Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here it is in Ukrainian, which I'm sure AndreyZ will have no trouble reading, since according to Russian government propaganda Ukrainian is "just a dialect" of Russian.
Yanukovych was impeached by Parliament for gross human rights violations and dereliction of duty by a 380 to 0 vote, in accordance with the Ukraine Constitution. There was no coup, Yanukovych was impeached. Or are you now going to pretend that Clinton's impeachment was also a coup?
No, there must be an investigation into charges of crimes, and input from the court. There was no investigaiton what so ever, and there were not even charges files before they impeached him. So therefore, the act of impeachment did not follow the procedure of the constitution.
If Yanukovich was committing crimes, then why did not parliament investigate and impeach him earlier? Why only after protesters ousted him? Why not just follow the legal procedures?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
The issue of secession is very clear in the US Constitution.
"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state." --- Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution
No State can secede from the Union without the prior consent of Congress. Just as the Crimea cannot secede without consent from the Ukraine Parliament.
No, that article has nothing to do with secession, I do not think it was ever even brought up in any court cases. You might want to read the numerous court cases, including Scalia's 2006 repsonse. bascially, while there is legal language for entry into the US, there is none for exiting out.
It is actually a good reading, there is hardly a "black and white" constitutional basis, because such would deny there even being a lengthy, over 200 year debate regarding it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
With regard to Kosovo, Clinton did what the German NAZI's and Turkish Ottoman Empire failed to do. It speaks volumes when the US President sides with German NAZIs, but that is your typical Democrat these days - "fascists-R-us."
You need to stop allowing the leftist media to form your opinions for you and get a clue about what is really going on.
You have no idea what media I follow, here is a hint, I read from many different sources. All media is bias to some extent, some more than others. This is what happens when activists replace jounalists.
By the way, what are you referring to when you state "Clinton did what the German NAZI's and Turkish Ottoman Empire failed to do."?
Also, was it within England's laws for the US to declare independence?
Here it is in Ukrainian, which I'm sure AndreyZ will have no trouble reading, since according to Russian government propaganda Ukrainian is "just a dialect" of Russian.
Someone needs to inform Google Translator and Alta Vista's Babblefish translator. They both have completely different listings for the Ukrainian and Russian language.
It would be like saying English is just a dialect of German, since they both use the Latin alphabet.
Not to mention the embezzlement and mass murder charges against Yanukovych. These are the types of people that Democrats, and Obama in particular, supports. Why am I not surprised?
If he was so bad, perhaps the parliament should have investigated him, then charged and removed him.
There are legal means to do so, it is in the constitution, plus, people could just vote him out of office in 2015.
I don't know why people keep sticking up for a guy who sent his opposition to prison.
Tymenshenko was guilty, even the EU has not denied this, the EU just had issue with selective enforcement. (which it was).
Putitng her in prison was a mistake, because it crossed the unspoken line oligarchs had, so the targeting of one means all are open to targeting. This was one of the factors of the revolt. The oligarchs you see are now being appointed in control.
Someone needs to inform Google Translator and Alta Vista's Babblefish translator. They both have completely different listings for the Ukrainian and Russian language.
It would be like saying English is just a dialect of German, since they both use the Latin alphabet.
Ukrainian is not a dialect of Russian, I have no idea why people state this. They are from the same east slavic group, and can nearly understand each other sometimes, actually it is more like I can understand them, but cannot talk back and vice versa. But ruthenian and Belarusian, cannot understand anything from it other thna know it is a slavic language.
I don't think so. The Ukraine had already voted to go with Russia over the EU.
Fighting broke out right after the vote.
The "new" government is probably going to take the US/IMF loan guarantees now.
Why would Putin through out the guy who voted to go with Russia ?
Yep, true... Yanukovych and Putin signed an agreement way before the protest...They had a secret deal and left everyone else out according to the Russian news. Ukraine has no other economical options, there is just way too much debt. Besides, China sides with Russia, so US just needs to stay out and play nice....
No, there must be an investigation into charges of crimes, and input from the court. There was no investigaiton what so ever, and there were not even charges files before they impeached him. So therefore, the act of impeachment did not follow the procedure of the constitution.
If Yanukovich was committing crimes, then why did not parliament investigate and impeach him earlier? Why only after protesters ousted him? Why not just follow the legal procedures?
As in the US, impeachment in the Ukraine only means the removal from office, nothing more. Once removed from office the person impeached may face criminal charges. That is exactly what happened in the Ukraine. According to the Ukraine Constitution, while still sitting as President of the Ukraine, Yanukovich was immune from being charged with a crime. Once removed from office Yanukovich can be, and is being, charged with criminal acts.
Yanukovich was impeached, removed from office, and now faces criminal charges. Clinton was impeached, not removed from office, and faced criminal charges once he left office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
No, that article has nothing to do with secession, I do not think it was ever even brought up in any court cases. You might want to read the numerous court cases, including Scalia's 2006 repsonse. bascially, while there is legal language for entry into the US, there is none for exiting out.
No territory can become a State and join the Union without the consent of Congress, and the surrounding States. Hence, no State can leave the Union without the consent of Congress and the surrounding States.
Several States tried seceding without the consent of Congress in 1861, and look at where it got them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
You have no idea what media I follow, here is a hint, I read from many different sources. All media is bias to some extent, some more than others. This is what happens when activists replace jounalists.
It is very apparent what media you follow, all of them are obviously hardcore leftist that idolizes fascism. You keep delluding yourself that all media is biased, if it makes you comfortable reading your fascist propaganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
By the way, what are you referring to when you state "Clinton did what the German NAZI's and Turkish Ottoman Empire failed to do."?
First the Ottoman Empire expanded Albania and annexed Serbia in 1540, and was eventually thrown out by the Serbs. Then NAZI Germany allied with the Albanians and occupied Kosovo, Serbia, only to be thrown out by the Serbs and Allied forces during WW II.
Clinton took a page right out of the NAZI handbook when he illegally invaded Kosovo and western Macedonia making it part of the Greater Albanian Empire.
As with the prior fascist occupations of Serbia, this too will not last.
Crimea was annexed by the Russia Empire in 1783. Also Texas is 30% Mexican.
Hispanic.
The treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji had Russia in Crimea in 1774 with several ports. And only in the US was it 1776. The actual recognition by Europe was in 1783, Treaty of Versailles. So lets just say it was contemporary with the start of the United States.
So then I suppose the claim is as flimsy as that of the eastern United States and not less so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
