Who decides what is legal in Honduras?

Andrew McCarthy:

...

I have a couple of questions. Now that the president has decided it's okay to meddle in Honduras (where they are fighting to keep preserve their democracy against the Chávez-style thug who Obama wants to re-install) but not Iran (where thousands of Iranians who seek democracy are being killed, maimed and jailed by a regime which has been at war with the United States for 30 years), the president's tack is to say that Honduras's action in removing Zelaya is "not legal."

What on earth makes Obama think he knows better about what is legal under the law of Honduras than the Supreme Court of Honduras and the law-writing legislature of Honduras? The Honduran military acted after Zelaya defied an order by that nation's highest court which pronounced his coup attempt illegal; he has been replaced under a Honduran legal process by that nation's Congress, which essentially impeached him and democratically voted in a successor. That sounds pretty legal to me. I am the first to admit I am not an expert in Honduran law, but I'd bet the Honduran Supreme Court has a better grasp on it than President Obama. On the issue of what is legal in Honduras, as between Hugo Chávez and the Honduran Supreme Court, our president has decided to go with Chávez.

...

The administration has still not explained what they found illegal about the Honduran Supreme Court decision. This is more than passing strange. Do they think the court did not have jurisdiction to decide the case? But who is in a better place to decide that issue? Certainly not Hugo Chavez.

If Obama is going to continue to say that what Honduras did was wrong he owes all of us a better explanation than has surfaced so far.

The Christian Science Monitor reports:

...

Yet others say it's Zelaya who's guilty of turning back democratic progress. According to Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, not only is presidential reelection illegal, so, too, is any attempt to reform the law for the purpose of reelection.

Zelaya, however, argues that popular consultation should never be illegal in a democracy. So, he proposed a nationwide, nonbinding poll June 28 to ask the Honduran voters if they would be willing to support a ballot proposition on constitutional reform in the November general elections. Among the proposed changes would be an extension of presidential term limits that would allow Zelaya to run for reelection. Most state institutions argued – and the Supreme Court ruled – that his initiative was illegal.

...

So Zelaya wants a nonbinding referendum that could be used to push for an unconstitutional change? The Honduran Supreme Court appears to be on solid ground. Again, where does Obama get the idea that the court was acting illegally?

Fausta has more on the constitutional issue:

...

... Articles 373 and 374 of the Honduran Constitution specifically state that ammendments to the Constitution be approved by 2/3 of the votes in Congress AND specifically forbid any President of the country from extending term limits. The Constitution also says these two articles can not be ammended.

...

So, again, who has acted illegal in Honduras? I think the answer is pretty clear and it is also clear that Obama is ill informed on the issue.