The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

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?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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?

Evidence of what? I have been speaking in conjecture this whole time, not asserting anything other than the President has indeed not followed the rulings of the supreme court.

I don't suppose the people in Connecticut will go against the ruling of the Supreme Court, so your point is ridiculous at best. I don't think I've even implied anywhere that actions being found to be unconstitutional is worthy of arrest. Not abiding by the ruling of the court, certainly so.

Alex, what you are saying makes complete sense. Like I said, I'm not in support of the military action....I am just wondering how best to deal with this situation when it appears that the President would seem not to care about his actions being ruled to have been in violation of the Constitution.

[Alex]

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.

[Strangler Lewis]

Perhaps a side note, but I assume that if the Chief Justice of the Honduran Supreme Court had been a friend of Hugo Chavez, the WSJ would be calling the president a hero and saying that Bill Pullman should play him in the movie.

[Alex]

That's a fair question now that we've moved beyond being concerned that Obama is supporting the existing president (like I've said I have no idea if he does so much as strongly opposes the military ousting him).

And I'm not saying that military intervention should never happen under and circumstance but I do think it is pretty much the last option on the list and even then should be condemned and forced back out of the picture as soon as possible (kind of like I can understand situations in which I sympathize with a parent mudering the killer of their child but that parent still should probably go to jail).

I can't really see the fact that the president was trying to hold a non-binding poll proposition (even if the issue being polled was entirely unconsitutional according to Honduras's somewhat bizaar emphaticism on signle presidential terms) had reached that point. No lives were at risk, the fundamental institutions of state weren't at risk. If he had tried to hold power beyond his elected term (or in defiance of proper early removal from office) then things get more serious.

[Snowflake]

Looks like Al Franken (Me, Al Franken) will finally be sworn in as Senator from Minnesota. The Supreme Court just shot down Norm Coleman. About time this got resolved.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The true absurdity is that when Coleman thought he was going to win, he called on Franken to graciously step aside and not be a sore loser. Seriously.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

The true absurdity is that when Coleman thought he was going to win, he called on Franken to graciously step aside and not be a sore loser. Seriously.

Of course, I expect Coleman will take this all the way to the Federal SC level.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

Of course, I expect Coleman will take this all the way to the Federal SC level.

Snowflake = FAIL

Coleman conceded, finally.