Suppose, from a purely hypothetical standpoint, the crisis in Honduras was mimicked in the United States? A fictional American president, lacking the votes in Congress and the judicial nod from the Supreme Court, circumvents the constitutional process and holds an illegal national referendum to repeal the 22nd Amendment -- thus infinitely extending his potential for reelection.
The obvious legislative differences between the United States and Honduras aside, reactions would be nearly identical. Members of the Armed Forces take a solemn oath to "support and defend the Constitution," not to a specific individual. The oath further specifies an obligation to defend the Constitution and the Republic against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." This was a revolutionary concept back in the 18th century, when most of the dominant European armies mandated an oath of loyalty to their respective monarch, though it's wholly in line with the clear Platonist distinction between an organized, functional republic and the chaos of pure democracy. An American military coup in a similar Honduran scenario, against the tyranny of the majority, wouldn't just be likely -- it would be the obligation of every serviceman who swore to uphold the rule of law.
The Honduran military coup -- if it even fits that definition -- has separated itself from its South and Central American cousins in that it's one of those rare occasions when the military stands to deny, not support, the aspirations of a dictator-in-waiting. No junta has or will be formed, and a new election is forthcoming. Not only was Honduras' action legal, it stands as a model for how a republic steels itself against internal subjugation. When you theoretically transplant that very same scenario to the United States, it's nothing less than shameful that the Obama administration has failed to recognize the very same standards to which its own troops are bound.
