Written by
Apologists for the military coup in Honduras have had a busy month, and have recently advanced an argument familiar to most Americans post-9/11: sometimes, you must act undemocratically to save your democracy.
In a recent National Review Online article, Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky cited the example of Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War, in an effort to keep Maryland from seceding. Ramos-Mrosovsky writes:
"When the Supreme Court ruled Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional on the grounds that only Congress may suspend habeas corpus, Lincoln simply ignored the ruling and famously asked, 'Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?' President Lincoln deliberately violated the Constitution in order to save it."
The Lincoln example is a favorite tool in the right’s constitution-bending toolbox. Few mention that this was not a highpoint of the Lincoln presidency, and that the suspension of habeas corpus and the trying of civilians before military tribunals were used selectively to silence dissent within the remaining Union, most famously in the case of “Copperheads” like Clement Vallandigham.
The constitutionality of the Honduran military removing Zelaya from office is muddy. “The evident goal,” writes Ramos-Mrosovsky, “was to enable Zelaya’s indefinite rule.” This isn’t at all evident. According to the Honduran constitution, a president serves one four-year term—this term limit is inviolable, and anyone attempting to modify it is guilty of “treason against the homeland.” Zelaya asked, in the form of a non-binding referendum, voters to decide if a Constituent Assembly should be selected in the November elections, presumably to rewrite the constitution. As Ramos-Mrosovsky admits, there is no mechanism in the Honduran constitution for the impeachment of a sitting president—impeachment proceedings would normally determine “treasonous” behavior. Marcello Ballve reminds us that the traditional avenue for changing a constitution, the constitutional amendment, is similarly closed on the re-election question.
Ramos-Mrosovsky further confuses the issue, claiming that Zelaya is calling for insurrection against the new government (a remedy suggested not by Zelaya, but by the Honduran constitution, Article 3: “No one owes allegiance to an usurping government nor those who assume public office via force of arms or utilizing means and procedures that violate or circumvent what is in the Constitution and established by law. The acts taken by such authorities are null. The people have the right to recur to insurrection in order to defend the constitutional order.”)
He ends with a counterfactual: “Without President Lincoln’s arguably ‘illegal’ action, the United States as we know it would quite likely have ceased to exist.” As with most counterfactuals, this is impossible to prove (a point that makes them so fun). Less known is the Confederate Congress’ suspension of habeas corpus in and around Richmond—an act that neither saved the confederacy nor stopped Union spying in the Confederate capital.
We can thank conservative media for their interest, however self-serving, in the Honduran crisis—liberal and mainstream media have shown much less initiative. But their analogies, historical and otherwise, are poorly drawn. “To characterize Zelaya’s removal as ‘illegal’ [a point many conservatives, like Ramos-Mrosovsky, no longer argue] is like blaming firefighters for causing water damage to a burning house.”
Congratulating the Honduran military for saving democracy by flagrantly disregarding the democratic process—nonbinding referendums, legitimate constitutional reform—is more like rewarding a firebug for putting out his latest fire.