Octavio Sánchez, formerly Honduran minister of culture, explains what the Honduran constitution actually says about Zelaya:
Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.
These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the “Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly.” In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.
Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an “opinion poll” about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.
Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. 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 [emphasis added], 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.”
Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says “immediately” – as in “instant,” as in “no trial required,” as in “no impeachment needed.”
Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America’s authoritarian tradition. The Constitution’s provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.
(Via Power Line.)
I’ve looked up article 239 on-line and this is accurate. As it is undisputed that Zelaya did indeed propose to change the law to allow himself a second term, this resolves the question conclusively.
UPDATE: In case one had any lingering questions about whether the army’s action was legal, it turns out that article 313 of the Honduran constitution empowers the supreme court to use the military to carry out its rulings. So that’s that. (Via Instapundit.)
Internet Scofflaw 
There is the small matter that the Honduran Supreme Court decision never actually referenced Article 239, let alone charged that Zelaya had violated it. This is probably because there was absolutely no evidence that this was Zelaya’s intention, let alone that the generic non-binding poll had specifically violated that provision.
Interesting link. I don’t read Spanish, so I’ll have to take that linked page’s word for what the Supreme Court decision said. But taking it at face value, I don’t see how it helps Zelaya, since it shows that there was legal justification to detain Zelaya even without invoking 239. And, it’s still the case that the Supreme Court has authority (under 313) to enforce its decision.
And by the way, it’s laughable to suggest that Zelaya wasn’t trying to arrange himself a chance at re-election.
[…] The Obama administration is trying to force Honduras to welcome this Marxist creep back to his position of power because “he was Democratically elected”, which no one disputes. And oh. He was taken away by government forces in the dead of night in his PJs. Big whoop. Like that’s a bad thing, considering what he had been doing to the country, and the illegal sham he was trying to perpetrate. […]
Answering the uniformed post by av2ts…
From the UK Guardian (in which ‘COUP’ is profusely used) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/29/manuel-zelaya-honduras-coup-protests
[quote]
Last week, Zelaya tried to fire the armed forces chief, General Romeo Vasquez, in a dispute over an attempt to hold an unofficial referendum about changing the constitution to allow presidential terms beyond a single, four-year stretch.
Under the constitution as it stands, Zelaya would have been due to leave office in early 2010.
The supreme court, which last week ordered him to reinstate Vasquez, said yesterday it had told the army to remove the president.
[unquote]
Of course, I don’t really expect av2ts to admit there was more than ample evidence of Zelaya’s intention, even if the evidence is supplied by one who shamefully and falsely labeled the action of the Honduran military as a “coup”, rather than a Constitutional action directed by the Honduran Supreme Court.