Apparently Forbes published a counter-argument to the CRS report arguing for the Micheletti government. A few things occur to me -
(1) The Honduran Constitution (and state of Constitutional jurisprudence) looks like a hot mess.
(2) The CRS report is not the only analysis reaching that assessment.
(3) The Honduran Supreme Court can strike down measures in the Constitution (Article 218, section 9 specifically)???
(4) If the striking of Article 218 Section 9 (granting the Congress the authority to interpret the Constitution) was legitimate, then the Court has amazingly broad authority to, well, pretty much do as it pleases.
(4a) If the striking of said provision was not legitimate, then the Congress retains that authority and could rightfully act upon it.
(5) The Court and the Congress were aligned on this, so whoever had the power to interpret and enforce the provisions of the Constitution, the relevant party was on board.
(6) The Honduran court cited US precedent? (Marbury v Madison) -to strike down a provision of the Constitution?? This is why conservatives don't like the introduction of foreign legal reasoning into US Constitutional jurisprudence.
But back to the TPM blogger, handle "neoboho":
The Report, CRS LL File No. 2009-002965, was requested by Republican Aaron Schock, one of the group of U.S. legislators who recently visited Honduras in order to undermine official Obama Administration policy on the Honduran coup d'etat. [...] The question lingers: do we have here a case of incompetence within the Law Library of Congress, or do we have a case of intentional disinformation, a species of propaganda?
"Undermine" Obama policy? Wow, there's a list of "undermining" efforts from the left as long as my arm.... Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria for starters...
Incompetence or malice? No chance CRS could be right, eh? The Forbes bit is interesting, but not fully persuasive.
Back to the Forbes bit for the conclusion:
By embracing these weak rationalizations, the Law Library of Congress has rendered itself complicit in the illegal acts of an authoritarian and undemocratic regime.
And that's where they lose me. For all the aforementioned hot mess, you have two sides: One is a Chavez-ista unconstitutionally prepping the way for his lifetime Presidency, and the other side is just about literally everybody else, Congress, Court, military, who clearly made some mistakes (as just about anybody has acknowledged), but are holding elections in November which do not include interim President Micheletti.
As to who best represents "authoritarian and undemocratic", I'm looking at Zelaya, not the guys holding an election.