I. The Judicial Duty to Control the Executive
HONDURAS 20 July 2009: First of all, the Supreme Court of a country has the final word on the interpretation of that country's domestic Constitution. Judges are generally referred to in the legal literature going back centuries as "guardians of the Constitution".
When King James I accused Sir Edward Coke (pronounced "Cook") (1 February 1552 - 3 September 1634), of treason for suggesting that his (James's) sovereign power might be under (below) the law, Chief Justice Coke replied: "Thus wrote Bracton: the king is under no man but God and the law".
As Lord Denning points out, this saying has "reverberated down the centuries" to make judges the guardians of the constitution, (What Next in the Law, pp. 311-318).
Today, it is not King James the first, but Mr. Zelaya, who thinks he is under no man and under no law, and who brazenly accuses those who OBEY the law, of treason... to him and to his attempted personal rule of Honduras without the Constitution.
To ignore the Supreme Court of Honduras and their lawful and necessary acts to protect the Honduran constitution, denies this fundamental heritage of the Rule of Law, and denies the very raison d’être of judicial conscience and independence.
"Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state."
[Source: -- Cooper, John et al. Complete Works By Plato, page 1402 (Hackett Publishing, 1997).]
Likewise, Aristotle endorsed the Rule of Law, writing that "law should govern", and those in power should be "servants of the laws." Writing in The Politics 3.16, Aristotle said:
"[I]t is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws."
This ancient concept of the Rule of Law is to be distinguished from rule by law, i.e. Zelaya-style, attempting to marshall the people to overthrow the existing Constitution for him by giving him a "mandate" to do what the Constitution forbids. That is Zelaya's rule BY his law, not the Constitutional Rule of Law.
According to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The difference... is that under the rule of law, the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."
[Source: -- Tamanaha, Brian. On the Rule of Law, page 3 (Cambridge University Press, 2004)]
Albert Venn Dicey, writing in The Law of the Constitution, summed up the Rule of Law as supreme above every individual, including the head of state:
"We mean in the second place, when we speak of the 'rule of law' as a characteristic of our country [England], not only that with us no man is above the law, but (what is a different thing) that here every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals."
[Source: -- Source: A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, http://www.constitution.org/cmt/avd/law_con.htm]
Manuel Zelaya was amenable to the law of the realm, and to the Supreme Court of Honduras, as required by this ancient and venerable tradition of the Rule of Law which upholds freedom.
And yet, in the past few weeks, the world's press and media have beaten down the Rule of Law in Honduras, disparaged its high Court, maligned its military, and trampled the true democracy which the Honduran people, with great and painstaking care, had put into place in their country.
The press and media instead have upheld the tyranny of a consummate law-breaker: Manuel Zelaya, who like King James the 1st before him, wished to impose his own personal rule by law, in place of his own service under the Constitution, which is the rule of law.
It is also said in regard to a lawful Constitution that "a stream cannot rise above its source". By stream is meant all those officers occupying temporary posts to which they are elected or appointed in bodies and organs created by the Constitution and through whose ministrations power temporarily flows: Legislature, Crown, and Courts.
The Constitution is the source, the stream is merely the channel through which the officer fulfills his functions prescribed by that source. And therefore, the officer is required to swear an oath to keep his place, an oath to not rise above the source. For, if he rises above the source of his own power, he substitutes himself for the source; he replaces the Constitution with himself, and if in seeking to impose his tyranny he recruits the people, then he fools the people, for he exploits the people to overthrow not only the lawful Constitution, but themselves.
If this is the ultimate crime against democracy, then the world press and media are the ultimate co-conspirators, for they spread the ignorance which allows the traitor to overthrow the Rule of Law by abusing the people.
Those elected to office under an existing Constitution are required to swear an oath of allegiance which involves non-abuse of powers conferred by that existing Constitution.
A court is bound by the history of the common law to assert its own supremacy over the Executive. To paraphrase Lord Templeton's words in M. v. Home Office  1 AC 377 @ 395, to deny this supremacy would, if upheld, establish the proposition that the executive obeys the law as a matter of grace and not as a matter of necessity, a proposition which would reverse the result of the [English] Civil War.
In the United States of America, the matter of judicial control of the Executive has been put in the following way:
"No one, no matter how exalted his public office or how righteous his private motive, can be judge in his own case. That is what courts are for." (United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 US 258 @ 307-309 (1947)).
Manual Zelaya preferred to be the judge in his own case. Rejecting the Rule of Law, meaning executive control by the Supreme Court of Honduras, he barnstormed the referendum boxes and purported to fire those military who obeyed the Court, refusing to collaborate in his one-man assault on the Constitution.
For the Courts to maintain the Rule of Law and assert control over the Executive requires steadfastness on the part of the judiciary. As Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court so memorably stated in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 1803:
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. ... This is of the very essence of judicial duty."
It was of the essence of judicial duty when the Supreme Court of Honduras determined that Manuel Zelaya's intent to extend his term by overruling the Constitution with a referendum was illegal. The Court controlled Zelaya. Zelaya rejected that control, he raised a mob, he barnstormed the referendum boxes, he purported to fire anyone who obeyed the Rule of Law, that is, whoever enforced the lawful determination of the Supreme Court.
The supremacy of the judicial branch of government was reaffirmed by the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the landmark desegregation case of Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958), where it was said (@ 25) that:
"The duty to abstain from resistance to "the supreme Law of the Land," U.S. Const., Art. VI 2, as declared by the organ of our Government for ascertaining it, does not require immediate approval of it nor does it deny the right of dissent. Criticism need not be stilled. Active obstruction or defiance is barred. Our kind of society cannot endure if the controlling authority of the Law as derived from the Constitution is not to be the tribunal specially charged with the duty of ascertaining and declaring what is "the supreme Law of the Land."
Mr. Zelaya actively defied the Supreme Court of Honduras and obstructed its orders in attempting by force to conduct his illegal referendum, nonetheless.
The Court's most basic duty under the common law is to assert its supremacy over all other actors in the body politic. And so, it was also said in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958) (@ 23) that:
"from their own experience and their deep reading in history, the Founders [of the United States of America] knew that Law alone saves a society from being rent by internecine strife or ruled by mere brute power however disguised. `Civilization involves subjection of force to reason, and the agency of this subjection is law.' (Pound, The Future of Law (1937) 47 Yale L. J. 1, 13.) The conception of a government by laws dominated the thoughts of those who founded this [358 U.S. 1, 24] Nation and designed its Constitution, although they knew as well as the belittlers of the conception that laws have to be made, interpreted and enforced by men. To that end, they set apart a body of men, who were to be the depositories of law, who by their disciplined training and character and by withdrawal from the usual temptations of private interest may reasonably be expected to be `as free, impartial, and independent as the lot of humanity will admit.' So strongly were the framers of the [United States'] Constitution bent on securing a reign of law that they endowed the judicial office with extraordinary safeguards and prestige. No one, no matter how exalted his public office or how righteous his private motive, can be judge in his own case. That is what courts are for."
In his attempt to rule by mere brute power, Manuel Zelaya has brought strife to Honduras, and it is therefore particularly strange to see the man who currently occupies the American President's Office urge the lawful government of Honduras, and its lawful courts to submit to that brute.
II. A Sitting Executive Can Become an Incipient Coup
As history unequivocally shows, an elected Executive can depart from its oath to become a coup. They do this by deliberately exceeding the limits imposed by the existing Constitution, the sole source of their own power; and by demonstrating intent to exceed those limits (which is equivalent to discarding sworn oaths) by imposing or planning to impose a de facto "new" Constitution of their own devising in place of the existing Constitution under which they were elected and sworn.
A perfect example is the 11 November 1965 UDI of Ian Smith, who had served as a duly elected Prime Minister of the British self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia from 13 April 1964 until his UDI.
That UDI, that Unilateral Declaration of Independence of Southern Rhodesia by a sitting Prime Minister converted Smith and his Executive co-conspirators into traitors to the lawful Constitution. Ian Smith and his Executive rewrote, and replaced the lawful Constitution with one of their own. This is a world-famous COUP.
The fact that the Brits did not send in the troops to oust Ian Smith in 1965 does not change the fact that Smith and his Executive perpetrated a coup. Nor does it alter the fact that the Brits could have sent in troops had they wished to. Moreover, had the Brits known Smith's intentions in advance, to rewrite the Constitution and to seize power, they could have sent in the troops to prevent the UDI, just as the Supreme Court of Honduras lawfully instructed that country's Congress to send in troops to intercept Manuel Zelaya.
Therefore, it is clear that an elected and sitting Executive can indeed become a COUP.
III - Zelaya is the Coup, Not the Honduran Courts or Military
In today's case of the ouster of Zelaya, it is not the Honduran "military" who have perpetrated a "coup" on Honduras, it is Zelaya who demonstrated his utter contempt for the Constitution of Honduras, which prohibits him from extending his term of office by any means. It is Manuel Zelaya who demonstrated his utter contempt for the judicial office and for the high duty of the Supreme Court of Honduras to control the Executive, that is, to reign in Executive action to keep it under the existing Constitution and within the Rule of Law.
The Supreme Court of Honduras fulfilled, and very possibly admirably fulfilled its role as Guardian of the Constitution by intercepting Manuel Zelaya to prevent him from carrying off his demonstrated intent to recruit the people to give him "permission" to overthrow Honduras' supreme law.
It should be crystal clear to anyone who truly knows constitutional law, that the absence of a power, or the prohibition against a power, in a particular written Constitution, means complete absence of subject-matter jurisdiction.
In other words, if Zelaya has no power to extend his term of office, he indeed has no power whatsoever "in relation to" extending his term of office, including no power to ask the people to help him EXTEND HIS TERM OF OFFICE, as the Constitution was written and enacted to prohibit him from taking ALL steps in that direction. It is my understanding that the Constitution was deliberately written this way as a foil to dictators. This raises the subject of legislative intent, an essential component of constitutional interpretation.
The purpose of restrictions in the Honduran Constitution on the executive term of office was apaprently to prevent a dictator from seizing unlimited power. What would stop Zelaya from seizing the ballot boxes successively, to keep himself in office for decades, much like Fidel Castro?
In more familiar words, you can't be just a little bit pregnant. No means No; it doesn't mean MAYBE. It doesn't mean you can sneak up on the Constitution and hit it over the head with an amendment that the Constitution itself prohibits. Nor can you whack it with a referendum!
V - International Contempt for Domestic Rule of Law
The world press and media, in reiterating the blatant constitutional FALSEHOOD that there has been a "military" coup in Honduras are demonstrating their utter contempt for the Rule of Law in sovereign nations, their utter unconcern for the Sovereignty of Honduras, and for the fundamental duty of its Judiciary to uphold the Rule of Law, and above all, for the peace and safety of the Honduran people, who are the hostages in the midst of this David and Goliath struggle for justice between a tiny Central American nation and a world community that has run amok and lost its bearings.
It has been ZELAYA perpetrating the coup, and the Supreme Court of Honduras which lawfully prevented him, as that Court is required to do by the venerable tradition of centuries of the Rule of Law adopted by Honduras.
The world press and media should help to defuse the situation by obtaining complete scans and publishing the entire Honduran Supreme Court Zelaya file online: pleadings, judgment and arrest warrant, which are no doubt open public files, and then the world might begin to wake up.
These files should moreover be translated into English and many other languages to assist the world in comprehending the unspeakable horror being now inflicted on a sovereign nation and its people by world press and media and by the U.N. and member states -- blindly in some cases and no doubt wilfully in others -- concealing the fact that it was Zelaya who was planning his COUP on the Constitution, and the Honduran military who were executing a lawful warrant of the Supreme Court of Honduras to apprehend the incumbent traitor and stop him from overthrowing the true Democracy of Honduras under the existing Constitution, which is the Rule of Law.
It is a very grave situation when those who cover the news are apparently not qualified to cover it when it concerns matters of constitutional law, or constitutional law versus international law.
If other countries are similar to Canada, where we find travel-show hosts and weather girls becoming so-called reporters and journalists, and people with little or no legal knowledge covering legal affairs, these "reporters" are easily misled, they rely on others to tell them what is true and what is not. They obediently regurgitate missives from impressive looking organizations, such as the United Nations.
However, I, for one, am not impressed by the United Nations, which allowed the criminally illegal (in international law) military assault upon the sovereign nation of the former Yugoslavia in the late 1980's and of its perhaps all-too-convenient attachment to the expanding European Union which now benefits from territorial enlargement, an oil pipeline, and a waterway to the Adriatic.
Indeed, the sovereign nation of Yugoslavia was criminally assaulted and pillaged by a new international weapon disguised as diplomacy: the tool of "recognition". For, Yugoslavia was "recognized" to extinction by the international community. That same gang now attacks Honduras in retaliation for the lawful exercise of Honduran sovereignty on Honduran soil.
The international promotion of domestic lawlessness by the United Nations (fledgling if not incipient candidate for world-government headquarters, nullifying all sovereign nations and their constitutions), has encouraged a worldwide knee-jerk reaction deeming the mere appearance of Honduran military inside Honduran borders as necessarily equating to a coup against the person that military was sent to arrest under lawful warrants.
The general public in Canada is fundamentally illiterate in our Constitution and our law, which compounds the severe problem of our own law-illiterate press and media, and makes the wildfire-spread of blatant disinformation almost inevitable. The same seems to be happening now around the world in respect to Honduras, because of a fundamentally law-illiterate press and media who are attracted as well to the kind of sensationalism that sells papers and churns web pages.
Glutted with images of protests after the recent allegedly (and very possibly) fixed elections in Iran, perhaps the press and media are a bit too tempted to seek a substitute to sustain the ad-selling excitement. Perhaps the misfortune of Honduras today is that the troubles in Iran preceded the current situation in Honduras.
In addition, the U.N. regime has for decades now encouraged the notion of undistilled "democracy" as superior to everything else, including to lawful constitutions. This is tantamount to upholding insurrection over the Rule of Law, the very equivalent of what Zelaya was trying to do with his referendum: use the people to overthrow the Constitution by pretending that they can "democratically" give him "permission" to do what the Constitution prohibits. And so, the people themselves would be tricked into rising above the source.
Crass ignorance, in other words the public's deliberate dumbing-down by deprivation of a meaningful education in the Constitutions of their countries, and of the way Constitutional law works, is allowing the U.N. and its member states to run roughshod over sovereign nations.
Honduras must make a stand for sovereignty and true democracy, which is not raw democracy, but democracy integrated into a lawfully entrenched constitutional system under the Rule of Law.
The world press and media have no excuse for promulgating blatant disinformation on constitutional law and on the situation in Honduras. Indeed, it is the domestic free press of a nation on whom a Constitution is reliant to operate correctly. If the free press refuse to tell the truth, then they themselves damage the Constitution; they themselves join the conspiracy to overthrow it by helping to generate the mob which tyrants need to get the job done.
The failure of the press and media to exercise a criticial sense, and to discharge their duties objectively in this case is threatening the peace and the lives of the people of Honduras, including those who are innocent or unsophisticated.
This amounts to abuse of power by the press and media, and the consequences of this abuse can all too easily spread to other nations also attempting to uphold the Rule of Law over rule-by-the-law-of-tyrants. If one nation falls before this onslaught, then what of the others?
Surely, the world press and media have or can hire constitutional lawyers able to write cogent news releases to "popularize" (make understandable by the public) certain fundamental concepts of constitutional law, so the public can begin to understand that just because you elect a man, doesn't place him above the constitution. And that the whole point of a Constitution is to ensure the safety of the people by restraining elected officers from exercising arbitrary power, i.e. power not conferred, or power withheld by the constitution.
VI - Zelaya Self-Discharged but Wants Back In Under Void Oath of Office
In recent news, Zelaya was heading back to Honduras but had apparently "pledged" not to hold the referendum he had already very publicly decided he was going to hold. Having so acted, he had already voided his own office by perjuring his oath of allegiance under the lawful, and currently existing constitution.
Perjury is a criminal act; perjury voids the oaths of allegiance and office. If that were not the case, there would be no point taking the oath, you could step into office and do as you please. But the oath binds you to the limitations imposed by the Constitution.
If, once you get in, you attempt to exceed those limits, you have LIED to gain office; the oath which alone allowed you to take your seat as a legislator is VOID as a LIE. How can Zelaya who has voided his oath now pretend to "pledge" not to perpetrate the criminal assault on the Constitution that he fully intended to commit in the first place.
Zelaya has already become a leader of a coup; he has already very objectively demonstrated criminal intent to exceed the limits of the lawful Constitution. How, in all common sense, can a person who has demonstrated this criminal intent then be invited back into the country to resume a lawful presidency? Or to participate in any way in its government?
How can you reinstate a coup leader who has himself blatantly violated the true democratic right of the people to be governed in accordance with the lawful constitution, by simply securing his so-called "pledge" not to conduct illegal acts he originally intended to conduct and which intent resulted in his own self-discharge from elected office?
Since when does a "pledge" restore the presumed pristine character of the oath originally sworn and so clearly violated? Since when can a liar and a criminal be invited to govern a nation on condition that he now please stop being a criminal? This goes beyond illogic, it goes to lunacy.
Moreover, the international community has NO BUSINESS whatsoever dictating to the Supreme Court of any nation on that Court's interpretation of the nation's Constitution; let alone presuming to override that Court's constitutional duty to uphold and see to the upholding of that Constitution.
There is abundant case law on the obligation of a Court to apprehend and prevent the commission of anti-constitutional acts by sitting legislatures. For, once the act had been committed--for example, a UDI or the purported replacement of the lawful constitution by a new one with different provisions through a coup exploiting the PEOPLE and phony "democracy" to mask that coup--then that Court then faces the prospect of a loss of its own powers UNDER the LAWFUL constitution.
Not only Zelaya, but the COURTS of Honduras, draw their power from the Constitution. If Zelaya were to unlawfully replace the existing constitution with a new one of his own devising, which would occur even with a single alteration of a kind prohibited by the existing constitution, this would challenge the very authority and existence of the Honduras SUPREME COURT. It would be in CONTEMPT of that Court and of all Courts in Honduras that may be derived from the Constitution, because Zelaya would have REMOVED the constitution from which those Courts derive their power.
That is a COUP.
Zelaya, if he replaced the Constitution, could then challenge the Courts, declaring them the "creatures" (word used in law) of the defunct constitution he himself had overthrown. And then, instead of the Courts ordering the arrest of Zelaya for his attempted COUP on the constitution, you would have Zelaya sending the military to remove the guardians of the true Constitution, the lawful courts.
Zelaya's recent acts attempting to get public approval for his overthrow of Constitutional prohibitions has challenged the very existence and validity of the existing courts of Honduras, necessarily threatening to strip them of the source of their lawful power.
The world press and media are upholding a TYRANT against the Supreme Court of Honduras, and against the lawful interim government who are courageously defending the fledgling Honduran democracy.
Moreover, the United Nations was formed to deal with international law, not to invade domestic Constitutional law. To permit the United Nations and its member states to invade the domestic Constitutional sphere of a sovereign nation, and to use pressure tactics to overthrow the lawful conclusions of a Supreme Court which alone has a right and duty to interpret that nation's domestic law, is a form of tyranny which seeks to impose de facto rule of the UN over sovereign domestic law and cannot be allowed to be a precedent.
The Honduran Supreme Court and every Supreme Court of every sovereign nation should pronounce, proprio motu, that the actions of the international community and of the United Nations in this case were and are clear sedition, ultra vires (without jurisdiction), and a criminal assault on the sovereignty of Honduras and on the Supreme Court of that nation.
A final note: if I were a citizen of Honduras, I would immediately visit a competent court to launch ouster proceedings against Zelaya if he attempts to resume (usurp) office, and I would do this on the grounds (i) that I have a democratic right to a lawful government under a lawful Constitution; and (ii) that Zelaya was self-discharged from office by PUBLICLY AND OBJECTIVELY DEMONSTRABLY perjuring his oaths of office and allegiance under the existing Constitution.
No "pledge" of Mr. Zelaya has the power to rehabilitate him from HIS very demonstrable intent to exceed the limits of Honduras' constitution, i.e., from perjury and from treason. Where an officer under a constitution attempts to use the people to give him power the Constitution prohibits, such as by recruiting them to a referendum, he is perpetrating SEDITION against the Constitution. Where there is no power in law to do an act, it is SEDITIOUS to rally the citizens against the law.
Neither can pressure from the United Nations, nor the USA, nor the international community to reinstate Mr. Zelaya, rehabilitate him from his own perjury and treason. To purport to reinstate him under a perjured oath would be not only be an act of outrageous arbitrariness, contrary to true democracy and the Rule of Law, but an act in utter contempt of the Supreme Court of Honduras.
In order to begin to understand why Zelaya's attempt to call a referendum was NOT DEMOCRACY IN ACTION, I urge you to read this article on REFERENDUMS:
Source: Don Rowat, Nos référendums ne sont pas de la démocratie directe, 26 Revue Parlementaire Canadienne, Vol. 21, No 3, Automne 1998
Same article in English: Don Rowat, Our Referendums are not Direct Democracy, 26 Canadian Parliamentary Review, Vol. 21, No. 3, Autumn 1998
And then read this excellent FRENCH article:
"Sur le caractère anti-démocratique du référendum -... " which makes the following astute observation:
"En réalité, le référendum après la massification de la démocratie, représente une procédure qui permet au système d'utiliser la masse de la population pour valider une décision qui a déjà été prise. Sans la connaissance profonde du sujet la masse est manipulée via des moyens médiologiques pour aller dans le sens du système tout en étant persuadée d'avoir eu le dernier mot dans le choix."
"In reality, the referendum, after the massification of democracy, represents a procedure which allows the system to use the people to validate a decision which has already been taken. Without profound knowledge of the subject, the mass is manipulated by means of the mass media to go where the system wants it to go, while all along being persuaded that it is they (the mass of men) who have had the last word in the choice."
Right to the present moment, the world's press and mass media have precisely aided Zelaya and his intended coup, first by manipulating the uninformed masses to believe that there was a "military" coup in Honduras, whereas it was a constitutional coup by Zelaya himself, being lawfully apprehended by the Supreme Court.
Secondly, the mass media have obediently regurgitated disinformation and misinformation encouraging the world to mistake this lawful act on sovereign Honduran soil as the coup, and the coup as the lawful act.
Thirdly, it is obvious that ZELAYA had already decided to extend his term; the people were not to be "democratically" consulted, they were to be manipulated into believing they had the choice, they had the final word, when in fact they were simply being ABUSED by Zelaya in a bid to conceal his own lust for prohibited power.
If blood is spilled in Honduras after all these weeks of contemptuous disinformation by CNN, REUTERS, and other outlets of the world press and media, it will be the world press and media themselves who are responsible for the senseless overthrow of a lawful constitution, and for an outrageous war of sedition against a lawful Constitution of a sovereign nation, thus undermining the Rule of Law and urging the Honduran people to utterly unnecessary violence.
I wish to express all my best wishes to the people of Honduras for their safety, peace and wellbeing, and for their safeguard of the true sovereignty of their country.
It is extremely important that all Hondurans clearly understand the vital role of their own Supreme Court as the guardians of their Constitution, and that the people be unified and not divided against each other on this point, as all are fellow citizens of the same great nation.
What prompted me to write this blog?
For nearly four decades now, Canadians have been in the midst of a coup on their own Constitution, with phony referendums "to secede" held in the Province of Quebec in 1980 and again in 1995 by Ian-Smith types attempting to replace the Canadian Confederation of 1867 with the European Union system which gradually sucks the sovereignty out of member states, pumping it up to a non-elected and non-accountable level.
Canadians have been seditiously deceived and urged to "democratically" give the tyrants permission to replace the Constitution under which they were elected, just as Zelaya so recently attempted to do in Honduras.
In Canada, the legislative powers are divided between the general central (i.e. federal) government and the provinces. In 1867, the provincial powers were deliberately limited to a strict list, with the addition of a residual power for purely local purposes. A province has no power to take any measures not already provided for in the existing Constitution, by the existing limited or "enumerated" (legal word) list conferred at section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867.
There is no power to secede under section 92; that means there is no power to take any steps to secede, including asking the people in a referendum if they would like to authorize those detaining provincial government to secede, whether by UDI or on terms. As a consequence, both referendums in Quebec, in 1980 and in 1995, were unlawful, and there being no power to secede, they constituted sedition designed to turn French-speaking and English-speaking people against one another.
The Constitution of Canada was very specifically designed in 1867 to prevent a repeat in Canada of the bloody slaughter of half a million Americans by their own fellow citizens in a war of secession that had run from 1861 to 1864. Much like the Hondurans who have never had a fratricidal war, the founding fathers of the Constitution of Canada saw to an air-tight Constitution in 1867, intent upon a permanent and peaceful union, and friendship among all our citizens.
Those who are seeking the abolition of nations, and the concentration of all power in the hands of a supranational few, know that at international law the obligatory concept of jus cogens involves a co-terminous pair of co-terminous factors: for "self-determination" goes hand-in-hand with "permanent sovereignty over natural resources".
It is my sneaking suspicion that the "self-determination" too conveniently sought by Quebec, as a precedent for all of Canada's Provinces to unlawfully secede, is precisely aimed at transferring permanent sovereignty over resources into provincial hands where they can be then yielded up by our national traitors to the incoming world government.
Moreover, those detaining the presidency of the United States of America as proxies for the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and other nodes in that supranational network, plan to seize and annex Canada's land, people and resources by 2010, or thereabouts. The phony referendums in Quebec to "secede" are merely the scam to help pull it off. For it was intended decades ago, and the attempt having failed twice, there is no doubt in my mind that a third phony referendum is in the offing. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is waiting with his arms wide to receive the balkanized remains of Canada into North American Union. Indeed, the plan is found online. Simply visit: http://www.habeascorpuscanada.com/ for links to all the documents.
God bless Canada. And God bless our fellow travellers in sovereign Honduras.
Montreal, Canada - Note: this post was updated on the evening of 22 July 2009 and may be edited again in future.
* * *
Friday, 24 July 2009 - Montreal @ 12h54 noon -
NOTICE TO PRESS AND MEDIA:
I understand from comments left at my above post entitled It's NOT a "military" coup !!! that someone has been transmitting this blog to the Honduran press and media. I am delighted if anyone finds this information helpful. And in that respect, I wish to point out, the information in my blog is provided only in an anecdotal context and not as formal legal advice. It is up to the Honduran people themselves to secure pertinent formal legal advice.
The purpose of this present Notice is to hereby authorize the Honduran press and media to quote from this blog, including to quote the entirety or any part of It's NOT a "military" coup !!! on three simple conditions: (1) the English text is attributed to me, Kathleen Moore, in Montreal, Canada; (2) the blog address is given to accompany such quotation; and (3) it is published as anecdotal information, not as formal legal advice.
The whole with my sincere best wishes to the people of Honduras.
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
P.S. If anyone would like to translate It's NOT a "military" coup !!!, I would be happy to post the translation at this blog, as well. Just leave me a comment to that effect, and I'll arrange to get the translation from you. KM