1. Getting arrested for breaking the law isn't tyranny. Getting arrested for talking about how the law should be changed is.

2. If MrBubbles' interpretation of the Honduran constitution is correct, there is no "proper" way to change this part of it. Even talking about changing it is against the law and subject to summary arrest by the military without trial.

3. You're equating a regulatory body with an army storming the offices of every media outlet in the country? Really? I'm sure you'll let me know when Obama gets around to shutting down Fox News.

4. See point 2. Furthermore, Zelaya had downgraded his attempt at a binding referendum to a non-binding plebescite. In other words, he was no longer trying to change it, he was trying to talk about changing it. Apparently that's all it takes for the army to exile you or shut down your newsroom.

5. The courts and the congress had already stopped him from changing the constitution. That's why he had to try to settle for a non-binding plebiscite. And arresting somebody for talking about changing the constitution is tyranny.

Imagine how different America would be today if it were impossible to change its consitution. Freedom of the press was in one of those amendments, wasn't it?

Neither Honduras or the United States are democracies, this is a fallacy in thinking. Instead, they are Representative (democratic) Republics governed by a Constitution. This is a democratic form of government where REPRESENTATIVES elected by the people have the responsibility to write and vote on laws. The people do not vote directly on every piece of legislation, and most powers are restricted to certain branches of government and not given directly to the people, So the people have an indirect power by way of appointing individuals who best suit their own political ideals.

If the laws & constitution written by the legislative branch (the representatives of the people) prohibit the people from directly voting on certain changes to the constitution, then zelaya was subverting the rule of law (written by the representatives of the people), and therefore subverting the will of the people to even bring this referrendum to a vote.

Thomas Jefferson said, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Thomas Jefferson, March 11, 1790: "The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind."

Alexander Hamilton, in debate, said: "Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government."

By stepping out of the confines of the laws of Honduras, Zelaya was directly violating the balance of powers set up in the government and breaking the law. When anybody deliberately breaks the law, be he a president or a plumber, that person is a criminal. Zelaya was arrested for his direct defiance of the laws and courts of Honduras and rightfully removed from his job, and it is disgusting to me how our government is interfering in this matter.

Thats an incorrect to think about government.  Should America refuse to recognize Iraq because the current leader violated the laws and constitution of Saddam's Hussien government?  That is an extreme example, but an example of your logic nonetheless.

There is no use to lie or try and fool anybody, its obvious that your reasoning is that you dont like Zedalya (sp?) so you draw from another argument to justify your desire to have him removed from office.  Just say that you disagree with Zedalya and that you think that we would be better off without him in power.  No use to beat around the bush.

That's the beauty of the rule of law. It's blind. I know nothing about Zedalya, other then he broke the law and should be removed. If I learned about him, and discovered he was the greatest man I had ever known, I would still think he should have been fired for attempting to take liberty away from the people.

In a perfect government, justice is blind. Are you suggesting that you feel laws should apply differently based on what you think of the person breaking them?

Law is not always good.  I keep making extreme examples but its the easiset way to get the point across.  In some countries it is a crime to convert from Islam, in some countries it is a crime for women to show their face, in some countries it is a crime to speak out against the government.

These are laws but that doesnt mean we should follow them. 

Do you support the protestors in Iran even though they are breaking the law set by the ruling elite in Iran?

I got a question for you. If you don't agree with a law, like drug use in America for example, do you think it's better to ignore it, or work to change it?

I think drugs should be legal. I also think anyone who smokes pot should be fined for breaking the law. If we do not protect the rule of law, we have nothing to protect.

What he should have done, is lobbied congress to change the law. If they won't, it's because the people don't want it. If the people wanted it enough, they would have elected a congress who would change the law.

Besides, who cares? As we have seen with both Bush and Obama, the problem of government is giving them to much power. Obama and Bush lead this country exactly the same way. Badly.

If we had kept the powers in there respective places, it would not really matter all that much who was president. People would just come and go, and do a fairly good job of things.

The way it works now, Obama and Bush both have had enough power to really make a negative impact on the US. I commend Hondurus for doing the right thing. 

It depends how far the law deviates from my set of ethics and what the punishment for the crime is.  I would break a law if I thought the law violated my freedom (and by freedom I mean right to vote, free speech, etc.), but if something was trivial to me I'd just assume follow the law than be faced with fines or jail time.

The rule of law is an extension of the accepted ethics of society.  If a law goes against the ethics of a majority of people, then that law is obsolete and measures should be taken to overturn it.  If it is impossible to overturn a such a law, then the upkeep of that law is unjust and undemocratic and should be broken.

There is no difference between Zedalya breaking the law the and the protestors in Iran breaking the law.  The difference here is, for your own interests, you want the protestors in Iran to succeed but you want Zedalya to fail.

Zelaya

The difference is Honduras is a representative government.

The constitution is a document that represents the rules the people of the country expect everyone to follow. When Zedalya did what he did, he broke those rules, thus defying the people he was elected to govern.

Honduras can have multiple terms limits added to there constitution. It just needs to be done though congress. Congress better represents the people the a president. 

So in Iran, the protests are the people fighting to be heard. Trying to create a form of government where the people have a say in what the government does.

In Honduras, that's happened already, and Zedalya's consequences for his actions are an example of it's execution.

In both Iran with the protests, and Zedalya being removed from office are the same side of an argument, so my position is not a contradiction. If you are for the protests in Iran, yours are however.

How can you be for one group fighting for a government that reperesdents the people, and then for a man who defies the will of the people?

Another question. In the US, we have people to take the presidents place if we lose him (VP, Speaker of the house, etc...)

What's the procedure in Honduras, and was it followed with this? If so, it's hard to call it a coup.