|
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.
|