Russia invading the Crimea in Ukraine

Holy crap, this is still going on. I never knew propaganda was so effective.

Either ways, I just want to touch one topic, which is succession. In the Ukraine, a province/territory cannot unilaterally secede, its against the constitution. A nationwide referendum must be established to set that in place.

This is also true in the US, a state cannot unilaterally secede without a nationwide vote.This was solved MANY years ago with the case of Texas. And only 22% of Americans believe that any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

States, like my own Georgia, have adopted laws that nullify the Constitution in the event of a National Martial Law and is considered secession. However, federal law defies and can overturn any state law as long as constitutional rights are not impeached.

Oppressed? Elaborate

נכתב על ידי Universali, 18.04.2014 at 16:25

Holy crap, this is still going on. I never knew propaganda was so effective.

Either ways, I just want to touch one topic, which is succession. In the Ukraine, a province/territory cannot unilaterally secede, its against the constitution. A nationwide referendum must be established to set that in place.

This is also true in the US, a state cannot unilaterally secede without a nationwide vote.This was solved MANY years ago with the case of Texas. And only 22% of Americans believe that any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

States, like my own Georgia, have adopted laws that nullify the Constitution in the event of a National Martial Law and is considered secession. However, federal law defies and can overturn any state law as long as constitutional rights are not impeached.

Oppressed? Elaborate

I would say that Laws Mean Nothing, and look to America and its struggles with Secession to see how need makes its own justice. Granted, in 1861, International Law was entirely silent on the subject (unlike today) but imagine that you're Abraham Lincoln in 1861.
Even before you take office, seven states secede.

What *legal justification* as the Executive in charge of a *Nation of Laws, not Men* do you use to fight the overwhelmingly popularly-supported secession of the political entities which form much of your Republic? There isn't one. You throw out the law or face national extinction - and, in essence, this is what Lincoln did.

Arguably, the Union States chose to raise armies to recapture Federal Property in States-in-Secession, and then *chose* to submit those forces to Federal control; and once those States had attacked the Federal Property of the USA, as 'foreign countries' or 'states in rebellion' Lincoln simply used the right of self-defense to justify his actions. This is how he 'legally' prosecuted the War, but of course the CSA cannot be both a foreign country AND states in rebellion.

Are you an Ohioan or New Yorker that opposed the war? YOU ARE JAILED as Habeus Corpus was suspended.
Opposed to the breach of Habeus Corpus? YOU ARE JAILED. In suspending Habeus Corpus, Lincoln gutted any judicial review of the legality of his actions.

I think he was among the greatest world leaders, a great President, but as an attorney, he recognized immediately that there was no legal basis for him to fight for the survival of the Union. In the case of existential questions (National Survival) quod est necessarium est licitum (that which is necessary is lawful).

Likewise, if you are a popular sovereign (as is Putin) what is the check on your power? You will find none of your people against you. International Law applies, but it is unlikely you will stand trial in The Hague, because no one will bring you to trial. Furthermore, as Putin, you simply claim that you are (any of these legalisms apply):
1. Securing a vital national security asset (ports and bases) against impending breach of contract by an aggressor (Ukraine).
2. Responding preemptively to 'fascist' threats to Ethnic Russians, defending their human rights.
3. Bringing the Rule of Law to a chaotic emergent terrorist threat on one's immediate border.

The EU and the USA have even more legal justification to enter Ukraine and force the Russians out, under International Law.
But they will unlikely not do so, because it isn't expedient to do so.