Honduras: Why does Obama support the ousted President?

The situation in Honduras is now several days old. When Zelaya was ousted, President Obama stepped up and spoke in his behalf, and likened the Honduran military's action as a "coup" and "unlawful". The military acted on the unanimous behest of the Honduran legislature and supreme court. I guess in Mr. Obama's mind, it is ok for Zelaya to violate the Honduran Constitution. To him, It's ok for an elected leader to stay on in power after their term has expired.

The New Republic is not normally a publication thought to be hostile to Democrats. But on this issue, they call the President to task, in an article Monday by Francisco Toro. (H/T Ed Morrissey/HotAir)

Seen in context, Sunday's military powerplay was different in important ways from the traditional Latin American putsch. The generals move came at the unanimous--yes unanimous--behest of a congress outraged by Zelaya's not-particularly-subtle attempts to extend his hold on power indefinitely. It followed a series of clearly unconstitutional moves on Zelaya's part, including his attempt to unilaterally remove the chief of the army, which, according to Honduras's Constitution, can only be done by a congressional super-majority.

And congress's request had been seconded by the nation's Supreme Court, which is sworn to uphold a constitution that explicitly makes the act of "inciting, promoting or backing the continuation in power or re-election of the President of the Republic" punishable with the loss of Honduran citizenship.

So while we wince at the image of soldiers kidnapping a president, it's important to recognize that the move against Zelaya was, if not strictly speaking constitutional, certainly institutional. 
 

Morrissey furthers TNR's thought as such:

Barack Obama gave a knee-jerk reaction without bothering to account for the facts on the ground.  Moreover, Obama presumed to know the legality of the Honduran legislature’s action better than the Hondurans, which is yet another example of Yankee arrogance in the region.  While Obama continues to waffle and avoid the question of whether he will recognize Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the president of Iran after a baldly rigged election, Obama has quickly intervened to reject the Honduran legislature’s action and insist that the US dictate who the Honduran president should be.

Morrissey observes before that paragraph that the unanimous action of the legislature is a "de facto impeachment". His obersavtions about President Obama's rush seems to be simply another case where the Obama foreign policy as misstepped in this first six months of his administration. The Obama Administration is in line with Hugo Chavez. The Organization of American States is with them, in condemnation of the removal of Zelaya. Credit to Honduras, who has essentially told the OAS to butt out.

The AP tells it: (H/T: Ed Morrissey/HotAir)

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras - Honduras' interim leader warned that the only way his predecessor will return to office is through a foreign invasion, setting up a dramatic showdown with the ousted president who is preparing to come home accompanied by world leaders.

A defiant Roberto Micheletti said in an interview with The Associated Press late Tuesday that "no one can make me resign," defying the United Nations, the Organization of American States, the Obama administration and other leaders that have condemned the military coup that ousted President Manuel Zelaya.

Micheletti vowed Zelaya would be arrested if he followed through with plans to return to Honduras on Thursday, even though the presidents of Argentina and Ecuador have signed on to accompany him along with the heads of the Organization of American States and the U.N. General Assembly.

Morrissey, commenting on the AP stroy,

The idea of marching Zelaya back into Honduras flanked by the heads of state of two other nations is practically begging for war.  The Honduran military will have no choice but to arrest Zelaya, which will give Argentina and Ecuador an excuse to send its military if the trio have guns drawn on them at the airport.  And for what?  In the service of an executive who abused power and flouted the law in an attempt to make himself Presidente-for-Life?

Barack Obama has enabled this nuttiness with his meddling on behalf of a Chavez wannabe.  His State Department had better make it known that any attempt to fly Zelaya back into Honduras would be met with our displeasure, and that the issue rightly belongs with the Honduran legislature and courts.  Otherwise, we’ll have a war breaking out in Latin America that we can ill afford at the moment.

What ever happened to the American doctrine of protecting the Americas from the spread of communism? This stood at least through Bush 41 (Panama). The rise of Hugo Chavez has proven that that doctrine is near dead, if it is still alive. Perhaps it is because the United States has been too busy elsewhere, but that is no excuse. We knew we were getting inexperienced people in President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton. I know we expected them to be inept, but I am not sure we expected them to be as inept as they are, from Iran (reaction to the rigged re-election of Ahmadinejad) to North Korea (chicken with the freighter they were likely unwilling to actually intercept) to Honduras.

Rush yesterday wondered if there was a move afoot to repeal the 22nd amendment. Then he noted there was already a bill submitted by "Jose Serrano (I believe Jose is from Nueva York) introduced in January HJ res 5, resolution 5, to repeal the Twenty-Second Amendment.  A Democrat has already made the move."   (Though if Truman was exempt from the limits imposed by the 22nd amendment, as it was ratified during his presidency, wouldn't a repeal of the 22nd amendment also not take effect until Obama's successor is sworn in?)