LOL. Yes, forcing a sitting president out of office with force is called a coup.
You can’t change the facts or the definition of the word.
Nice try, Commie.
No, the communist is you, for making music to Putin's ears.
It typical of you guys on the right to think with the mentality of a simpleton, everything is black and white and there are no shades are grey. But, allow me to disabuse you of your Putin smiling simpleton's mentality:
The legality of Viktor Yanukovych’s ousting is a complex issue and has been a subject of debate. Here are some key points:
The Ukrainian parliament, known as the Verkhovna Rada, voted to remove Yanukovych from power, citing his abandonment of office and the deaths of more than 80 protesters and police in the past chaotic week of violence
A majority of 328 lawmakers of the 450-seat parliament voted on February 22 to remove Yanukovych
However, there is a legal gap.
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. But Yanukovych failed to sign the measure. Why? Because he committed abuses of power (possible treason) according to it's terms, and saw the writing on the wall.
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".
It is not clear that the hasty February 22 vote upholds constitutional guidelines, which call for a review of the case by Ukraine’s Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada – i.e., 338 lawmakers
The Rada passed a resolution that established that Yanukovych had removed himself from fulfilling his constitutional duties. The resolution stated that due to the fact that Yanukovych had unconstitutionally stopped fulfilling his presidential duties, the Rada was calling early presidential elections as is their right under Article 85/73.
It seems that nothing in the constitution prohibits parliament from passing such a resolution, which has the full legal force of a law, according to Article 9134.
In conclusion, whether Yanukovych’s removal was constitutional can depend on one’s interpretation of these events and the Ukrainian constitution. It’s a complex issue with many nuances.
His removal was the will of the people, the Rada is an elected body and they are acting according to the will of the people, they wanted that Putin Puppet removed.
www.ponarseurasia.org
The removal of Ukraine's President Yanukovych by the Verkhovna Rada (parliament) has raised questions about its constitutionality. The Rada did not follow the impeachment process but instead passed a resolution stating that Yanukovych had unconstitutionally stopped fulfilling his duties, leading to early presidential elections. While the constitution does not provide clear provisions for removing a president who is absent or not fulfilling his duties, the Rada's resolution was seen as the best attempt to resolve the situation in a limited timeframe. The lack of an independent and legitimate Constitutional Court further complicated matters. The Rada's solution was deemed more legitimate than any ruling from the Constitutional Court, given its elected status and the majority support for the resolution.
But, of course, you do not have enough depth to see the full context of what happened.
