Can you quote the part where I said it would be either simple or easy?
Generally, amending a constitution should be neither of those two things.
I think “I don’t think it would take too much for the equivalent of their Supreme Court to rule …” kinda fits that bill, no? But I agree that a constitution shouldn’t be easily changed, or why bother calling it a constitution? But if you read up on the early days of Ukraine and Crimea’s independence from the USSR, you can tell this isn’t exactly clear cut. From what I’ve seen, Crimea declared itself independent first, then Ukraine did and said, “hey wait, you’re part of Ukraine remember?”.
… And frankly, it would only make sense for Ukraine to consider to cede Crimea to Russia in the course of doing something drastic, like joining NATO. One might argue that it creates an impossible situation for Russia, but then one might also argue that the US keeps the base on Gitmo in Cuba with few, if any, international incidents (and I’m not talking about the detention center there, just the fact that we have a base on what could be considered enemy territory).
So, don’t get me wrong. Ukrainians might decide that the Crimea is too dear to let go. But that is their decision to make. Not ours and not Russia’s. And if a bunch of Russian speakers in Crimea want to break off, but can’t find a legal way to do so, then tough latkes. Maybe the Hispanic plurality in New Mexico wants to break off and rejoin Mexico. Tough papas, if they can’t.
There are any number of peoples around the world who want to break away from the country they live in, and we rarely sanction that.
No. But that would probably be easier than going the other route. Besides, you said the “easy” and “simple” parts were concerning the amendment process:
You will note that XT is asking for a cite where the Ukraine Constitution actually ‘forbids Crimea’ from seceding. I don’t put much stock in it when the folks around here think I’m nutty.
If this is is not good enough for XT nothing is.
Article 134. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea shall be an integral constituent part of Ukraine and shall resolve issues relegated to its authority within the frame of its reference, determined by the Constitution of Ukraine.
and
Article 157. The Constitution of Ukraine shall not be amended, if the amendments foresee the abolition or restriction of human and citizen rights and freedoms, or if they are aimed at the liquidation of the independence or violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine
I believe XT lives in a nation that fought an epic civil war largely over the right of states to secede from the union.
And it is a clear cut case of the states involved in that civil war every single one of them applied voluntarily to join that union.
Not so in the case of Crimea. Crimea was a gift by the head of the Soviet Communist Party in 1954 to Ukraine and Crimea never had a clear choice to be joined to Ukraine under that constitution.
The reason the union remains intact today was not through negotiation or courts. It was by military force and the union prevailed.
Ukraine had no power to hold Ukraine specifically at the moment in time when Ukraine on its own and independent of Russian will or provocation violated the very constitution that Ukraine and the rest of the world now insists Crimea must have acted in accordance in all proper and legal ways.
I think think a Supreme court decision and me forgetting to say “3 steps” represents a quibble rather than an argument.
You keep injecting ‘legal’ into a situation where constitutional ‘legality’ was suspended prior to actions taken by leaders of Crimea to declare independence from Ukraine and requests for Russia to back up that declaration.
The Crimeans did not cause the constitutional chaos that hastened their decision to secede. The blame lies on Ukraine and instigators like John McCain who stood on that protest stage and sided with those protesters and legislators that went down the unconstitutional path to have their way.
I think you are confusing me with someone who wants to debate with you.
Churkin at the UN:
I don’t check your links. If you have something to say… say it.
Don’t debate me. This is a public forum and I can question and point out the flaws in what you write.
Constitutions can be amended. You could even amend the part that forbids amendment. Laws are changeable.
And with the hope of friends like that no wonder the Russians seems the more attractive offer. I wonder how many Americans secretly wish that Ukraine and Russia descend into such a bloody hellhole of slaughter and murder and millions dead. Certainly the old neo-con guard is out in full force and they were such fun last time with many lasting benefits for humanity.
You can’t suspend constitutional legality, mate. The fact that Ukraine did not have a stable, elected leadership for a limited amount of time does not make its constitution void. It seems to me that you’re failing to understand the meaning of a Constitution
You (“we”) as in the US government? Why should the Crimeans, or anyone else for that matter, care what you guys sanction except for the naked power you bring to the table in one form or the other?
This is the same government which so completely misread the situation. I don’t have a whole lot of faith in it just now to be honest.
I sanction it. Like I sanction Scottish independence, Welsh, Catalan, Basque, Faroese, Greenland, Slovak, Czech, Macedonia, Croatian, Tibetan, Palestinian independence - as long as they have the people’s favour. I even reluctantly supported Kosovo independence – even though exactly this was a predictable outcome.
The constitution is irrelevant. Such as all other arguments towards legality. I’m sure the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal under Iraqi and Afghan law, and the US revolution under British law. Don’t mean a flying fuck. Only topics worth consideration is whether the citizens of Crimea wanted it, and how to proceed from here for the best outcome for Ukrainians and Russians (which may or may not align with American interests).
You know what the Scots (and hopefully the Catalans and the Basques) will have that the Crimeans didn’t? A fair referendum.
For the hundredth time: we get it. The Iraq invasion was illegal. I was the first one to protest against it. That doesn’t give Russia a free-for-all. The fact that a law has been broken once before does not mean that it’s OK for the rest of us to break it too.
By the way, it seems that Oleksandr Muzychko, a Ukranian far-right leader, has been assassinated. As much as the provisional government is trying to keep things under control, it seems that others have very different goals
That’s right. We should have thrown all our energy towards pushing the Russians towards having a good and fair referendum.
Does that mean you support the return of the American territories to the British Crown?
Are you telling me that you can’t see the difference between Crimea and the American territories? If so, this debate is hopeless.
How would you suggest doing that? Saying “mr. Putin, mr. Putin, please move your troops out and let us have a fair referendum”? Or perhaps convincing him that a referendum has to be organised more than 3 weeks in advance and have meaningful questions? I’m sure he would have fallen for that. I mean, it’s not like Putin’s goal was to take Crimea by non-democratic means, right?
You may have protested Iraq as did I, but have you given up demanding the perps be punished? The hypocrisy is that. Iraq was 100,000 thousands times worse and no nation or leader that did it has paid a legal penalty.
No. In fact I’m a long-term member of the ‘Arrest Blair’ group, and will attempt to arrest the man if I ever walk into him. He should pay for his crimes, and so should Prime Minister Aznar, who took my country into the Iraq War.
Is it so hard to understand that some of us are against large military invasions of innocent countries, regardless of who invades whom? Iraq was wrong, yes. Crimea is essentially blood-less, but still wrong.
Rune is quite correct. And in the constitutional comparison of the ‘invasions’; the 2014 invasion was a result of invitation by Crimean leaders and the 2003 was an entirely foreign decision. And the Iraqi constitution was set in writing under brutal military occupation.