Prof Fishel - Is there a better source for the Honduran Constitution out there than the Google translation of the Georgetown link here?

Recent US policy toward Latin America has had as a major focus trying to instill real checks and balances to overwhelming presidential power by strengthening the Congress and Courts and developing a civil service especially in defense matters to balance the power and expertise of the armed forces. The POTUS response flies in the face of this policy which dates back well into the Clinton years and even earlier. It also is a case of getting on a bandwagon of international agencies and regional governments who either don't know what is going on or have their own agendas some of which are clearly anti-constitutional even if they are not prima facie anti-democratic. Sadly, they are, in fact, anti democratic in such cases as that of Lt. Col. (cashiered and jailed for his attempted coup against CAP) Hugo Chavez.
I disagree with much of what you wrote here. Combating overweening presidential power, for instance, does not track with what the U.S. has done vice the Uribe government in Colombia or the Fox and Calderon governments in Mexico. As for bandwaggoning with "international agencies" or "regional governments", I suppose that's a pretty crowded bandwagon we're jumping on --- to include the aforementioned Uribe and Calderon governments and noted Chavez-style leftists as Stephen Harper from Canada.

As far as legal parsing goes, the Administration has not come to an actual legal judgment on this as a coup, which would trigger an immediate cutoff of military aid.

Clinton told reporters that the situation in Honduras had "evolved into a coup" but that the United States was "withholding any formal legal determination" characterizing it that way.

"We're assessing what the final outcome of these actions will be," she said. "Much of our assistance is conditioned on the integrity of the democratic system. But if we were able to get to a status quo that returned to the rule of law and constitutional order within a relatively short period of time, I think that would be a good outcome."
Not sure why people here seem to interpret the Administration's response as taking sides with Chavez, when all it has done it what is essentially required to do given the military's actions --- much less interference in the country's affairs, given that if it really was its intent, the Administration has far more levers to push than what it has done so far.

As for what the Administration is actually trying to do:

But the Obama administration has had cool relations with Zelaya, a close ally of Venezuela's anti-American president, Hugo Chávez. While U.S. officials say they continue to recognize Zelaya as president, they have not indicated they are willing to use the enormous U.S. clout in the country to force his return.

Asked whether it was a U.S. priority to see Zelaya reinstalled, Clinton said: "We haven't laid out any demands that we're insisting on, because we're working with others on behalf of our ultimate objectives."

John D. Negroponte, a former senior State Department official and ambassador to Honduras, said Clinton's remarks appeared to reflect U.S. reluctance to see Zelaya returned unconditionally to power.

"I think she wants to preserve some leverage to try and get Zelaya to back down from his insistence on a referendum," he said.
Which appears to be bearing fruit:

Zelaya backed down from the referendum on Tuesday, saying at the United Nations that he would no longer push for the constitutional changes he had wanted.

"I'm not going to hold a constitutional assembly," he said. "And if I'm offered the chance to stay in power, I won't. I'm going to serve my four years."

He said he would then go back to being a farmer — a humble description considering the wealth he has accumulated in ranching and agribusiness.

"I come from the countryside and I'm going to go back to the countryside," he said.

Since we live in a period of interventionism, non-interventionist principles are interpreted and implemented in a very different manner than the drafters intended - or, are simply ignored, as appears to be the present case.
Seems a bit odd to call diplomacy "intervention."

You listed four incidents of "shutdown of opposition media." You can call that suppression if you wish but three of them look more like idle harassment to me. The fourth, the two TV stations; no indication if they actually did go off the air and / or are off the air at this time. I don't think you have much of a case for shutdown and none has been made that the media discussed is 'opposition' -- merely that it was reporting things someone decided would be better not reported. However, it doesn't look like they were really very serious about it...
Given both the history of the Honduran military and the fact that it just dragged the President out of his own bed and bundled him out of the country, I think the media could be forgiven for being intimidated by threats from the men with guns. Sure, it would certainly look worse if they simply shot up the offices or beat them up, but I think if police or military members showed up to NBC or Fox News studios with similar "idle harassment", we'd call it what it was: government intimidation and suppression.