This is interesting, exploring the US Law Library of Congress analysis  on the goings-on in Honduras:

In other words, far from fitting the administration’s description as a “coup d’état,” the report paints Zelaya’s removal as remarkably orderly and legalistic, especially in a region where the rule of law is so tenuous.

The Obama administration’s position, predicated on its hasty conclusion that Zelaya’s removal was illegal, now appears squarely contradicted by the only known official analysis of the constitutional issues involved.

The State Department too has, it seems, also opined. So can we see that, please?

The Honduran government has made numerous missteps, from forcibly removing Zelaya from the country to restricting press freedoms, but I have yet to see a legal analysis to plausibly explain how Zelaya’s removal from office (as opposed to his forced exile) was illegal or unconstitutional, and I have seen no analysis, legal or otherwise, that explains why the already scheduled November elections should not proceed as planned.

Sounds good to me. Let the Honduran masses decide!