What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?

[missAmeno]

The bottom line is, Ukraine, the country *we* know today, didn't become a country/nation/republic until the early 1900s. So, what is a country? You'd be amazed at the many definition of the word but one of the more constant definition will be 'with distinct territorial boundaries and/or political geography'.

That depends on whose version of our history you read. If you read Russian version then of course today's 'Ukraine' is nothing more than Little Russia. Just that version unable to cover all historical facts doesn't matter how hard you try.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Delineatio_generalis_Camporum_Desertorum_vulgo_Ukraina_%281648%29.jpg

Even my hometown is on that map.

History channel: Moscow was founded by Kievan Grand Prince  Yuri Dolgoruki in XII c.
We have no objections if Grand Prince of Russia and Ukraine will reside back in Kiev again.

Hilarious! You forgot to mention that Kiev exist since 5th century.

[Anotherkiwi]

So the point was, Ukraine elected a president fairly and legally. Which means that whoever became president represented the *majority will* of Ukrainians in Ukraine - regardless of ethnicity. Thus the president represented the *will of the people*. Whether Yanu was pro-Russian or not was never an issue until they found gas in Ukraine late 2012-2013 and the west started meddling around the country's internal affairs.

OK, I think we can all accept that Yanukovych was elected "fairly and legally," so the rest of this paragraph would logically follow.

Yanu decided to align with Russia instead of the west and brokered a deal. Considering he's the duly elected president, the power was given to him to decide for the people by proxy. He decided to go with Russia and next thing you know, there's a protest.

Where's your proof (citation please) that this is legal?  Is it written in the Ukrainian constitution (the earlier version - 2004? - not the one that Yanukovych rewrote himself) that the President may make totally unilateral decisions, without reference to the actual Government?  This is the action of a dictator, not a "duly elected" President.

Then the ensuing illegal ousting of the country's leader...Even then, by Ukraine's constitution, they didn't meet the required 2/3 to impeach - fell ten votes short 328 from the required 338.

You must have been tired when you wrote this - it's 3/4, not 2/3.  Also, if you go back a few pages, you'll see the reference that was made about the vote being required only to be 3/4 of those on active duty at the time (i.e. those who have been granted leave of absence are deducted from the total membership of 450).  Therefore, if this is in fact correct, and there were 437 or fewer members present and working, 328 votes is enough to carry the motion.

and bwalla, a nicely packaged crisis.

Can't you spell "voila?"

[Muzh]

Or how about a more positive spin such as....

Heh Misha, good post!   

It's much more pleasant to read and much less
assumptive.

Are you being a libtard and are telling me what I should do or say?

[Muzh]

If Ukraine becomes a federation, that should be considered a victory for both sides. 


Fathertime!

Heh
 
More passive-aggressive ignorant statements.
 
Please do tell how having federal states in Ukraine that respond to Russia is a win-win for Ukarine.
 
Are you familiar with the zero-sum game? Obviously not.
 
However, if you do know this game, it just shows once again of your passive-aggressiveness.
 
It's like dealing with a child.

[fathertime]

Or how about a more positive spin such as....

Heh Misha, good post!   

It's much more pleasant to read and much less
assumptive.

You must not forget CM in Muzh case It is like you are dealing with a angry child seeking attention through aggression…


Fathertime! 

[fathertime]

Heh
 
More passive-aggressive ignorant statements.
 
Please do tell how having federal states in Ukraine that respond to Russia is a win-win for Ukarine.
 
Are you familiar with the zero-sum game? Obviously not.
 
However, if you do know this game, it just shows once again of your passive-aggressiveness.
 
It's like dealing with a child.

Given how your 'sage' predictions were so far off every step of the way…I’d say who the hell cares about some silly book or concept that you see as being so all-important?  Despite your angry whining’s…Russia has a lot of control in the situation, and it is doubtful that will change much.  A federation with parts of Ukraine leaning towards Russia and other parts leaning towards the west seems like a reasonable solution. If you don't like it, that won't be enough to stop it from happening.    [size=78%]  [/size]



Fathertime!

[Muzh]

Given how your 'sage' predictions were so far off every step of the way…I’d say who the hell cares about some silly book or concept that you see as being so all-important?  Despite your angry whining’s…Russia has a lot of control in the situation, and it is doubtful that will change much.  A federation with parts of Ukraine leaning towards Russia and other parts leaning towards the west seems like a reasonable solution. If you don't like it, that won't be enough to stop it from happening.    [size=78%]  [/size]



Fathertime!

I didn't mean to get you all riled up because of your ignorance. That can be cured. 
 
Here's wiki definition of the zero-sum. It is really easy to understand.
 
BTW, what is your purpose on a former Soyuz Women forum? Are you leaving your chiquita for a Rus babe? Seriously, why are you on this forum?
 
I'll keep asking you this question and hopefully you will honor me with an answer.
 
The irony is that I'm latino and you don't see me going to your latino forums, if you ever go there I donn't know, and tell youse how fcuked up things are in Latin America and how the US should stop the charade and absorb the whole continent as a win-win situation. I'm pretty sure many out there would definitely see it as a win-win. Definitely more latinos welcoming the US than Ukrainians welcoming Russians.

[Muzh]

Russia Controls the Situation

[Belvis]

You must have been tired when you wrote this - it's 3/4, not 2/3.  Also, if you go back a few pages, you'll see the reference that was made about the vote being required only to be 3/4 of those on active duty at the time (i.e. those who have been granted leave of absence are deducted from the total membership of 450).  Therefore, if this is in fact correct, and there were 437 or fewer members present and working, 328 votes is enough to carry the motion.

Why don't you read Constitution before enter into the dispute?
2/3 or 3/4 can be easily confused in the impeachment procedure, because both are counted. Active duty votes for impeachment is your pure assumption or uneducated guess? O.K., I'll cite the Constitution:

 

The issue of the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is initiated by the majority of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

To conduct the investigation, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine establishes a special temporary investigatory commission whose composition includes a special procurator and special investigators.

The conclusions and proposals of the temporary investigatory commission are considered at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

For cause, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, by no less than two-thirds of its constitutional composition, adopts a decision on the accusation of the President of Ukraine.

The decision on the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition, after the review of the case by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the receipt of its opinion on the observance of the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration of the case of impeachment, and the receipt of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to the effect that the acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of state treason or other crime.

[Muzh]

Why don't you read Constitution before enter into the dispute?
2/3 or 3/4 can be easily confused in the impeachment procedure, because both are counted. Active duty votes for impeachment is your pure assumption or uneducated guess? O.K., I'll cite the Constitution:

The issue of the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is initiated by the majority of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

To conduct the investigation, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine establishes a special temporary investigatory commission whose composition includes a special procurator and special investigators.

The conclusions and proposals of the temporary investigatory commission are considered at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

For cause, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, by no less than two-thirds of its constitutional composition, adopts a decision on the accusation of the President of Ukraine.

The decision on the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition, after the review of the case by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the receipt of its opinion on the observance of the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration of the case of impeachment, and the receipt of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to the effect that the acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of state treason or other crime.

 
Since we are talking about constitutional compositions, you may want to read some precedence that may and can influence the above quoted by you.
 

Legal status of assemblies

In revolutionary or transitional times, the “legality” of assemblies convened according to the rules set forth in a previous constitution may be doubtful.

American commentators have argued about whether the actions of the constitutional convention were “illegal” and therefore reflected the founding of a new legal order. The French constituent assembly came into existence to raise revenue for the French king. But as the existing system fell apart, it transformed itself into a constitution-making body. Even in this, revolutionary, case, the body itself was convened by the existing authority. In some situations of constitutional crisis, or even vacuum, constitutional assemblies have been brought into being by actions of outside forces, whether in the form of occupying powers, such as the victorious countries occupying (West) Germany after World War II, or the United Nations in Cambodia [1993], or the United States in Iraq [2005]. In Vanuatu [1980], members of the various local parties formed their own constituent assembly, without any formal legal framework, and proceeded to make a constitution. It was accepted by the colonial powers (France and Britain) and became law.

The South Africans, as mentioned earlier, wanted to preserve legal continuity. So the 1993 interim constitution and the final constitution were made by and according to the procedures of the parliaments of the time.

Other assemblies have come into existence in more “normal” times, and have been formed by existing authorities for the specific purpose of making a constitution. Those authorities might be the ordinary legislative process (as in Kenya in the later 1990s) or military authorities (as in Nigeria in 1977 and 1988). In those circumstances it is perhaps easier to design a process and a structure for the assembly. But it is probably rare that a constituent assembly is formed without great pressures from contending forces, even if those forces are not at war. In fact, in less- fraught constitution-making circumstances, perhaps a special constitutional assembly is a less common way to make a constitution. Among the constitutions made or amended in recent times in noncrisis circumstances are those of Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland, where changes were made by the ordinary parliament. This may also reflect national traditions—though Switzerland’s individual cantons do sometimes use constituent assemblies to make their cantonal constitutions.

For the purposes of this handbook, we assume that the important consideration for constitutional process designers will be whether the constitution is acceptable to the nation, something that is likely to depend more on its content and the process of making it than on legalistic arguments about its foundations.
 

Constitution-Making for Peace
 

[GQBlues]

That depends on whose version of our history you read. If you read Russian version then of course today's 'Ukraine' is nothing more than Little Russia. Just that version unable to cover all historical facts doesn't matter how hard you try.

Actually no, MissA. If I actually have to rely in Ukraine's historical data, I would rely on Ukrainian's version of it. I believe Toronto's Ukrainian Genealogy Group have a great version in short form of Ukraine's historical facts.

Anyway, don't get me wrong about any of what's being debated here. I do feel for the plight of Ukrainians and wish nothing but the best for your country. I do not condone what Russia, and at least in equal measure if not more so, what the west (most specially my country) is doing in yours.

Based on a very objective views of the facts available to us today, Ukraine is being moved like a helpless pawns by those with sinister interest with your country's geopolitical location and economic resource. I feel it is too bad that it seems the general population are being manipulated like a brainless New Zealand sheep. The current transfer of leadership had gone from a corrupt politician to a corrupt politician and the population somehow believes this is progress.

[Muzh]

The current transfer of leadership had gone from a corrupt politician to a corrupt politician and the population somehow believes this is progress.

Corrupt?? Try goons and thugs.
 
However, this is exactly what Vlad the impaler has been planning all along. Now for the final act:
 

[GQBlues]

OK, I think we can all accept that Yanukovych was elected "fairly and legally," so the rest of this paragraph would logically follow...

Oh goodie! At RWD, I strive to save the world one fact at a time! 

Where's your proof (citation please) that this is legal? ...

1. Yes.

Citation

It quotes:

"...The President represents the country and government as a whole in international affairs. The President has the authority to conduct negotiations and sign treaties on behalf of the Ukrainian government. The right to recognize foreign nations rests solely with the President..... "

End quote.

Here's the Presidential Oath of Office:

Я, (ім'я та прізвище), волею народу обраний Президентом України, заступаючи на цей високий пост, урочисто присягаю на вірність Україні. Зобов'язуюсь усіма своїми справами боронити суверенітет і незалежність України, дбати про благо Вітчизни і добробут Українського народу, обстоювати права і свободи громадян, додержуватися Конституції України і законів України, виконувати свої обов'язки в інтересах усіх співвітчизників, підносити авторитет України у світі.

(let me know if you need citation for that, too OK?)

... Is it written in the Ukrainian constitution (the earlier version - 2004? - not the one that Yanukovych rewrote himself) that the President may make totally unilateral decisions, without reference to the actual Government?...

See Ukraine's Constitution 2004, Chapter V, Articles 102-112:
CITATION - just in case you're incapable.

...This is the action of a dictator, not a "duly elected" President....

FWIW, I am not surprise at all this is what you believe. It's little wonder now why there's so much noise surrounding this discussion. At least unlike another one from your lonely, mostly irrelevant corner of our world, you don't just cut/paste/spam *discussion* boards to represent them as his personal thoughts/posts.

You must have been tired when you wrote this - it's 3/4, not 2/3.  Also, if you go back a few pages, you'll see the reference that was made about the vote being required only to be 3/4 of those on active duty at the time (i.e. those who have been granted leave of absence are deducted from the total membership of 450).

CITATION

"....In order to impeach the President, *they must be convicted of treason to the state and other crimes. A two-thirds constitutional majority in the Verkhovna Rada (300 ayes) must support a procedure of impeachment for it to begin. A temporary investigative commission is established by the parliament for the impeachment investigation. The commission's final conclusions are considered at a parliamentary meeting.

To adopt an impeachment resolution, a minimum two-thirds of the parliament must support the impeachment procedure. To remove the President from office, a minimum three-quarters of parliament must support the resolution. The Constitutional and the Supreme Court of Ukraine's conclusions and decisions are considered at the parliamentary meetings....."

Ukraine's Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote to adopt a resolution to impeach the President. It then moves to the Council for voting, where it then requires 3/4 majority to uphold the resolution and turn it legally binding.

(i.e. those who have been granted leave of absence are deducted from the total membership of 450).  Therefore, if this is in fact correct, and there were 437 or fewer members present and working, 328 votes is enough to carry the motion.

"IF"? You mean you're not sure? Which Yahoo vomit did you read that from?

Citation please...LOL.

There were 447 serving members of the parliament as of February 21, 2014.

CITATION

"...As of 21 February 2014 the parliament has 447 members..."

That citation was conducted from the Parliamentary roll call #2023 on February 21, 2014. CITATION HERE

328 ayes is short of the required 3/4 to legally depose of Yanukovich as the duly and legally elected President of Ukraine. But even if they had the required number of votes to meet the constitutional requirements, the basis they used (abandonment of his position) is not in the context cited as a reason for impeachment. The baseline was unconstitutional to begin with.

Can't you spell "voila?"

You mean CAN I spell 'voila', right? But yes I can...but BWALLA sure added much drama to it, no? I knew had I used 'voila' it wouldn't piss people off like you who think they know Jack but actually know JackPhyst. LOL.

Anyway, now that I once again edookatid you, will you pass along the information to the two losers from your insignificant neck of our world.

Thanks.

*General Information:

1. The reason used for the attempted impeachment was the allegations he abandoned his presidency. Yanukovich did not abandon his office or position. While this is debatable, there never was an official documents filed in the government of Ukraine that Yanukovich did in fact resigned. But such, it doesn't fall within the Constitution of Ukraine that will cause for a resolution for a presidential impeachment.

2. Article 105:

The President of Ukraine enjoys the right of immunity during the term of authority. Persons guilty of offending the honor and dignity of the President of Ukraine are brought to responsibility on the basis of the law. The title of President of Ukraine is protected by law and is reserved for the President for life, unless the President of Ukraine has been removed from office by the procedure of impeachment (see impeachment reasons and process).

[BillyB]

Justme100,


Where have you been? Still reading here I hope. How are things going on in Crimea? Wayne, who has  a wife in Crimea, says in other threads that things aren't going so well over there. What's your opinion? Is Russia taking good care of you? How's inflation? Has prices on food and other necessities stayed the same or gone up? Are gas, water, and electricity in abundance or some people are faced with shortages?

[BillyB]

That citation was conducted from the Parliamentary roll call #2023 on February 21, 2014. CITATION HERE

328 ayes is short of the required 3/4 to legally depose of Yanukovich as the duly and legally elected President of Ukraine. But even if they had the required number of votes to meet the constitutional requirements, the basis they used (abandonment of his position) is not in the context cited as a reason for impeachment. The baseline was unconstitutional to begin with.

That citation doesn't have 328 ayes. Could you be linking the wrong citation? Maybe my online translator isn't working properly but nowhere do I see Yanukovych or president being mentioned.


P.S. Yanukovych was relieved because he wasn't fulfilling his duties, not because he's impeached over misconduct or crimes. Article 111 in the Ukrainian constitution requires 3/4 votes for impeachment. Not fulfilling duties doesn't fall under the impeachment process of Article 111.

[GQBlues]

That's the Parliamentary roll call made on February 21, 2014 BillyB as shown on the citation. Proof, they had an active member count of 447. If you're having difficulty piecing one from the other, I suggest you do your diligence. Knowing how many members were 'actually around', I'm sure you can navigate how many were present when they voted for Yanukovich's quasi-impeachment.


More related story:

Since Biden now not only promised an additional 58 million dollar of taxpayers' monies to Ukraine, he also thumped his caving 70+ year old chest towards Russia to exclaim yet another empty rhetorical ultimatum words. We now have a company-sized monthly rotating soldiers stationed in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania respectively in addition to what we already have in the Black Sea.

They made clear that their presence there is NOT NATO-related but rather bilateral infantry training and exercises in direct response to Russia's presence in Ukraine.

To which, London-based analyst James Nixey apparently applauded and is giddy about. Great.

To the US democrats: I had almost forgiven the rhetoric that Republicans start wars while Democrats end them. I won't even mention LBJ getting us in the American war in Vietnam solely on a basis of a lie. If we get implicated into this current event, a wholly meaningless and utterly insignificant event for Americans, in a place where we are NOT wanted to be meddling in, please take note.

[CanadaMan]

Are you being a libtard and are telling me what I should do or say?

Thanks for asking your question.
I will explain my post to you.

You quoted from a post Misha made a few days ago, saying:

 "Misha, noticed how your statement was totally ignored?
   Could it be that it made some sense?"

In making your statements you were making various assumptions.

For your first statement:

"Misha, noticed how your statement was totally ignored?"

Assumption 1.

 RWD members who visit the site read each and every post on a daily basis.

I can't speak for others, but I can speak for myself. I hadn't read Misha's post until after you drew my attention to it. So in my case, I couldn't possibly have agreed with his statement if I hadn't read it.
 

and,

Assumption 2.

RWD members who read Misha's post and ignored it (didn't respond to it) must have disagreed with it.

Could it possibly be that some RWD members read his post, agreed with his sentiments, but couldn't be arsed to add anything to it, or respond to it?

Are RWD members obligated to respond to every post that they agree with?



As for your second statement:

"Could it be that it made some sense?"

You were insinuating (probably sarcastically) that RWD members only respond to statements that don't make sense.

I feel insulted by such a statement.

[fathertime]

 
BTW, what is your purpose on a former Soyuz Women forum? Are you leaving your chiquita for a Rus babe? Seriously, why are you on this forum?
 
I'll keep asking you this question and hopefully you will honor me with an answer.
 

I'm not interested in 'honoring' you with an answer, because I'd rather you just keep asking, and making presumptions.  [size=78%] [/size]


You know how it goes...you get back exactly what you put in....remember 'the mirror' that you are so fond of.


Fathertime!   

[Anotherkiwi]

Marvellous - except that there's a lot of fudging going on...
 

"...The President represents the country and government as a whole in international affairs. The President has the authority to conduct negotiations and sign treaties on behalf of the Ukrainian government. The right to recognize foreign nations rests solely with the President..... "

End quote.

He has the authority to act on behalf of the government.  He does NOT have the authority to do this of his own volition.

Here's the Presidential Oath of Office:

Я, (ім'я та прізвище), волею народу обраний Президентом України, заступаючи на цей високий пост, урочисто присягаю на вірність Україні. Зобов'язуюсь усіма своїми справами боронити суверенітет і незалежність України, дбати про благо Вітчизни і добробут Українського народу, обстоювати права і свободи громадян, додержуватися Конституції України і законів України, виконувати свої обов'язки в інтересах усіх співвітчизників, підносити авторитет України у світі.

(let me know if you need citation for that, too OK?)

Just a shame that you couldn't be bothered, or deliberately omitted to include this:
 

Official English translation:

I, (name and surname), elected by the will of the people as the President of Ukraine, assuming this high office, do solemnly swear allegiance to Ukraine. I pledge with all my undertakings to protect the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, to provide for the good of the Motherland and the welfare of the Ukrainian people, to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens, to abide by the Constitution of Ukraine and the laws of Ukraine, to exercise my duties in the interests of all compatriots, and to enhance the prestige of Ukraine in the world.[/t]

By no stretch of the imagination could Yanukovych be deemed to have fulfilled these obligations in his last few months in power.

CITATION

"....In order to impeach the President, *they must be convicted of treason to the state and other crimes. A two-thirds constitutional majority in the Verkhovna Rada (300 ayes) must support a procedure of impeachment for it to begin. A temporary investigative commission is established by the parliament for the impeachment investigation. The commission's final conclusions are considered at a parliamentary meeting.

To adopt an impeachment resolution, a minimum two-thirds of the parliament must support the impeachment procedure. To remove the President from office, a minimum three-quarters of parliament must support the resolution. The Constitutional and the Supreme Court of Ukraine's conclusions and decisions are considered at the parliamentary meetings....."

That all looks fine and dandy, except that, as you've rightly quoted:

Article 105:

The President of Ukraine enjoys the right of immunity during the term of authority.

So, under the constitution, it's actually impossible to impeach the President (unless there's a rider somewhere within that Article which expressly excludes treason or other major/monstrous crimes from the right of immunity).

Ukraine's Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote to adopt a resolution to impeach the President. It then moves to the Council for voting, where it then requires 3/4 majority to uphold the resolution and turn it legally binding.

In case you hadn't noticed, nobody is arguing with this - except that it appears to be impossible!  The actual entry in Wikipedia continues with:
 

In the event that a President is incapable of committing his/her duties as President, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada becomes the acting president until a new president is elected.

Note that this does not even appear to require any sort of vote - it appears to be automatic.  The resolution put to the Rada was this:
 

Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada №764-VІІ of 23.02.2014 «On conferring powers of the President of Ukraine on the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine»

Given that President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych withdrew from performing the constitutional powers The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine hereby resolves:
1. To confer the powers of the President of Ukraine on Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Turchynov Oleksandr Valentynovych according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
2. The given Resolution shall enter into force upon its adoption.
Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada О.TURCHYNOV[/l]

*General Information:

1. The reason used for the attempted impeachment was the allegations he abandoned his presidency. Yanukovich did not abandon his office or position. While this is debatable, there never was an official documents filed in the government of Ukraine that Yanukovich did in fact resigned. But such, it doesn't fall within the Constitution of Ukraine that will cause for a resolution for a presidential impeachment.

Nobody is claining that he resigned, but how can you say that Yanukovych did not abandon his office?  He left his own country to seek safety/asylum in Russia.  Even in eastern Europe, you cannot possibly be President of one country while living in another.[/td][/tr][/table]

[southernX]

gq  If we get implicated into this current event, a wholly meaningless and utterly insignificant event for Americans, in a place where we are NOT wanted to be meddling in, please take note.

 america  should stop asking other countrys to give up their nukes and signing memorandums of protection  if they dont wish to be involved/implicated,

it gives the appearance of  dishonesty and weakness to others looking on

SX 

[Faux Pas]

america  should stop asking other countrys to give up their nukes and signing memorandums of protection  if they dont wish to be involved/implicated,

it gives the appearance of  dishonesty and weakness to others looking on

SX

Yup, and so should Russia.

Our present form of government doesn't lend itself to keeping promises. It's a shame really, our government is broken and our political leaders amount to nothing more than clowns and a side show. The world wanted Obama to be our president and the world got him.

[GQBlues]

Marvellous - except that there's a lot of fudging going on...

Yes. I agree. See below.
 

...He has the authority to act on behalf of the government.  He does NOT have the authority to do this of his own volition...

You challenged what I wrote and asked for a citation. I gave you the citation in full context of their Constitution to support what I previously written and you want to now debate based solely on your own personal interpretation of what it should mean.

Did anyone say fudging?

 

Just a shame that you couldn't be bothered, or deliberately omitted to include this:

It was written directly below the *actual* oath written in their actual language. I gave you the citation for the entire content and all you took from it was somehow I'm being disingenuous likely because you couldn't read it or just too darn lazy to click on the link.

Did anyone say fudging?

...By no stretch of the imagination could Yanukovych be deemed to have fulfilled these obligations in his last few months in power....

Odd. If you wanted personal supposition, hyperbole, speculations then you should not have requested citations to begin with.

Did anyone say fudging?

 

That all looks fine and dandy, except that, as you've rightly quoted:
 
So, under the constitution, it's actually impossible to impeach the President (unless there's a rider somewhere within that Article which expressly excludes treason or other major/monstrous crimes from the right of immunity).

Read
 

In case you hadn't noticed, nobody is arguing with this - except that it appears to be impossible!  The actual entry in Wikipedia continues with:In the event that a President is incapable of committing his/her duties as President, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada becomes the acting president until a new president is elected.

*In the event that a President is incapable of committing his/her duties as President...*

So you subscribe to the notion that Yanukovich was NOT capable to perform his duties on the basis he was hiding from a violent mob who wanted to see him removed from office, right? Thus, you feel it legitimate for the Council to act immediately and decisively despite their failure to uphold and enforce the constitutional Article 105 to afford the President immunity during, protection from, and persecution of those unlawful acts of criminality against a duly elected president of Ukraine.

Show me exactly where did the Council properly executed the conduct of its Constitution whereas they made provisions for the protection and safety of the President to afford the opportunity for the President to formally resign his office if he so chooses? They failed in doing this. Conversely, "persons guilty of offending the honor and dignity of the President of Ukraine are brought to responsibility on the basis of the law". Such delegation of power without due process, based on the writings of Article 105 renders the actions of the Council unconstitutional.

Note that this does not even appear to require any sort of vote - it appears to be automatic.  The resolution put to the Rada was this:

Please provide a citation for the official signed Presidential *withdrawal* of his constitutional powers (presidency). In the absence of such, impeachment would be the only legal way to go about removing him from office in strict accordance to the law.

Impeachment defined: Wiki: "...Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment...."

Merriam: Impeach defined: a) to bring an accusation against; b) to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically: to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office; c: to remove from office especially for misconduct

Nobody is claining that he resigned, but how can you say that Yanukovych did not abandon his office?  He left his own country to seek safety/asylum in Russia.  Even in eastern Europe, you cannot possibly be President of one country while living in another.

You just cited the Council's decision was based on his withdrawal from his constitutional powers (presidency).

See below:

Given that President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych withdrew from performing the constitutional powers. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine hereby resolves:

Everything laid out thus far only tells me nothing in the entire attempt to remove Yanukovich from his presidency was both legal and lawful based on its Constitution. Conversely, the failure of the Parliament to provide and afford lawful observation and conduct of Article 105, makes all their ensuing actions criminal.

[southernX]

Yup, and so should Russia.

FP i agree ,and dont we all
 it should also be mentioned the uk is no exception here either imho ,there not exactly forthcomeing in upholding their commitment

for other countrys who have signed any international agreement with these partys it must make us stop and rethink  the depth of ties and our own self sufficiencys

SX

[Anotherkiwi]

You challenged what I wrote and asked for a citation. I gave you the citation in full context of their Constitution to support what I previously written and you want to now debate based solely on your own personal interpretation of what it should mean.

It's not just MY interpretation - try asking a constitutional lawyer how they would interpret it.  As far as I'm aware, there is not one constitutional democracy in the world that allows a President to act without the authority of his Parliament/Congress/whatever.

It was written directly below the *actual* oath written in their actual language. I gave you the citation for the entire content and all you took from it was somehow I'm being disingenuous likely because you couldn't read it or just too darn lazy to click on the link.

Did anyone say fudging?

I DID click on your link - where do you think I found the English translation?  Why couldn't you be bothered including both versions in your original quote?  It's important enough to be worth publishing within your post.  The only one "fudging" here is you.
 

Read
 
*In the event that a President is incapable of committing his/her duties as President...*

So you subscribe to the notion that Yanukovich was NOT capable to perform his duties on the basis he was hiding from a violent mob who wanted to see him removed from office, right? Thus, you feel it legitimate for the Council to act immediately and decisively despite their failure to uphold and enforce the constitutional Article 105 to afford the President immunity during, protection from, and persecution of those unlawful acts of criminality against a duly elected president of Ukraine.

Had not Yanukovych already left Kyiv before this happened?  In any case, it would be naďve to expect the members of the Rada itself to provide any physical protection - surely this is the responsibility of the Police, or whoever is in charge of national security.  If Yanukovych was so sure of his popularity he would have no need of personal bodyguards.

Show me exactly where did the Council properly executed the conduct of its Constitution whereas they made provisions for the protection and safety of the President to afford the opportunity for the President to formally resign his office if he so chooses? They failed in doing this.

Which Article covers this?

Conversely, "persons guilty of offending the honor and dignity of the President of Ukraine are brought to responsibility on the basis of the law". Such delegation of power without due process, based on the writings of Article 105 renders the actions of the Council unconstitutional.

Please provide a citation for the official signed Presidential *withdrawal* of his constitutional powers (presidency). In the absence of such, impeachment would be the only legal way to go about removing him from office in strict accordance to the law.

Impeachment defined: Wiki: "...Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment...."

Merriam: Impeach defined: a) to bring an accusation against; b) to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically: to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office; c: to remove from office especially for misconduct

I'm well aware of what impeachment is.  See my earlier post, where I stated that, as far as I could see, it's not actually possible to impeach the President because of his immunity from prosecution.

You just cited the Council's decision was based on his withdrawal from his constitutional powers (presidency).

Yup.  If he's not there to act as President, it's not surprising that the Rada decided that they needed someone in charge.  Again, to repeat what I wrote earlier, there doesn't even seem to be the need for a vote in such a case.  The fact that the Rada DID bother to vote (and had no dissenters) is significant to me - it shows that everyone there had had enough of the mess that they were in.

See below:

Everything laid out thus far only tells me nothing in the entire attempt to remove Yanukovich from his presidency was both legal and lawful based on its Constitution. Conversely, the failure of the Parliament to provide and afford lawful observation and conduct of Article 105, makes all their ensuing actions criminal.

You have your opinion - others have theirs.  Boethius - where are you?

[Gator]

That depends on whose version of our history you read. If you read Russian version then of course today's 'Ukraine' is nothing more than Little Russia. Just that version unable to cover all historical facts doesn't matter how hard you try.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Delineatio_generalis_Camporum_Desertorum_vulgo_Ukraina_%281648%29.jpg

Thanks missAmeno.  Even Putin is not claiming Ukraine is Russia.  On April 17, Putin held his annual "Direct Line with Vladimir Putin" in a 3-hour, 54-minute live conference.  Putin expressed that Crimea has long been Russian, yet did not describe southeastern Ukraine in the same manner. 

"....we must admit that the ethnic composition of Crimea differs from that of southeastern Ukraine. These territories, as I just said, were transferred to Ukraine in the mid-1920s, and in 1954, Crimea was annexed to Ukraine for some reason as well."


"The ethnic composition of the population there [southeast Ukraine] is approximately 50-50. I have already mentioned that the final decision to return Crimea to the Russian Federation was only based on the results of the referendum. When I saw these results, and saw for myself that almost all residents voted for joining Russia, I repeat, we had no other choice and there could have been no other decision."



"The essential issue is how to ensure the legitimate rights and interests of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in the southeast of Ukraine. I would like to remind you that what was called Novorossiya (New Russia) back in the tsarist days – Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Nikolayev and Odessa – were not part of Ukraine back then. These territories were given to Ukraine in the 1920s by the Soviet government. Why? Who knows. They were won by Potyomkin and Catherine the Great in a series of well-known wars. The centre of that territory was Novorossiysk, so the region is called Novorossiya. Russia lost these territories for various reasons, but the people remained."