Stirlitz, Crimea, Ukraine and Yanukovych

[Texan77]

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ukraine_2014.pdf?lang=en

Article 108

1.resignation;
2.inability to exercise his or her powers for reasons of health;
3.removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4.death

109 and 110 are not/applicable because he didn't resign himself nor was he too ill to continue.

Article 111
Head of state removal
Supreme court powers

The  President  of  Ukraine  may  be  removed  from  office  by  the  Verkhovna  Rada  of Ukraine by the procedure of impeachment, in the event that he or she commits state treason or other crime.The issue of the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure ofimpeachment  is  initiated  by  the  majority  of  the  constitutional  composition  of  theVerkhovna Rada of Ukraine.To  conduct  the  investigation,  the  Verkhovna  Rada  of  Ukraine  establishes  a  specialtemporary    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 observanceof  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.

None of all that happened, there was no courrt case, let alone someone found guilty. Plus there was no special counsel, etc. etc. etc. So what was stipulated here was not followed. So no legal impeachment. He was also not accused of treason or other crimes that are stipulated above that warrant impeachment.

The last option was death, which was also not true.

Article 73 is also not/applicable as it does not deal with removal of a president.

Coups do not end is votes of parliament, next in taking power, with a national vote of a new president  in a few months. They voted her was not healthy to continue and who are you to say he was? Now your saying you have a degree in medicine. Nothing said the health had to be physical and the definition of health was left to parliament. The UN said it was all good. So go take your Russia Propaganda to someone who cares.

[Texan77]

Markje doesn't like to be reminded of FACT.

Yanu' was disowned by his own party for ribbing Ukraine's coffers.

If he had stayed, he'd have been arrested and and face trial.

He ran away in the night.

You have a strange way of thinking of FACT.

If he had stayed, he'd have been killed on sight. and no trial necessary.

That was caused by Russia who hired snipers to shoot protestors. At the time it was thought he ordered protestors shot. This was done to make is appear to be a coup when it wasn't.

[Dogsoldier]

If he had stayed, he'd have been killed on sight. and no trial necessary.

That’s just speculation Mark.

[BillyB]

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ukraine_2014.pdf?lang=en

Article 108

1.resignation;
2.inability to exercise his or her powers for reasons of health;
3.removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4.death

109 and 110 are not/applicable because he didn't resign himself nor was he too ill to continue.

Article 111
Head of state removal
Supreme court powers

The  President  of  Ukraine  may  be  removed  from  office  by  the  Verkhovna  Rada  of Ukraine by the procedure of impeachment, in the event that he or she commits state treason or other crime.The issue of the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure ofimpeachment  is  initiated  by  the  majority  of  the  constitutional  composition  of  theVerkhovna Rada of Ukraine.To  conduct  the  investigation,  the  Verkhovna  Rada  of  Ukraine  establishes  a  specialtemporary    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 observanceof  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.

None of all that happened, there was no courrt case, let alone someone found guilty. Plus there was no special counsel, etc. etc. etc. So what was stipulated here was not followed. So no legal impeachment. He was also not accused of treason or other crimes that are stipulated above that warrant impeachment.

The last option was death, which was also not true.

Article 73 is also not/applicable as it does not deal with removal of a president.

Yanu was IMPEACHED!!!!! An arrest warrant was issued on him. He was impeached for committing crimes which falls under Article 73 so yes, he can be removed from office legally.

You're at the point of making things up. Of course there is no court case. There was none for Trump. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal process. Impeachment doesn't take place in criminal court, it takes place in a nation's building where they conduct politics. The quality of evidence is not as important as it is in criminal courts. U.S. Congress could impeach Trump just because they "THINK" Trump committed a crime when talking with the current Ukrainian President.

[Markje]

Yanu was IMPEACHED!!!!! An arrest warrant was issued on him. He was impeached for committing crimes which falls under Article 73 so yes, he can be removed from office legally.

He wasn't LEGALLY impeached. The arrest warrant was not enough, he had to have been tried AND found guilty before impeachment could even begin.

Thats the whole point of the law, that it is followed. It wasn't -> illegal.

You're at the point of making things up. Of course there is no court case. There was none for Trump. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal process. Impeachment doesn't take place in criminal court, it takes place in a nation's building where they conduct politics. The quality of evidence is not as important as it is in criminal courts. U.S. Congress could impeach Trump just because they "THINK" Trump committed a crime when talking with the current Ukrainian President.

In America maybe. In Ukraine it is a legal process followed by a political one. They work in unison together and if either isn't followed its an illegal coup.

[Markje]

Coups do not end is votes of parliament, next in taking power, with a national vote of a new president  in a few months. They voted her was not healthy to continue and who are you to say he was? Now your saying you have a degree in medicine. Nothing said the health had to be physical and the definition of health was left to parliament. The UN said it was all good. So go take your Russia Propaganda to someone who cares.

I would hope you care about American laws more than Ukrainian ones because you don't give a shit about ukrainian law.

As for russian propaganda: Many top-ukrainian lawyers agree with my side of this story. The law is the law, there is no propaganda in there, just the law.

[msmoby]

Markje,

You are in a sizeable minority of 'Ukrainian legal experts' and Yanu's own political party had disowned him... He ran away from justice and you suggest 'murder' ...

[msmoby]

For those interested in Yanu's confused state of mind in his last days in charge ..

Even HE believes the Russian 'annexation' was a tragedy and hopes to 'persuade' VVP to hand it back   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych

[AvHdB]

Coups do not end is votes of parliament, next in taking power, with a national vote of a new president  in a few months. They voted her was not healthy to continue and who are you to say he was? Now your saying you have a degree in medicine. Nothing said the health had to be physical and the definition of health was left to parliament. The UN said it was all good. So go take your Russia Propaganda to someone who cares.

I would hope you care about American laws more than Ukrainian ones because you don't give a shit about ukrainian law.

As for russian propaganda: Many top-ukrainian lawyers agree with my side of this story. The law is the law, there is no propaganda in there, just the law.

As far as I can see the laws and constitution of Ukraine were never written for the situation that developed. Was the aftermath and process followed perfect, no. Was the outcome desirable, not really. Is Ukraine better off now rid of the convict, yes.

The reality because of the actions of the players the people of Ukraine have a stronger desire for closer ties with Western European norms and institutions there. For Russia that thought they could once again dominate and control 'there' Borderlands it is a bitter reality to accept.

But in the big picture one can see this as a centuries old chess game and one side just lost a rook.

[msmoby]

Ah right, and you knew what went wrong and therefore its a Lawless country and Russias fault.

NS1 had a similar story and that amounted to 'forgetting' to register your properties with Russia after it joined Crimea.

What Markje conveniently 'forgets' is that Russian informed property owners that Ukrainian property records would be respected .

[Texan77]

I would hope you care about American laws more than Ukrainian ones because you don't give a shit about ukrainian law.

As for russian propaganda: Many top-ukrainian lawyers agree with my side of this story. The law is the law, there is no propaganda in there, just the law.

The same things happens in the USA. If the constitution reaching a point where the government can not function it is assume the framers wanted the government to function. So it is read and use in away as close as possible to let the government function. You wife is an attorney she should know this. Otherwise millions of people would die for the non function government. This is true even in your country and all others.

They took the problem to the UN and ask what they should do. The UN approved and the new government was recognized.

[BillyB]

He wasn't LEGALLY impeached. The arrest warrant was not enough, he had to have been tried AND found guilty before impeachment could even begin.

You obviously do not understand Article 111 of Ukraine's constitution. A president does not have to be found guilty of anything to get impeached. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal process. Criminal court is not required to impeach. Once a president is ACCUSED of a crime, like Trump was, impeachment can begin. From Article 111

The President of Ukraine may be removed from office by the Verkhovna Rada of
Ukraine by the procedure of impeachment, in the event that he or she commits state
treason or other crime.

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.

[BillyB]

As far as I can see the laws and constitution of Ukraine were never written for the situation that developed.

Ukraine's Constitution was written for impeachment of a President that committed crimes which happened in this situation.

Of course the Constitution wasn't designed to impeach a president because he fled the country forever but if that was their only option to impeach Yanukovych, they have the right to provide the country with a leader by creating another article in the Constitution. It's stupid for any country to stop functioning forever or even temporary just because the leader abandoned his job and if a leader did so, I believed they can claim he has a mental illness and physically absent so he not fit for duty.

[Texan77]

They needed 75 per cent of the votes in parliament to impeach. They could not get that many. So the found a clause in the constitution to vote the he was physically unable to do the job that only took a simple majority. They had over 2/3 votes  but still fell short of the 75 per cent. The UN said the constitution had unworkable level of votes needed for impeachment and let them use the fact he was unable to physically do the job because he was on the run for murder and they had over a 2/3 vote of parliament to vote for it. Their was nothing in the constitution that said they could not do this. The UN said they felt they followed the letter of the law though they use this clause in a way it was likely not intended.

Markje seem to think that there should of been no president and the country should not of been able to elect a new one. Due to Russian occupation  some parts of the country could not vote making it according to the constitution forever they could not elect a new president. The trouble is the Ukraine government can not operate without a president. So according to Markje the country should let law and order break down, stop paying pensions and all government functions which would leave it looking like a war zone in Africa with millions of starving people running all over Europe because they were a few votes sigh of impeachment. 

Of course Russia thought this would be a great idea. The whole thing came about because Russia wanted to destabilize Ukraine to give them reason to claim they protecting Crimea and ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.  So Russian propaganda claimed the new government in Kiev was not legal. 

Markje attorney friends either got there degree by mail, know this or took constitution law so long ago they forgot. Most likely they just did an attorney thing not wanting to get into a forever discussion with him on the subject and agreed with what ever he said.   

[BillyB]

Many articles at the time called it an emergency session impeachment. If Yanu wanted to challenge it, he should've come back. If he wanted to remain president, he should've came back and run for president in the early elections he called for. After Yanu fled, investigations found out all the corruption he was involved in. Even if one doesn't want to believe he was legally ousted, he would've been after what they learned and eventually convicted him of.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/02/ukraine-parliament-ousts-president-yanukovich-2014222152035601620.html

[Markje]

I would hope you care about American laws more than Ukrainian ones because you don't give a shit about ukrainian law.

As for russian propaganda: Many top-ukrainian lawyers agree with my side of this story. The law is the law, there is no propaganda in there, just the law.

The same things happens in the USA. If the constitution reaching a point where the government can not function it is assume the framers wanted the government to function. So it is read and use in away as close as possible to let the government function. You wife is an attorney she should know this. Otherwise millions of people would die for the non function government. This is true even in your country and all others.

They took the problem to the UN and ask what they should do. The UN approved and the new government was recognized.

It is still illegal , and the country would continue to function. It isn't the USA where everything comes to a standstill if the president is missing/dead/whatever. The Rada can continue and only a few decisions will have to wait until after the elections.

Funny that, had they not coup'd Yanukovich, the early elections he agreed upon would be sooner than the ones actually held with Poroshenko as a winner.

[Markje]

Many articles at the time called it an emergency session impeachment. If Yanu wanted to challenge it, he should've come back. If he wanted to remain president, he should've came back and run for president in the early elections he called for. After Yanu fled, investigations found out all the corruption he was involved in. Even if one doesn't want to believe he was legally ousted, he would've been after what they learned and eventually convicted him of.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/02/ukraine-parliament-ousts-president-yanukovich-2014222152035601620.html

Whatever had happened, what ever it is called, its simply not legal, In fact, Yanukovich would have a strong case had he gone to court over this. Yet he chose to flee to Russia because he believed his life was in danger. (right or wrong).

[Markje]

Is Ukraine better off now rid of the convict, yes.

Poroshenko was an even bigger thief than Yanukovich was.
Zhelensky is already backpeddeling on decisions that won him the presidency (end Donbass war).

The grivna devaluated from 11 to 30 to 1 Euro.

Civil war is claiming lives daily.
Ukraine still has no control over 2 large areas supposedly theirs.

Pensions aren't being paid and some civil servents also.

I'm not sure Ukraine is better off now, nope.

[Markje]

Markje attorney friends either got there degree by mail, know this or took constitution law so long ago they forgot. Most likely they just did an attorney thing not wanting to get into a forever discussion with him on the subject and agreed with what ever he said.

Don't have any real arguments smear the messenger. Sure thing. Gotya.

It doesn't make me any less wrong though, and to clarify your horseblinders concerning Russia: I am not pro-russia in this case, in fact, I'd have loved Yanukovich to end his presidency legally. He already had lost support of most of the Rada and the people on the street, no need to Rush it to end as elections were already very close. the rada could have simply voted 'no' on all his new ideas and it was done.

I'm very much pro-law though, and the law was broken any way you turn it. Back in 2014 there was also no talk of mental/physical illness it was all done and justification came after the fact. I'm sorry you do not get a time-machine to go back in the past and amend the documents filed.

[BillyB]

Many articles at the time called it an emergency session impeachment. If Yanu wanted to challenge it, he should've come back. If he wanted to remain president, he should've came back and run for president in the early elections he called for. After Yanu fled, investigations found out all the corruption he was involved in. Even if one doesn't want to believe he was legally ousted, he would've been after what they learned and eventually convicted him of.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/02/ukraine-parliament-ousts-president-yanukovich-2014222152035601620.html

Whatever had happened, what ever it is called, its simply not legal, In fact, Yanukovich would have a strong case had he gone to court over this. Yet he chose to flee to Russia because he believed his life was in danger. (right or wrong).

Who makes the law in Ukraine? No Constitution covers for every scenario but if something unexpected arises like aliens abducting the president or the president running away forever, they will run the country until they have new elections. All perfectly legal.

If Yanu wants to come back to Ukraine and go to court, he is free to come back.

The grivna devaluated from 11 to 30 to 1 Euro.

Civil war is claiming lives daily.
Ukraine still has no control over 2 large areas supposedly theirs.

Pensions aren't being paid and some civil servents also.

I'm not sure Ukraine is better off now, nope.

You don't know who is destabilizing Ukraine right now? Years ago Poland got out from under Russia's foot and now their citizens make more money per year than Russians. Ukrainians see that and they make three times less than Russians. They want a better life too. Name one prosperous nation that is influenced by Russia?

[B.B.]

It doesn't make me any less wrong though, and to clarify your horseblinders concerning Russia Ukraine: I am not pro-russiaUkraine in this case, in fact, I'd have loved Yanukovich Crimea to end his presidency secede legally.

FTFY ^

I'm very much pro-law though

Great!  Shall we discuss the 1994 Budapest Memorandum?

Or the process for secession from Ukraine, under the Ukrainian Constitution?

and the law was broken any way you turn it.

cough-cough Crimea cough-cough

...it was all done and justification came after the fact.

cough-cough Crimea cough-cough  They didn't even take the Russian license plates off of the trucks...

B/B

[B.B.]

As I am participating in this thread, I am not going to do it myself, but I would suggest that one of the mods who is not to break off all of the non-Stirlitz "Crimea" stuff to a different thread.

B/B

[BillyB]

I'm very much pro-law though

Great!  Shall we discuss the 1994 Budapest Memorandum?

Or the process for secession from Ukraine, under the Ukrainian Constitution?

I've seen people argue Russia never invaded Ukraine. It was just independent soldiers and tanks that followed their hearts that entered into Ukraine so in theory, Russia never violated the Budapest Memorandum because it wasn't them who invaded.

But the Crimean vote to secede from Ukraine was clearly illegal since it violated the Ukrainian Constitution Article 73. I don't know how Markje can claim to be pro law and constitution when he won't admit Article 73 was violated when Crimea had a vote that didn't include all Ukrainians.

Russia reminds me of a man married to a woman(Ukraine) for many years and the woman wants a divorce since her husband never provided her the quality of life he's living and the man gets upset and wants his ring(Crimea) back.

[redroo]

Can the MODS please split off all this bullshit about Crimea,
it is nothing to do with the thread anymore.....just people who will never back down trying to force others who will never back down to change their views 

[BillyB]

Can the MODS please split off all this bullshit about Crimea,
it is nothing to do with the thread anymore

Pages 1-6 heavily talks about Crimea since Stirlitz discussed it on post #3. It's probably easier for a Mod to rename the thread instead of moving 95% of the posts.