Via Mader, I read this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
Once again it is pointed out, that the Honduran crises is not a military coup, it was a legal response to illegal actions by the country's president. Defenders of President Zelaya, cite that the Honduran constitution enables the rich and powerful and disenfranchises the poor, the weak and the vulnerable.
I am not a constitutional expert. I cannot validate or argue that particular line of argument. I have no idea if the Honduran constitution is fair, or justifiable. But those that support Zelaya's attempts to extend his term should consider this. Since all his actions so far have been illegal so far, what they are proposing is that Zelaya start a revolution of the people to overthrow the Honduran congress and the Supreme Court. Remember these two arms of the government have reportedly acted entirely within the laws, have legally used the powers they have been granted, and constitutionally have a duty to support and maintain the rule of law. Since the military is in service to these arms of the government, such a revolution would be brutal and would result in thousands of deaths amongst the poor and vulnerable that Zelaya is supposedly championing. (And really, has anyone shown Zelaya to be pure in intent, that he is the great hero supporters claim he is? Is it not reasonable to assume that he prefers the status quo in all things, except his limits on power as president?)
Maybe in the long-term, it would serve the Honduran people if they revolted and overthrew their government, started fresh and wrote a new constitution.
But I would say historically, such things do not end well. Which is why I give the benefit of the doubt to those that say they are acting within the laws. The alternative can be very messy, bloody and may cause more problems then it solves.