Grant Martin of the Kansas City Star sums up the situation in a quick paragraph:
"Just in case you've turned your TV News off because you were tired of MJ stories- Honduras' president supposedly wanted to change the Constitution and serve for more years than allowed, the Supreme Court and Congress ruled that as illegal, he tried to hold a referendum, the Army refused, he fired the Army chief, the Supreme Court told him to reinstate the chief, he refused and had some group raid the warehouse that stored the referendum ballots, and so the Supreme Court ordered the military to arrest him and send him packing."
Zelaya did more than have "some group" raid the warehouse. On June 26, he issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the referendum. Except the referendum can't change the constitution. Octavio Sanchez explains why this stripped him of his office:
"According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."
The direct purpose of this provision, which has been in place for 27 years, is to prevent the kind of "creeping dictatorship" so familiar in Latin America, from the left and the right. Honduras' Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest per that provision, and the Army carried out that function within Honduras' constitution. Who is currently serving as President? Roberto Micheletti, a member of Zelaya's own party, and head of Honduras' Congress. Who is constitutionally next in line after the President (stripped of office) and VP (resigned to run for President). That doesn't look anything like a coup to me. It looks like the rule of law.
Honduras has certainly had a long history of American intervention. Indeed, every single historical argument one could advance for a "soft approach" in Iran, applies here with more force. Coupled with the fact that this is a country following its constitution rather than a theocratic cadre brazenly stealing an election, it should be a no-brainer. But of course, Obama is uninterested in consistency - or perhaps he is.
In his role as an enabler to dictators and their allies, he's been absolutely consistent.