Court ruled the actions of a president unconstitutional and yet the president continued doing it anyway?

Nothing, at least by the Supreme Court. In fact we've faced this in the past when the Supreme Court ruled that Andrew Jackson's plans for Indians were unconstitutional and he essentially said "ok, now come and enforce your ruling." The ball, at that point is in Congress's court. They chose to do nothing and we got the Trail of Tears.

Sure, the U.S. Army could have said (were it inclined) "we're going to enforce the Supreme Court's rulings and ship Jackson to Canada" but that would be just as destructive to the national institution as the precipitating malfeasance.

Reading more, I see that the Honduran constitution does not have a handy process for removing a president. That really sucks and it might be the only way to resolve the issue would have been to wait for the term to expire. And complete dissolution of the government might have resulted. But a pre-emptive military action (after all, if they were acting to enforce punishment for criminal activity why did they just send him off to Costa Rica) is a horrible way to go as it completely undermines any idea of political resolution and says that civil government continues to exist only as the military deigns.

And that, not necessarily for any love of the existing president, is why every government that has spoken has spoken against the action.