The Ukraine impeachment was unconstituional - Why is this ignored

[TheRealnz]

In regards to my post with Uke I have noticed this issue is absent from the conversation from "pro-west" posters here who simply sidestep it at any cost.

Why did the rest of the delegates not show up for the vote? Intimidated? Kept from showing? Afraid?

It's hardly the first time a parliament was manipulated by force.

No, this is actually a fact. I am not grasping at nothing because the fact is they required another 10 votes to remove him. They didn't have the necessary votes to remove him. The vote did not uphold to the constitutional guidelines and required a 338 vote. That is a fact, that is how it is per constitution. It was a coup.

"But a legal gap remains. According to the terms of an EU-brokered peace deal finalized on February 21, Yanukovych was due to sign a measure returning Ukraine to its 2004 constitution.

Yanukovych, however, failed to sign the measure. The omission appears to leave Kyiv in the kind of legal limbo that may prove fodder for future arguments against the current government transition.

The 1996 and the 2004 constitutions are uniform when it comes to the reasons for removing a president, with Article 111 stating the parliament has the right to initiate a procedure of impeachment "if he commits treason or other crime."



http://www.rferl.org/content/was-yan.../25274346.html

Now look at Ukraine's constitution here, article 108-112 - http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/chapter05.html

Under Articles 108-112 of Ukraine’s constitution you can see there are 4 ways the president may leave office during his tenure: resignation (he did not), inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons; (he is fit and healthy), death (he is alive), and impeachment. You can see for yourself in article 111 that impeachment must follow a proper procedure: Parliament must vote to impeach and then convene a committee to investigate. That committee must investigate and report back to parliament, which must then vote to bring charges.

This did not happen, Yanukovych was illegally removed from office.

As for him apparently abandoning his post, this doesn't actually matter the only way he can give up his post is to personally announce his resignation to parliament. This did not happen.


Actually I questioned the legitimately of pretty much everything.

Finally there is nothing Europe can really do to Russia which will be of any significance. The US will more likely be harsher...Europe however won't come to any agreement because Europe needs Russia, namely the Germans. Putin doesn't give a **** about being out of the G8. In addition to that Putin has played his hand, he'll probably cause further instability in Ukraine but he has no interests in making East Ukraine apart of Russia. The Crimea is very important to Russia and they cannot afford to give it up. Putin has the support of BRIC's and as a result of the west being hostile towards Russia, Putin is going to open up deeper trade with Iran violating sanctions in place. Fun times ahead.
.

 

[marplots]

OK, it wasn't legitimate and I didn't ignore it. Now what?

Is this going to turn into one of those perennial historical beefs about legitimacy, of the type the Palestinians are always on about?

I need a sign. "Government is like Soylent Green - IT'S MADE OUT OF PEOPLE!!"

 

[angrysoba]

To be honest, the main question for me was that this was some "Western coup", but it was not - it was a Ukrainian affair whether or not it was conducted by Ukraine's parliament by the book.

It may well have not been, but how is it acceptable for Putin to rush in on behalf of Ukraine's constitution. And you may note that Yanukovych has not been reinstalled by Putin anyway.

So what exactly is your point regarding the constitutionality of Yanukovych's impeachment anyway?

 

[McHrozni]

Ask Yanukovich. If he thinks he's been removed illegaly, he's free to challenge it in court.

I suspect he won't do so. He'll likely be charged with high treason, which is probably why this is being allowed to stand.

In any event, this is purely internal Ukrainian matter. Putin himself has set ample precendent in many places that it is completely acceptable to ignore any and all abuses of law and human right violations in a country, as long as it keeps it to itself.

McHrozni

 

[PhantomWolf]

If ordering police and soldiers to open fire with live ammo on protesters isn't a reason for impeachment, I'm not sure what is....

 

[Caustic Logic]

If ordering police and soldiers to open fire with live ammo on protesters isn't a reason for impeachment, I'm not sure what is....

It's not. At least not a constitutional one.

The constitution is tricky though - there was a 2004 one that DID allow impeachment, and a 2011 one in effect. Yanukovych offered to revert to the old one in the agreement of the 21st, but the opposition went back on that and demanded total regime change then. Partly because of the snipers. It seems the trick here was removing him AS IF the 2004 constitution were in effect, then having Parliament vote it that way. Or something like that.

Arguably, Yanukovych is still the legal president, but facts on the ground supersede the law either way. If he can't rule because he's in exile if fear for his life, then he won't rule. Deserved or not, legal or not.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

In regards to my post with Uke I have noticed this issue is absent from the conversation from "pro-west" posters here who simply sidestep it at any cost.

There are 2 things you should bear in mind.

The first is that whether or not Yanukovych was impeached according to the letter of the law is irrelevant. What matters is the facts on the ground.
If you want to argue over legal details you might as well go back and ask whether Yanukovych was ever legally elected in the first place. That's dubious but it doesn't matter.

The other thing is that few people care for the details of constitutional laws of other countries. What matters to people, at least westerners, is whether there is democratic legitimacy. That this is given cannot be honestly denied, given that the vote to impeach was unanimous with well over 70% of the parliament present.

 

[Garrison]

There are 2 things you should bear in mind.

The first is that whether or not Yanukovych was impeached according to the letter of the law is irrelevant. What matters is the facts on the ground.
If you want to argue over legal details you might as well go back and ask whether Yanukovych was ever legally elected in the first place. That's dubious but it doesn't matter.

The other thing is that few people care for the details of constitutional laws of other countries. What matters to people, at least westerners, is whether there is democratic legitimacy. That this is given cannot be honestly denied, given that the vote to impeach was unanimous with well over 70% of the parliament present.

Of course this won't stop certain people denouncing it as being done at gunpoint while insisting the Crimea referendum was the will of the people...

 

[marplots]

Rule of law is great, except when it isn't.

 

[uke2se]

There are 2 things you should bear in mind.

The first is that whether or not Yanukovych was impeached according to the letter of the law is irrelevant. What matters is the facts on the ground.
If you want to argue over legal details you might as well go back and ask whether Yanukovych was ever legally elected in the first place. That's dubious but it doesn't matter.

The other thing is that few people care for the details of constitutional laws of other countries. What matters to people, at least westerners, is whether there is democratic legitimacy. That this is given cannot be honestly denied, given that the vote to impeach was unanimous with well over 70% of the parliament present.

Thanks, GnaGnaMan. Saved me the trouble.

Won't stop the dictator-lovers from crying "but... but... ten votes..."

 

[dudalb]

I note the OP seems to very legalistic when it comes to the Ukrainian government, but when Putin throws aside international law he 100% supports Putin.

 

[timhau]

I note the OP seems to very legalistic when it comes to the Ukrainian government, but when Putin throws aside international law he 100% supports Putin.

Hey, all they cool edgy kids do that.

 

[TheRealnz]

Thanks, GnaGnaMan. Saved me the trouble.

Won't stop the dictator-lovers from crying "but... but... ten votes..."

So wait...now you've shifted the goal posts and dressed your argument in a different manner. Now was is suddenly irrelevant.

Here are some facts
Yankkovych was legally elected. The elections were praised as free and fair. Nothing dubious about it. It was a democratically legitimate government. It was overthrown in an illegal manner. This internal matter has been interfered with on both sides since day one. Don't believe me?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...behind-ukraine

A leaked recording of a telephone conversation allegedly between US assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland and the US envoy to the Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should be in Ukraine's next government has, according to The FT, threatened to fuel east-west tensions over the troubled nation's future. In apparent frustration with the EU – which has failed to join the US in threatening sanctions against Ukraine’s leaders if they violently crush the protests – the voice resembling Ms Nuland at one point exclaims "**** the EU". As the two US diplomats decide whether "Klitsch" or "Yats" should be 'in' or 'out', listeners will be reminded (uncomfortably) that the governments of Ukraine and Russia previously alleged that the protests are being funded and orchestrated by the US....

“I think Yats [Yatsenyuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience,” Nuland says. “What he needs is Klitsch [Klitschko] and [Oleh] Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in, he’s going to be at that level, working for Yatsenyuk, it’s just not going to work.”

Pyatt agrees.

“Let me work on Klitschko,” he can be heard saying, “and I think we should get a Western personality to come out here (to Ukraine) and midwife this thing.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSxaa-67yGM

 

[TheRealnz]

If ordering police and soldiers to open fire with live ammo on protesters isn't a reason for impeachment, I'm not sure what is....

Whoops.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...l-9171328.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...-reveals-truth

Paet: "All the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides. ... Some photos that showed it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it is really disturbing that now the new coalition they don't want to investigate what exactly happened. So there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition."

Ashton: "I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh."

Paet: "It already discreditates (sic) this new coalition."

What was that about about opening fire with live ammo on protesters?

 

[LSSBB]

Whoops.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...l-9171328.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...-reveals-truth

Paet: "All the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides. ... Some photos that showed it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it is really disturbing that now the new coalition they don't want to investigate what exactly happened. So there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition."

Ashton: "I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh."

Paet: "It already discreditates (sic) this new coalition."

What was that about about opening fire with live ammo on protesters?

Sniper conspiracy theory discussed here: link.

 

[uke2se]

Here are some facts
Yankkovych was legally elected. The elections were praised as free and fair.

Where they? Please provide evidence for this assertion. Or are you saying Putin praised them as free and fair?

Nothing dubious about it.

On the contrary.

It was a democratically legitimate government. It was overthrown in an illegal manner.

The president was overthrown by a popular rebellion.

This internal matter has been interfered with on both sides since day one.

By Russia. The West has done precious little to help the Ukrainians. Hopefully that's about to change.

Don't believe me?

No, I really don't, no matter how many youtubes you post.

 

[Seismosaurus]

And the American revolution was illegal.

Your point being?

 

[LSSBB]

And the American revolution was illegal.

Your point being?

I was just thinking the same thing. For some reason, I can't think of a single legal revolution in any country, including... Russia!