Yanukovich refused to sign EU association in November. I am wondering if the EU association was approved by most of Ukrainian through voting (or other ways), and Yanukovich disobeyed the voting results.
Association pact is a purely economical agreement that is mediated by governments only. So no, he did not violate anything. However, 42% of the population supports European integration, while only 31% wants to join the Customs Union, seen as USSR v2.0
Don't forget the fact that Ukraine haven't declined signing, it was postponed. Government was just negotiating better terms for Ukraine. The thing they are responsible for.
As a Ukrainian living in London I'd say that nobody in sane mind in UK, and probably in EU will let Ukraine join EU. Mind Greece and Cyprus.
Check the numbers: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/country/ukr/
25% of export and 36% of import are Russian goods, several times more than EU combined. Sign that agreement as EU pushes it - Ukraine would be isolated, poor and really unhappy.
And that is the problem here. No side has a clear majority, and any decision is going to be tough. Forcing the decision, either one, in this moment can lead only to country wide divide, since both parties feel stronly about this topic, and no compromise is possible.
Whatever is my opinion is not important, but "huge majority" of 42% shouldn't be allowed to force their decision to "only" 31% minority. I think Janukovič got it right here, not wanting to side with any side and trying to just keep it as neutral as possible. It is not a good idea to decide about such a big topic like future of the whole country and which union to join based on such a small "majority".
In the long run, the best thing is to just do nothing right now, and try to reach some kind of compromise in a deeply divided country that is equally acceptable to both sides. Whatever that compromise might be, going west, or going east, or peacefully splitting the country in two/three parts, everything is better than inevitable escalation that this leads to.
The protests are not about the deal with the EU or Russia. The protests are against the current corrupt government in general and its brutal response to the initially peaceful protests. Having spoken to Ukrainians who have been participating in the protests, they told me that they would not care whether or not the EU nor the Russian deal is signed, they just want to get rid of the current government either way.
Customs union is just customs union, like Mercosur or Andean community or European customs union. Union State[1] is more like USSR v2.0 but still very far from it.
Those numbers show a divided country (on this issue). 42% is nothing to sneeze at but it shows the majority is either ambivalent or against. Given those circumstances, it's reasonable for a government to choose not to sign the pact.
For me it seemed to have problems syncing, forgot my password frequently, and just various other problems.
I tried it very early on and then again recently--my more recent issues were more than it is almost too busy when compared to Mail.app which gets the job done.
I couldn't say they fixed everything however as I didn't really spend too much time in it in my more recent experimenting with it.
It does create some Gmail labels/folders which can be a problem if you find that annoying--I have enough as it is haha.
There will be no consequences because Congress is behind this program, it is legal, and whether or not this testimony was a "lie" depends upon very specific definitions of terms like "intercept".
Most of us might hate that the government has this power but that does not make it extra-legal.
"Allowed by law", "legal" and "constitutional" are all entirely separate terms.
Without trying to confuse the issue too much, Congress could pass a law that makes slavery legal again, which is to say, that it is allowed by law. The flip side to that though, is that the Constitution would prohibit such an action.
That is clearly of little comfort in the meantime, but it does mean that law enforcement officers are not necessarily bound to enforce the law, courts are not necessarily bound to uphold it, and it likely has a good chance of being overturned by the Supreme Court (if not before).
American Jurisprudence has this to say on the matter:
It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law to be
valid, one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void,
and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from
the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the
decision so branding it an unconstitutional law.
In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never
been passed...
Since an unconstitutional law is void the general principles follow;
that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows
no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no
acts performed under it.
A void law cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the
land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no court is bound to
enforce it.
Interestingly, your own extended quote from American Jurisprudence contradicts your thesis, and clearly lays out why "legal" and "constitutional" are not separate terms, as a purported law that contravenes the Constitution, "though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law" and "is as inoperative as if it had never been passed". Therefore, while Congress could pass something that pretended to be a law which violated the Constitution, by doing so it would make "in reality no law", and whatever was purported to be made legal by that law would not be legal.
To be legal, under US law, an act must necessarily be Constitutional as well; an unconstitutional act is, ipso facto, illegal.
Too true. I was trying to differentiate the difference between Congress' "legalization" of something, and its actual legality and, in the process, failed miserably.
Yes, at best, we could hope for a resignation and replacement. Forget about any real "punishment". It just won't happen. The whole government was behind this, including the White House and Congress.
Still, a resignation might give us some hope that at the very least the recognize how outraged this makes use, and they'll try to do better in the future. If they don't do that, then that's just defiance against the American people and against the Constitution.
[1] https://github.com/transform-data/metricflow#features