Victory67
Rookie
- Feb 7, 2014
- 1,757
- 35
- 0
- Banned
- #1
I've done a little reading about the Ukranian Parliament's impeachment of Yanukovich, and I'm not sure this impeachment complied with their Constitution.
"Article 111 of the prior constitution would have allowed for a president to be impeached "if he commits treason or other crime." The constitutional guidelines provide for a review of the case by Ukraine's Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by parliament (338 deputies). However, the same report noted, "That discrepancy may soon become irrelevant, with parliament expected to elect a new prime minister no later than February 24."[170] The decision to remove Yanukovich was supported by 328 deputies.[171] Ukraine's parliament dismissed five judges of the Constitutional Court on February 24 for violating their oaths, who were then investigated for alleged malpractice"
Viktor Yanukovych - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So if the impeachment wasn't fully Constitutional, is Putin required to recognize it? Probably not.
But he still doesn't have the legal right to occupy Crimea.
"Article 111 of the prior constitution would have allowed for a president to be impeached "if he commits treason or other crime." The constitutional guidelines provide for a review of the case by Ukraine's Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by parliament (338 deputies). However, the same report noted, "That discrepancy may soon become irrelevant, with parliament expected to elect a new prime minister no later than February 24."[170] The decision to remove Yanukovich was supported by 328 deputies.[171] Ukraine's parliament dismissed five judges of the Constitutional Court on February 24 for violating their oaths, who were then investigated for alleged malpractice"
Viktor Yanukovych - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So if the impeachment wasn't fully Constitutional, is Putin required to recognize it? Probably not.
But he still doesn't have the legal right to occupy Crimea.