Discussion: Amedment - Impeachment

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Captain
again, I want to point out, as others have also, that the Court is there to ensure a LAW has been broken.

I agree completely, and i love the proceedure you outlined above. I believe the court should do what you outlined, and should go one step further to make a vote themselves to impeach.

The Court should not be bypassed. It is there to prevent frivolous claims and make sure no one gets impeached because someone has a personal vendetta and happens to have strong powers of persuasion.

I disagree. What about what spiffor said, what if a president, who will in the next cycle appoint ALL the justices, appoints those who are loyal to him. Then the court can shoot down any claim against their patron prez, see what i'm saying? So there MUST be CHECKS AND BALANCES !
EDIT: in this sense, i have kinda made a compromise between your stance and Spiffors.

Impeachment is if the official has been remiss in his duties (negligent), and/or abusing his powers (corrupt) - not if the official does something unpopular.

By doing something corrupt, 99 times out of 100 he is doing something unpopular. Who in a democracy likes a corrupt leader of some kind? Besides, to be ousted by a 2/3 vote (or 80% vote like i originally said) that official has gotta be pretty damn unpopular. And the official, under my system, can only be ousted directly by the public (going around the court) by a vote much higher than if they went through the court. The ultimate purpose of possibly going around the vourt is for checks and balances on the court. Remeber, in our direct democracy, THE PEOPLE ULTIMATELY HOLD THE POWER, NOT A COURT.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Kramerman

I disagree. What about what spiffor said, what if a president, who will in the next cycle appoint ALL the justices, appoints those who are loyal to him. Then the court can shoot down any claim against their patron prez, see what i'm saying? So there MUST be CHECKS AND BALANCES !
EDIT: in this sense, i have kinda made a compromise between your stance and Spiffors.

Good point, but they're staggered. So it's unlikely all the judges will be loyal to one President. Since the President can't hold office more than 2 terms, another President will come in and appoint (1-2) new judge(s). It is possible that all might be loyal to the President, but unlikely. Furthermore, as I stated a long time ago (and probably buried somewhere insignificant), courts only have power because people acknowledge that. If the people think the Courts are protecting the President and are corrupt, they'll just start ignoring it's rulings. Or impeach the judges. (of course,we haven't really covered the situation if ALL the judges are accused, who will run the trials? so we have more work to do before putting this for polling.)

But you've still got a point. Perhaps you could bring up some new legislation.

By doing something corrupt, 99 times out of 100 he is doing something unpopular. Who in a democracy likes a corrupt leader of some kind? Besides, to be ousted by a 2/3 vote (or 80% vote like i originally said) that official has gotta be pretty damn unpopular.

but they don't have to do anything illegal to be unpopular. and once elected, the minister is given the rights an privileges of office in exchange for carrying out his duties and responsibilities. If he is not negligent or corrupt in carrying out those duties, his rights and privileges shoud not be taken away simply because h makes a tough, unpopular decision. That was why he was elected, to make those decisions.

If unpopular enough, don't elect next time. But impeachment really should only be for broken laws (failed duties), IMHO.

And the official, under my system, can only be ousted directly by the public (going around the court) by a vote much higher than if they went through the court. The ultimate purpose of possibly going around the vourt is for checks and balances on the court. Remeber, in our direct democracy, THE PEOPLE ULTIMATELY HOLD THE POWER, NOT A COURT.

Of course. And the people have decided to empower the court. I don't think what I'm proposing is giving too much power to the Courts. The Court has far less power than a minister. They don't really affect the ingame itself. The Court in this case is also a formailty, in the sense that the accusation either has grounds or it doesn't. For the example given by Epistax, the President failed to consult ministers. Is this required by the CoL? Yes? Then go to trial. Then let the people decide. No required? Then no law was broken, in that case, any trial of the President would just be a witchhunt. I don't think it's unreasonable to trust the Court to do their job right anymore than it's unreasonable to trust our ministers to obey the public will (note that the CoL says ministers do not need to obey polls, yet, they almost invariably always do.)

Our ministers have been competant and solid in integrity so far, why suspect so much corruption amongst judges who really don't have anything to gain by it?

But if it makes one more at peace, I welcome a clause to make Judges impeachable on the charge of subverting justice (by protecting an official, or conversely, engaging in a witchhunt).

Judges would not rule here, in case people felt they were protecting each other. In this case, perhaps an independent arbritor selected at random (and approved by the public) would preside. They would not make the final ruling, just ensure a fair trial - just as Judges are supposed to do. But I'm totally open to other suggestions.

To recap, the only reason I oppose going around the Courts is that there must be some way to make sure that Impeachment isn't based on popularity alone but that there is a reasonable chance that some law has been broken. The Court procedure prevents ****ers from spam posting accusations and polls. A law requiring the Court to post the thread will improve organization, make it more fair for those involved, and reduce spam.

[Kramerman]

edit: DAMN!!!!! it posted again before i finished. Why is it doing this!!??? Ill be through in a few minutes and then ill post

[Kramerman]

Oh dear! We'll keep working at this until a compromise is found. A compromise will be found, perhaps as a write.

If he is not negligent or corrupt in carrying out those duties, his rights and privileges shoud not be taken away simply because h makes a tough, unpopular decision. That was why he was elected, to make those decisions.

I agree with this, in theory. However, in practice an official can have the political backing of the court, preventing his impeachment, like i described before. So a neglegant and corrupt person could be kept in power if there is no way to get around the court decision. I agree this is far-fetched, but it could happen and cause serious problems.
I would rather the situation, unfortunately, be to vote someone out because they are merely VERY unpopular, as apposed to having the possible risk of a corrupt, game ruining official kept in power.

I don't think what I'm proposing is giving too much power to the Courts.

It wouldn't be if we could be sure that the court couldn't impeach a desrving person for political reasons. Perhaps if we could find someway to check the court, without doing a 'popularity' vote for the alleged official and find a good compromise, without making things complicated. Again, i don't want to take the risk of a corrupt person staying in power just because the court said so.

but they don't have to do anything illegal to be unpopular.

This is not what I meant. I was just trying (but i admit i did a poor job of writing this) to tell that I think the people would be alittle bit more compassionate than to oust someone just because they had conflicting political views. And that the almost only time there would be a movement to impeach above the will of the court would be if the official did something the vast majority of the public thought was corrupt and the court did not agree with this. I dont just fear the court of politically backing the defendant and not convicting him of this, but the court is human and can make mistakes in their judgment that the vast majority of Apolytonia dont agree with. And so the people need someway to override this, via a vote, or some other way to check the court. I am open to ideas on checks.

I don't think it's unreasonable to trust the Court to do their job right anymore than it's unreasonable to trust our ministers to obey the public will (note that the CoL says ministers do not need to obey polls, yet, they almost invariably always do.)

Our ministers have been competant and solid in integrity so far, why suspect so much corruption amongst judges who really don't have anything to gain by it?

But we don't trust our ministers to do their job right all the time. That is one of the reasons why we are making an impeachment amendment. Its not just to oust corrupt officials, but also neglegant, incompetant, and sometimes even completely abscent ones. They not mean to fail at their job, but they may very well be doing so and the problem needs to be corrected - especially with the hole Apolytonia is in, with our crappy ass starting location. We do elect officials on their merit, but what if, just what if the official got 'lucky', and truley was a bad person to elect to the job, at the detriment of the nation.

But if it makes one more at peace, I welcome a clause to make Judges impeachable on the charge of subverting justice (by protecting an official, or conversely, engaging in a witchhunt).

Yes!!! Shall we brain storm?

Kman

[Kramerman]

Captain, I just wanted to repost these points made by Spiffor. I had views similar to yours but Spiffor made some good arguements. Perhaps he would be better to point out the need of a check. Note that many of his points go against what we both agree on. This is sort of a third view of the situation, unless he has changed his mind. I made good arguements though ahainst this so check out my post below this one if you haven't already.

Originally posted by Spiffor
Kramerman :
I understand your conception, and I also find civman's compromise very agreeable. That's strange we both agree on the compromise, as the debate between your conception of impeachment and mine is feeded by totally oposite views :
- You try to protect an official, whose results aren't THAT bad.
- I try to make it possible (you might say easy) to impeach bad officials, not just purposefully evil ones.

I understand your fears from the lack of information of the public, and I think the suggestion of my previous post adresses it pretty well.
However, I still think the court shouldn't have decision power, or nothing too overwhelming to get over the people. Justices are human like anbody else, and can make mistakes. 5 mistake-able people shouldn't have more power than 100+ mistake-able people.

You speak about a " minority successfully removing an official". But, in an election, more than 50% is never a minority. However, with your suggestion, a very small minority could keep a corrupt official to power. An outstanding majority is nigh impossible to get as soon as points are debatable. I hope you realise your suggestion could be dangerous for Democracy in the worst-case scenario, where a big majority of the people wouldn't be able to get rid of a rotten official, because he has few partisans.

Worse, nothing says the court will never be caught by politics. If I understand correctly, next term, only the president will appoint justices. He could very well appoint people from his party (and independents who shares the same beliefs), + 1 from the opposite party, just to look god in front of the voters.
If such a president does this, you'd have a disproportionate majority of people from a given party in the court. I don't say it's sure to happen. I say it might happen, if the Prez is corrupt. Do you imagine the court will impeach him, while the justices owe all to him ? Do you imagine such a corrupt Prez wouldn't be able to secure a solid minority of partisans who can defuse all 80%-of-the-people attempts ? (it's very easy to secure support, if you promise enough things to people in particular).

I have no doubt the 1st generation of justices will be very sincere, and will try their best for Apolytonia. I also think ministers who appoint them will try to appoint the best, not just those who share their political values. But the future could be worse.


Togas is right : the court should observe the legality of the impeachment procedure. It shouldn't decide who gets fired. That's the power of the people.

[Kramerman]

We should decide on what common ground everyone has so far.
I'll state what I think is good, and what i can be fexible on

-I like the procedure made by captain for the court to decide the legality of an impeachment case and to make reports on it.

-I think the judges should impeach

-I think the people should confirm or deny an impeachment sentence by voting for or against removing the official.

-I think there should be some check of the court, incase a VAST majority of the people believe their should be a case where the court said there was none.

Kman

[Jon Shafer]

I think we need a poll on each of the most important options, that way we can hammer out something definitive.

[GodKing]

Good idea trip. If I have some time later today, I will go thrue the options and set up some polls. (around 4pm est). If someone else beats me, I don't mind.

[jdjdjd]

I like the way Captain has laid out the rules, that could also be amodel for other trials, though I suspect we may need to rush any trial on a issue that needs to be decided prior to a turn chat.

Also, as for succession and impeachment of an official....

hmmm...,

I could see why you may want to keep an official being impeached from perhaps taking adverse actions to effect the game, so you would want him suspended while the trial is on.

If we do that, then we need spell out clearly the line of succession, or the other ministers must make due until the trial is over, which is within a week.

The other option is to keep him/her in place until removal is actually decided upon.

[Epistax]

The impeachment process seems quite lengthy. To impeach someone in their last week of office-- and if we have a policy of suspending the impeached-- will effectively in their turn.
Of course if they would be found deserving of impeachment and eventual conviction, there would be no problem.

>> The point I meant to make is that suspending officials during the impeachment process might not be a great idea. Perhaps some sort of semi-suspension would be possible.

[Aro]

If the official is the prez, we have no problems. The VP exists for this. In the case of others, I don't know, but maybe the president (or he and his cabinet), could nominate someone as an emergency official, and starts a poll immediately.

Originally posted by Epistax

>> The point I meant to make is that suspending officials during the impeachment process might not be a great idea. Perhaps some sort of semi-suspension would be possible.

Without the legal procedures, nobody can be considered guilty. So, no suspension at all is better.

[Spiffor]

My beliefs :

- I think people should impeach
- I think we must let defenders and accusers speak before the people can vote
- I think nobody should decide at the place of the people
- For this reason, I think we need a way to bypass the judicial procedure. I also thing the majority in a "bypassing" vote should be the same.
Vox populi, vox dei.

[Togas]

I need to strongly suggest that we kill the idea of having a "trial." It may sound like fun, and it may seem like a fair idea, but you're opening a huge can of worms with this one.

This needs to be simple, straightforward, and effective. A "trial" is going to be a pain in the ass to do and is going to require a whole host of new laws.

You're going to need to develop either a body of law or at least customs and practices for how to hold a trial, what procedure to follow, what is admissable, what can be objected to, deadlines, rights; I could go on.

I just spent my whole morning in court. Let me tell you, going to trial is not as galmorous and efficient as it appears on television.

What we need is simply this: The Court says that there are sufficient grounds for a legal impeachment, posts the impeachment thread, and then STAYS OUT of the matter from then on. The accuser(s) and accused can both post to the thread, citizens can post as well, and in a few days a vote is held. The people decide the outcome.

We do not need some sort of public override on The Court. We need to accept that the Justices are there to do their job and that we confirmed them and that we all voted to create The Court and that we've placed some trust in our Judges. If we don't like the decisions they're making, we vote them out next term.

--Togas

[jdjdjd]

I do agree with Togas, I am afraid a trial becomes many headaches in trying to maintain order, when you have no control over the process. I did allow an open forum where the public could question, if the public asks, the accuser and defendant, with a court member just moderating. No real rules, just a question and answer session and not a trial.

The real meat is at the thread where official complaint and answer are filed, and then debate for the time allowed.

Like Spiffy, I think a trial would be fun to act out, but unfortunately we could not have control over the process. So an informal session would be allowed, but not mandatory.

[Kramerman]

I also agree that having a mock trial would slow the process down and more times than not it would end up as a lot of head aches. But there should be a place to post arguements for or against an accused. An accussed official needs to be able to defend himself EDIT: */ to help sway opinion for himself, and his accusers should post why they think he should be removed. This is neccessary in order ti educate the masses on the situation, so they can make an educated decision when/if their time comes to vote on the issue/*. This should also be very public.

For Togas,
I don't really care if their is an override of a court decision, I just came up with a good system for those worried about judges, with political motives, either laying grounds for impeachment, or denying it. I am quite willing to compromise on this matter, if need be.

For everybody,
I completely agree that the court should be there to determine if their are grounds for impeachment, and they should do this by making a vote themselves. The court is designed to be a group of 'enlightened' individuals, and therefore should be allowed to determine this with a or 4/5 vote (i dont care). This would be hard to attain, but if 4/5 of an enlightened group thinks an individual should be removed, then their are good odds that the individual deserves it, and is not merely a victim of unpopularity, like what Captain fears.

If the court does not pass a 4/5 vote to impeach, then the accusant is not. If at least a 4/5 vote is passed, then the official is immpeached, and then the public makes a simple majority vote to either remove the impeached individual, or not to. If the politician is impeached by the court, but not removed from office by the people, then he would remain in office as if nothing had ever happened and is free by all means to run for political office again. However, his career will always bear the black mark of his impeachment my the court, which, remeber, is a group of very respected and enlightened individuals whos opinion should not be taken lightly. The public vote to remove an official who has been impeached should be faily low, considering the elite group of judges found the person deserving of removal by a remarkable 4/5 vote. I say the public vote should be a simple majority, but I can compromise.

Kman

This is basically my same arguement, but I have made some compromise and some changes. Give alittle, get a little thats what I say.

EDIT: My main change is that for the court to decide if there are grounds for impeachment, they should discuss it (privately or publicly, this can still be debated), and then they take a vote to impeach. If the 4/5 minimum vote fails, there were no grounds for impeachment and the official is free to go back to his dutys. If the vote is at least 4/5, then the judges both find grounds for impeachment and impeach in one swift stroke, leaving it up to the citizenry to remove (that last thing is apart of my original arguement) the individual from his office.