Putting aside the violence that has caused injuries and death in Ukraine on both the government and protesters side, what does the law say regarding the removal of Ukraine’s President Victor Yanukovych by vote of the Ukrainian Parliament (Rada). In The Daily Beast article “How Ukraine’s Parliament Brought Down Yanukovych,” there was no mention of Ukrainian law, except for legislation passed by the Rada. The Daily Beast reported, “after Yanukovych refused to leave office, the Ukrainian parliament by an overwhelming majority voted to remove him from the post as the one who ‘has dissociated himself’ by fleeing the capital. The ballot was passed with a constitutional majority and entered into force immediately.”
President Obama calls the new government legitimate, but President Putin calls it illegitimate. According to Article 108 of the Ukrainian Constitution, “The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of: (1) resignation; (2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons; (3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment; (4) his/her death.” Since Yanukovych didn’t resign and he had no health issues, the only way to remove him would be “by the procedure of impeachment.” The quintessential question is whether a vote of removal by the Rada constituted impeachment. If it was then Yanukovych is no longer President, but if not then the Rada vote was unconstitutional and Yanukovych is still President even while he is in Russia.
By definition, impeachment is not removal, but rather a process initiated by a legislative body in order to remove a President. Impeachment is similar to an indictment, which precedes a trial. Under the United States Constitution this two-step process begins when the House of Representatives votes for articles of impeachment by a majority of 
those Representatives present, which provides the allegations of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” If the articles of impeachment pass, the President is considered impeached. What follows is for the Senate to hold a trial, which is presided over by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1999, President Bill Clinton was impeached, but was found not guilty in the Senate trial.
The Ukrainian Constitution provides for the process of impeaching its President.
“Article 111. The President of Ukraine may be removed from the office by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in compliance with a procedure of impeachment if he commits treason or other crime.
The issue of the removal of the President of Ukraine from the office in compliance with a procedure of impeachment shall be initiated by the majority of the constitutional membership of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall establish a special ad hoc investigating commission, composed of special prosecutor and special investigators to conduct an investigation.
The conclusions and proposals of the ad hoc investigating commission shall be considered at the meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
On the ground of evidence, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall, by at least two-thirds of its constitutional membership, adopt a decision to bring charges against the President of Ukraine.
The decision on the removal of the President of Ukraine from the office in compliance with the procedure of impeachment shall be adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by at least three-quarters of its constitutional membership upon a review of the case by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and receipt of its opinion on the observance of the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration of the case of impeachment, and upon a 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 treason or other crime.”
The Rada’s vote to remove President Yanukovych does not appear to be following this constitutional process and it can be argued that Yanukovych’s removal was 
unconstitutional, which is what Russia has been stating. Russia
also has stated that Yanukovych’s removal was supported by the United States, especially after a phone conversation between assistant U.S. Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, was leaked to the media. On February 7, 2014, The Guardian reported on the phone conversation and played the audio.
With the world’s focus on whether Yanukovych is still President according to Ukrainian law and not international law, there is a question of Presidential legitimacy the world may not know, which is the legitimacy of United States President Barrack Obama under United States law. Article II of the United States Constitution provides, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The term natural born (jus soli) is a person who acquires United States citizenship through birth on United States territory. This is different from U.S. citizenship acquired through naturalization, which has a residency requirement, and U.S. citizenship acquired through parentage (jus sanguinis) when born outside of the United States.
The leading case in the United States on the definition of “natural-born” is the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. In that case, the Court confirmed that Wong Kim Ark, a child of Chinese nationals born in the city of San Francisco, was a natural-born United States citizen. The Court’s reasoning was that since the term “natural-born” was specifically used in the United States Constitution, which was written in 1787, English common law was to be used in its interpretation of natural-born. The Court explained, “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
The Court further explained, “The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’ of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”
Two of the Judges, however, dissented with the judgment on racial grounds, but they also allude to what it meant to children born abroad of U.S. parents. Both judges stated, “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural-born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, …while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
Obama was born in the Hawaiian Kingdom and not the United States. He was born in the city of Honolulu on August 4, 1961 at Kapi‘olani Hospital, which was established in 1890 by the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Queen Kapi‘olani.
Since the Hawaiian Kingdom has been under an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States and its continuity is protected under international law, Obama cannot claim to be a natural-born citizen of the United States and, therefore, cannot meet the constitutional requirement to be a President of the United States. But he is a U.S. citizen through parentage (jus sanguinis) because his mother was a U.S. citizen when she gave birth to Obama in the Hawaiian Kingdom. He cannot, however, claim Hawaiian citizenship by birth because the international law of occupation, which protects and maintains the status quo of the occupied State, only allows Hawaiian citizenship through parentage and not natural-born even though it is a recognized mode of acquiring citizenship under Hawaiian Kingdom law.
Aloha kakou.
The Obama birth controversy was expounded at some length in the u/m link, the sixth comment leads to an engrossing article in “Free Republic” and dual citizenship:
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/?p=757
The current issue of the U.S. “Smithsonian Magazine” has an absorbing article on Catherine the Great’s annexation of the Crimea:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-catherine-great-invaded-crimea-and-put-rest-world-edge-180949969/
With all the information provided above and on this blog concerning
international interactions it makes one wonder just how intelligent
are the agents of the U.S. Intelligence?
Or, are the agents scape goats for the crap that spews out of U.S.
officials?
If the U.S., as some would say, is insolvent the evidence of which is
the Federal Reserve Notes currently circulated as “MONEY” albeit
a debt instrument known as fiat money, one would wonder if the U.S.
could even make a meaningful reparation to the Hawaiian Kingdom?
Or, is it the puppet master (the so called powers that be) to be held
accountable for the reckless behavior of the U.S.?
Funny thing that a country in debt appears to have a lot of bling, yet
another country not indebted appears impoverished?
Makes you wonder if it’s a recruiting method of the U.S. to help other
countries circulate fiat too and subjugate its people into involuntary
servitude!
How will the U.S. justify all the contracts Obama entered into since
he took the office of the U.S. President?
Perhaps it will be like the fall of the Roman Empire?
If U.S. law is based upon a gross miscarriage of justice then the only
law is the one they feel will benefit the greater good! Hog wash!!
It’s long overdue for a new country to lead the global community with
integrity and justice!
A hui hou
Wow, Dr. Sai! Its very amazing how the HK and Crimea have a lot in common. Not only presently, but historically as well. I hope everyone in Crimea is well during this crisis!
OFF THE RECORD, I’m just snickering away at the U.S. Government’s posture at the way they are condemning Russia for violations of international law and state sovereignty and all that! “Just like what you’re are doing to Hawaii? Hmm?”
If I was the U.S. Government, I would admit publically that Hawaii is occupied and that the U.S. Government should start making all necessary restoration proceedings. Because if you think about it based on the continued protest the U.S. Government is filling at Russia, if they continue to occupy this country, they’re digging themselves a much bigger hole! If the world were to hear the United States is occupying Hawaii, much less the Russian president hearing such a thing, I cannot even imagine how the world would react! No doubt jaws are gonna be dropped! Especially from the Russian president!
Since the mark has been set, this makes me wonder how the U.S. Government is gonna get out of this situation entirely. If they do admit it and do what they are required to do for the restoration of the H.K., they could not only save us all in Hawaii, but possibly save themselves as well from a much worse fate! The fate is this; If the U.S. Government does not admit to Hawaii’s occupation and it is founded out the hard way, which by the way is slowly coming, I cannot even picture what would happen to THEM! The world condemning the United States for gross international violations, its own citizens even condemning them for lying to them, etc! Oh, man! Something like that would most likely make the United States to become politically dead! And that’s just ONE part of possible many. Not to mention they gotta deal with the part of compensating everyone in Hawaii and the country itself for this occupation and I can confidently assume that it is gonna cost more then 1 billion!
Aloha
The critical difference between Crimea and the Hawaiian Kingdom is that no one is claiming that Ukraine no longer exists simply because part of it was allegedly annexed!
Apparently the U.S. and Russia were reading the same textbook when they each tried to navigate the minefield of wonky international law. Who can blame them for abusing their power when the following is accepted as instructive??
“So far as neutrals are concerned, it belongs to the conquering State, but does not form a part of it. It is held by the right of possession and not by complete title, and is therefore subject to the rights of postliminy. Again, if the conquest be accompanied by a civil revolution and a change of internal government, as where a colony or province revolts against the former sovereign, and, with the assistance of the conqueror, establishes its own independence, and unites itself to the conqueror, the sovereignty of the former owner may be regarded as extinguished by the act of separation, independence and voluntary annexation or incorporation, and without a treaty of peace, or of cession. The new internal government so organised and recognised acts for itself, independently of its former sovereign.” -Halleck’s International Law
It was the United States when he was born? I was born in Hawaii in 1941. This was before statehood. I am a U.S. Citizen. Why isn’t Obama a U.S. Citizen? You people are stupid
Because he was born in Hawaii and Hawaii is not legally U.S. sovereign territory. Its is occupied by the United States. Unless there is legal title proof that Hawaii is U.S. sovereign territory, Obama, born in Hawaii, was not born in the United States.
deanna, you say your born in Hawaii in 1941 your in the same boat as Obama and the rest of us born in Hawaii after 1898. Hawaii is occupied there is “No Treaty of Annexation” all birth’s in Hawaii, it’s citizenry since the over throw of Hawaii’s Government is based on parentage (jus sanquinis)
The international laws of occupation prevents those born within the territory of an occupied State from acquiring the occupied State’s nationality/citizenship. Acquisition of nationality/citizenship in an occupied State is by jus sanguinis (nationality of the parents). Barack Obama was born a dual-citizen—American citizenship from his mother and British citizenship from his father. He is not a natural-born citizen because he was not “born within the borders of the United States.” Barack Obama is an American citizen by parentage, but not natural born.
Read more on this scroll down to earlier post.
President Obama was Born in the Hawaiian Kingdom not the United States of America
Posted on January 11, 2013
Deanna, deanna, deanna,
Why are you saying: “You people are stupid”??? Are you serious??? Let’s back up a little ‘O Ms. Intelligent One….
Because there is NO Treaty of Annexation under International Law that means that Hawaii is not and never was a part of the United States of America and instead under “Illegal Occupation” by the United States. Just because the United States created the illegal “1959 Statehood Act” that still doesn’t mean that Hawaii is a part of the United States. WHY??? Because once again without a TREATY there is absolutely no way that we could even become a State of an illegal occupying country!!! Are you following me so far??? Good
Now because on August 12, 1898, the United States began its illegal occupation of Hawaii through a joint resolution called the Newland’s Resolution and NOT a Treaty as required under International Law, everyone who came to Hawaii or are born in Hawaii from August 12, 1898, till today is an illegal immigrant whose nationality can only be obtained from their parents and that includes you. Are you still with me??? Great
Now because Hawaii is NOT a territory of the United States and your parents like Obama’s mother is a U.S. Citizen by right you are U.S. Citizens, but were you born on U.S. SOIL or should I say with the TERRITORY of the United States??? NO!!! And neither was Obama!!!
So, because the United States Constitution states that the President must be born within the TERRITORY of the United States and Hawaii is NOT a Territory of the United States….Obama like YOU could not be President!!!
As they say sometimes you have to break it down and speak in the only language some people, like yourself “deanns”, seem to understand. So, before you make another foolish comment like you just did please go to “hawaiiankingdom.org” and get educated…..
So, do you get it now??? STUPID!!!
After Barack Hussein Obama admitted he was not born in Hawaii, but Kenya, I find this article somewhat correct in that he is not legally allowed to be a US Citizen. Hawaiians, having voted to join the United States, was indicted into the United States by the Congress of the United States on August 21st, 1959. Barry Satereo was born on August 4th 1961 in Kenya Africa, while Kenya was a British Protectorate. Barack’s birth certificate is on file at the London Genealogy Archives and Nairobi, Kenya Capital house in a framed certificate hanging on the wall as you walk into the building. Barry Satereo was adopted by his mother’s second husband from indonesia renaming him to Barry Satereo. Barry is a British Citizen by Birth, Indonesian by adoption, and he was never an American Citizen, he was not qualified to hold any Office in the United States.
Obama could have been born in Kenya, Crimea or even Iraq and he is still legally entitled to a Hawaiian birth certificate because his mother claimed Hawaii residency. However, he could not inherit U.S. citizenship from his mother because she was apparently too young at the time of Obama’s birth. He would gain U.S. citizenship at birth under U.S. law IF he was born in Hawaii and for legal purposes, a birth certificate indicating birth in Hawaii would appear to create a presumption of Hawaii birth. However, it is quite possible that his birth certificate was legally altered to intentionally reflect false information as a matter of national, or even personal, security. Therefore, Obama would not be disqualified to be President unless and until the deception, if any, were revealed. But who really cares enough to actually do something to uncover it??