Discussion: Amedment - Impeachment

[Togas]

Originally posted by Kramerman
but if 4/5 of an enlightened group thinks an individual should be removed, then their are good odds that the individual deserves it

I'm normally in agreement with K-man, but in this case I am not.

There seems to be a good many people who feel The Court should review the evidence against the accused and then give an opinion that the person should or should not be impeached.

I do not feel that is appropriate.

In essence, we're giving The Court a new role -- that of a trial court. The Court would be deciding facts and evidence and making a decision about "guilt" or "innocence" of an individual. The people would then make the exact same determination in their election.

1) This gives The Court new powers and responsibilities that it may not be equipped (no law or procedure for trials) to handle.

2) This makes it harder for the people to impeach a minister by requiring The Court to first find "guilt".

3) This makes decisions of The Court less important. Ex: The Court finds to impeach by 4/5 majority, but the people vote against impeachment. Or, The court finds someone "innocent" while a great majority of the people who have read the same evidence believes the person is "guilty".

4) This takes away the power of the people to impeach and puts it in The Court's hands.

The Court should only be involved in assuring the people that there are legal grounds to impeach, to keep people from simply putting up their own impeachment polls, etc. The Court reviews the charges to see that they're allowed under the law, then (simple majority) gives the O.K. to go ahead with the impeachment. The Court remains neutral on issues of "guilt" or "innocence". It lets the people alone make the final decision.

--Togas

[Kramerman]

There seems to be a good many people who feel The Court should review the evidence against the accused and then give an opinion that the person should or should not be impeached.

Why not?! lol. *sigh* I have been quite tenacious on this issue and with good reasons. If you dont believe me just check out the last page. By reading my arguements if you haven't already may sway you. If not, then I present the following, 'fresh' arguements...

The Court would be deciding facts and evidence and making a decision about "guilt" or "innocence" of an individual. The people would then make the exact same determination in their election.

I could see why this may happen the majoruty of the time, but it would not necessarily happen all the time. None the less, I see nothing wrong with this.

1) This gives The Court new powers and responsibilities that it may not be equipped (no law or procedure for trials) to handle.

Incorrect. When we made the judicial amendment, to add the court to our system, we were originally going to add an impeachment process with that amendment. If I recall correctly, the bill was being hung up on that issue, so most were in agreement that an impeachment bill should be developed seperately. I think it should be well within the courts power to have a significant say in impeachment, if not one of their primary jobs. We made the court to be able to improvise, to interpret the Code of Laws to solve problems. They should have no problem doing this in finding not neccessarily the legality of impeachment, as others (including myself) have said before, but the appropriateness of impeachment. They should use their 'wisdom' and such to keep officials who have perhaps made decisions that they believed were in Apolytonia's best interest, but making them very unpopular, from impeachment and stuff like that. We can work on the definition of 'appropriateness' though, in order to give it bounds.

2) This makes it harder for the people to impeach a minister by requiring The Court to first find "guilt".

Again, the court shouldn't find guilt, but the appropriateness (is there a better word for this?) of an individuals impeachment. I dont want to see an unpopula, but otherwise capable leader removed from power soley because some peole didn't like him. And if this makes it harder to impeach, good! i say. We dont want our citizens constantly bringing up requests for impeaching everybody they dont like and possibly succeeding in this. This would spam the demo game and could cause major slow down in the game. This is another neccessity of the court - to sort out legitamit claims for impeachment from ludicrous ones.

3) This makes decisions of The Court less important. Ex: The Court finds to impeach by 4/5 majority, but the people vote against impeachment. Or, The court finds someone "innocent" while a great majority of the people who have read the same evidence believes the person is "guilty".

I couldn't disagree more. To instill total power of removal into the hands of the court is ludicrous (wow, ive said that word twice already - thats a first).The people's vote is by no means there to make the courts desicion less important. The courts vote is basically to sort out good claims of impeachment from bad. Then the people do the removing with their vote. Your second part of this statement, the thing about overriding a courts decision of innocence, was argued for extensively by me on the last page. I suggest you read it, because I dont feel like writing all that again. They were very legitimate arguements too, for just this point youve made. I've been preaching Checks and Balances for ages now. Perhaps people dont read what I say because I write too much? Or maybe I am not clear in my rhetoric?

4) This takes away the power of the people to impeach and puts it in The Court's hands.

No. Not at all. By overriding the courts decisions, like i detailed in the last page of this thread, this by no means is the case. My post above I omitted my arguement from my checks and balances sytem because it was taking so much flak. I see we agree this is needed, and for that I am elated.

The Court should only be involved in assuring the people that there are legal grounds to impeach, to keep people from simply putting up their own impeachment polls, etc. The Court reviews the charges to see that they're allowed under the law, then (simple majority) gives the O.K. to go ahead with the impeachment. The Court remains neutral on issues of "guilt" or "innocence". It lets the people alone make the final decision.

Unless I misunderstand, this statement negates what you initially said at the beginning of your post. I am half way in agreement with this statement.

whew *exhausted* Kman

The more I think about it, the more i think i will continue to be tenacious on my basic idea.

[Togas]

K-man,

We may not be that far apart.

What I'm thinking is sort of like (are you familiar with criminal principles?) Probable Cause. The Court only makes a "Probable Cause" or preliminary finding that there is sufficient grounds to proceed. Simple majority vote. Then send it to the people.

The people try the case for themselves. Sort of like a jury of one's peers. Open and public.

In essence, the Court checks the people, but the people have the real power in Impeachment, as it should be.

Don't get it too complicated, please, or guys like me will wind up representing the accused and taking advantage of the complexity.

I can just see it, "It's an outrage! My client was railroaded by the (insert name of political party) stooges in The Court who voted in block to impeach him despite the stunning lack of proof and improper evidence presented! They didn't follow X deadline, or properly state Y as the law requires. They failed to do Z, as also required. This Court is corrupt! We demand a fair trial and Due Process as is his right under our Bill of Rights!"

Complexity is only good for the lawyers.

Keep it simple and keep it mostly in the hands of the people. That's all I'm asking.

--Togas

[Aggie]

I've been gone for awhile and missed much of this debate. However I am now all caught up and intend to make myself heard.
1) Before we move one iota further toward this amendment we must indicate for what type of offenses for which a person can be impeached.
After that we can go on to other issues, such as;
2) We must establish what happens if a person is removed. Here is my idea.
a) If president, the vice president immediately assumes his duties. The new president then selects a new vice president from the cabinet and nominates to the people a successor to the old minister position. The people vote on the approval of the person. I don't want a full blown election, only a yes/no on a candidate.
b) If vice president or other elected official, the presidents appoints a successor using the same rules as above.
c) If judge, the president will appoint as usual, except the new judge will be up for reappointment at the end of the current term.
3) Procedure for the impeachment thread/chat
Personally I agree that a trial is difficult. But we should go along with typical court procedure(has that been established yet). One idea is summited info, then a 1hr chat for each side to answer questions from the judges
There are more issues but, we can deal with these then move on. But first as I said earlier we need to define the crimes.
Aggie

[Epistax]

--- On what a 'typical trial' is

It's been my view that supreme courts act more as a jury than a judge, in that they determine guilt, validity, and wrong doing. The law is usually the sentencer. For us, this will be different in that there is only one court, and no established penalties for crimes. Infact, someone would have to go to great ranks to break anything written in the code of laws.

This puts the court in the awkward position of being judge and jury, balanced by the fact that the entire populace as a whole is the executioner (I am not talking about killing.... alright).

So how should a trial be conducted? Personally I believe when a verdict is reached by the court, the entirety of information that must be released should be yeas, nays, abstains, and penalties. The actual ruling of any individual judge might be best kept secret amoung the court, because anonymity will ensure less bias results.

I do like the idea of there being a live chat before the ruling, where the offense (sigh.. forgot the word) and the defense (in that order) present their cases, there is questioning by the judges, and then a private convening before a final ruling.


None of the ideas I have stated conflict the official amendment, but feel free to rip them apart and eat their chewie center of goodness.

[Aggie]

Epistax, i was just wondering if the true court procedures have been established yet. I can see your point that the votes in the court should be secret on this issue. However as I have pondered that,I now believe that it is necessary that they be public. This way each judge has a record to be attacked or defended at reappointment time. Also a record helps if somebody wants to bring up the issue and say "you missed this point" etc.
Aggie

[Epistax]

I can see where you're coming from, Aggie, in the system I am basing this off of, judges don't have terms (US Supreme Court).

I would still defend the cour's right to privacy during the determining phase, but is, say a chat log, really needed? Perhaps instead judges could be asked their reasoning and how they voted.

Taping a jury making their decision... but this is an elected* jury that faces reelection*.... owe head hurts.


* Appointed and confirmed by popular

[Captain]

Originally posted by Aggie

1) Before we move one iota further toward this amendment we must indicate for what type of offenses for which a person can be impeached.



There are more issues but, we can deal with these then move on. But first as I said earlier we need to define the crimes.
Aggie

As always, Aggie, you've hit the nail on the head. Personally, I think Impeachment should only be allowed if a LAW has been broken. Obviously ministers are also citizens and therefore subject to the same laws. However, there aren't really any laws governing what citizens do, besides the Apolyton forum rules (which we have no control over and therefore should not pretend we do) and playing ahead - which is the great taboo of our nation.

IMNSHO, officials should only be impeached for either negligence or corruption. That is, if they are remiss in their duties as described in the COL without good reason, or are abusing their position/power (not well-defined in COL but it is implied ministers are to adhere to certain types of behaviour).

Generally, negligence is omission - failing to do something they are required to do, without making a reasonable attempt (fairly easy to determine). Abuse would be a comission, that is, they must have actively done something that would be considered an abuse of the position (trickier to determine).

I do not think it is wise to allow popularity contests in the middle of a term. That is what elections are for (well, not really, but that's what they usually are). The Impeachment process shouldn't be launched willy-nilly. The Court is there to make sure there is some basis for Impeachment to take place - is the request for Impeachment based on the law. If so, put it to the people. If not, tell the accuser to wait for an election.

The Court does not pass judgment on whether to indict or not. The Court doesn't rule as to whether the official should or shouldn't be impeached. The people decide that. That is a key difference.


---

Now, the reason I would like the Court to open the Impeachment thread is that the defendent needs a reasonable amount of notice. If he's away two days, there won't be any opposition to the accusations and justice might be perverted. By having the Court PM both and determine that both are aware, no one gets caught flatflooted. The Court ensures both have ample time to respond to the charges and to the rebuttals, before polling. That seems fair to me.

For these reasons, the Court should set the Impeachment thread before the people, let the defendent and accuser put out their arguments, and once a certain time is up, post the poll in neutral terms.

---

Also 2/3 is fair. That is what we need for amendments. Impeachment is a serious charge, it should have an equally high requirement.

[Captain]

I've said it a few times, but just to be extra extra clear... the Court in NO WAY decides the officials fate. The people decide.

The Court doesn't determine if the accusation is true or not, the people decide that - and if believed true, the people then decide whether or not the offense is serious enough to outweigh their liking of the official. The Court's job, is to determine whether the official is accused of a crime or just bad decision making. It has to be a breach of the law, not just doing something unpopular (eg. irl raising taxes, or pop-rushing, or trading away our world map...)

As close as this is to a direct democracy, it isn't. As long as we have officials - ministers - who we empower by election to carry out certain duties, they need the flexibility to make hard decisions without getting everyone's input, much as they want. Remember, the President physically plays and makes some hard choices, possibly ones we wouldn't want, and possibly very unpopular ones. We choose him for that reason, not to be a puppet with 200 strings. Let's keep impeachment for serious violations/breaches of trust, and leave the popularity game or the "should have done this instead" reasons out of it.)

no, I am not trying to protect officials. I am trying to keep the game running smoothly - namely making sure officials can do the job we elected them to do without having to deal with frivolous accusations that sap their energies. btw, we don't even have more than 1 candidate for some positions, do we want to make the position of minister even less appealing? it's a lot of work and we shouldn't be needlessly making it even more difficult for them, or next time, we'll have zero candidates running. if they really are corrupt and negligent, maybe we'd be better off without them, but for any other reason? I doubt it. don't forget we're here to learn together as well, not everyone can offer as good advice as an Uberkrux or a Sir Ralph. Competence shouldn't be an issue, unless it's gross incompetence emperiling the nation.

---

based on the arguments made by Togas and others, I'll refrain from using the word trial as that has certain connotations that I do not intend. I simply meant the Court had to decide that the accusation had a legal basis, meaning it was worth going to an Impeachment process. The people are the jury. They decide.

[Kramerman]

From what I've read, I want make sure everyone is clear on something.

Impeachment does not mean to remove someone from office, which I fear some here may believe. I fear this may have caused some terrible miscommunications between myself and you, my collegues.

To Impeach is to charge and convict a public official of 'wrong doing'. After an official is impeached, then there is a movement for punishment, most often removal from office, but could be suspension, pay cut, etc. I used this word with the idea everyone was aware of this definition in mind.

An example of this, like I've used before, is Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the government (I dunno exactly how the US does it), however, it was decided he should not be removed from office. In other words, the government did charge him and convict him of wrong doing, they impeached him, but they did not remove him because it was decided his offense (oral sex by a woman other than his wife, i guess. This is immoral, but I don't think it a crime) did not warrant that.

With this in mind, reread my previous posts, and Im sure you will see almost all of us are all saying pretty much the same thing. When others said "court finds grounds for impeachment and then the public vote on impeachment", Im sure they meant to say what I was saying, "the court impeaches (convicts someone of wrong doing) and the people remove".

[Epistax]

Would YOU want to have oral sex with his wife? I don't think anyone would.

Anyway I hope I haven't confused anyone with the 'impeach' word, I might have used it in a couple places where it's wrong.

The way it looks like it will work for us is the official is impeached if the court finds validy in the charges. Afterwords, the public decides of their guilt.

-or-

The court finds the charge invalid, but we allow some sort of appeal to the populace needing a great majority vote. It's unclear at what point the official is considered impeached-- maybe not until they are convicted as well.

I'm going to shut up in this thread for a while and let other people talk. You don't have to thank me.

[jdjdjd]

I think those of us in the US understand impeachment all too well, due to Mr. Clinton, but others without impeachment in their country, may be confused.\\

What I think we are talking about, is the court impeach, i.e. say that there is sufficient cause to proceed. In other words, indict, by simple majority. They will not weigh the evidence, they will just determine if the allegations warrant removal of office, and are not just political or personal or frivilous. The people will decide the guilt or innocent of the party, and their vote, 2/3 so its substantial, determine if the impeached party is removed from office.

The amendment is about impeachment and removal from office.\

As for particulars on succession, maybe we can just let it alone, let the present constitution deal with it when it happens. we don't want to confine future parties bound by this constitution to rules and guidelines that turn out not to be practical.

Back to Captain procedural guidelines, they are guidelines for the court to set up or lead us through, and probably do not need adding to the amendment.

Finally, the courts role in addition to making sure there is cause for a poll to the people, they should guide the people, accuser and defendant and make sure timelines are adhered to.

[Kramerman]

Here is a baseline framework. Tell me what you don't like, and we can talk about it. We may need to start a new thread, this one is kinda getting long. Im just using basic language, the final draft will be more formal.

1) A citizen brings a claim of neglegence, gross incompetence, or corruption directly to the High Court. These accusations are to be made privately, via a pm to at least one of the court justices. It is up to the notified justice to inform his fellow justices on the matter and also to pm the accused individual (defendant). The accusor's (plantiff) identity may remain confidential until the court thread begins at his request.

This would probably take a few hours.

2)If the court initially sees merit in the accusation - it is up to the court to decide for themselves a meritous claim - and when the defendent has responded by PM to indicate that he is aware of the charges, only then should the thread be opened. This way, no one is surprised.a thread will be set up where only the accusor, the High Court, and the defendant may participate, but all are free to observe.

[number three is kinda weak]
3)First the accusor [ i dunno a better word for this? Plaintiff? is that it perhaps? I should watch more judge Judy] makes his arguement, then when he states he is finished, the defendant may make his arguement. The court may interject at any time. Once the defendant is finished, the accusor will respond and this cycle will continue until the court rules that all points have been covered. During this process the public is free to make a thread to discuss the 'courtroom thread'. The whole courtroom action should take no more than 2 days, though there is no limit.

4) Once the court is ajourned(sp?), the justices will retire to discuss the testimony of the court in private. The head justice will then set up a poll for the justices only, where each of the five judges will, in confidentiality, cast their vote to impeach (convict the accused of wrong doing), or not to impeach (no abstain vote). Once all five votes have been cast, if their is at least a 4/5 vote impeaching the accused official, he/she is officially impeached [see my previos post for the correct definition, before you get riled up about this]. If there is less then a 4/5 vote to impeach, the official is free to return to his duties as an official.
This should only take a few hours at most.

5) [ Here is where there will be an appeal, or override of the court, or a bypass of the court if we decide to have one. This issue is still quite controversial, so I'll leave it to further discussion]

6) If the official is impeached by the court, then the high justice will then set up a poll for the general public to remove the official, or not to remove the official (no abstain vote). This poll would last for 3 days. The citizenry is free to post their feelings of the matter on this thread, discussing the testimony of the court thread or whatever. A 2/3 majority vote is necessary by this poll in order to remove an official from office. If there is less than a 2/3 majority vote, then the official remains in power, though bears the black mark of his impeachment for the rest of his political career.

7) [This will discuss the shift of power if an official is removed, in other words, who takes his place or whatever. I still think this needs more discussion]

Note: I prefer the court thread idea to the live chat idea, for a few reasons. I dont want to needlessly write them now, but if you want to argue this, post your arguement and I'll give mine.

Also, Once better language and such is used and we refine the whole thing, By going through the above process, the whole thing from the initial accusation to the official removal of an individual from power shouldn't take to much more than 5 days, the longest part being the public poll.

Kman

EDIT: I changed my step numbering to be 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 instead of 1,2,3,4,5,6,8

[Captain]

Kman,

I think the defendent should be PM'd when the Court first receives the accusation. The accuser can remain anonymous until the Court opens the public thread (if it does).

When the Court has decided if it has merit, and when the defendent has responded by PM to indicate that he is aware of the charges, only then should the thread be opened. This way, no one is surprised.

Also, we don't have to do everything the way the US does it. It has some good things we can copy, but we're not a "real" country so ours will be and should be different. Maybe the US Court felt it should impeach (Kman's convict of wrongdoing) Clinton for what he did, but I 'm not sure. I do think it's morally wrong, but Clinton violating my moral code is not necessarily illegal. And if there was nothing illegal done, there is no basis for punishing him. Was there actually a crime committed? If not, it is not the place of the Court to impeach. The legislature can makes laws concerning morals (that is their jurisdiction) and the Court can rule on those laws, but should not on the morals themselves.

The Court should only rule to impeach (as defined by Kman), if a LAW has been broken. Courts are here to rule on legal matters, that is the jurisdiction. As much as legal matters are moral matters, there is a distinction and the Court should be aware of that. Judges may have differing interpretations but there is only one law. How difficult would it be for the Judges to decide on moral matters! Judges opinions are empowered concerning existing law and precedents only. Personal opinion on moral matters should not be a factor in Court rulings.


Also, I would remove Incompetence from the list. Judges should not be expected the rule on the competency of the Minister. Negligence and abuse can be ascertained, sometimes quickly and sometimes not, but determining competence is way out there. Was placing city X in spot A better than spot B? Tough call, and not one for Judges to make. Furthermore, the COL has no competency requirements for officials, just responsibilities that should not be abrogated (negligence) and powers that should not be abused (corruption).

I might agree to gross incompetence placing the nation in grievous peril because that is something we can ascertain. Example, SMC declares war on a powerful enemy twice our size with modern armour while we have only musketeers? We lose several cities and our army is vaporized. That could be considered breaking the law because the SMC failed in his duties and responsibilites beyond what could be reasonably expected.


jdjdjd, as for the procedural guidelines, no need to be enshrined in law, but I would like to have some assurances that the defendent will be aware of the charges at the time they are laid, and that the defendent will have sufficient prior notice before a public impeachment thread is created. the Court should definitely be setting the time schedule, for publication of the initial thread and for opening the poll.

[Kramerman]

Also, we don't have to do everything the way the US does it. It has some good things we can copy, but we're not a "real" country so ours will be and should be different. Maybe the US Court felt it should impeach (Kman's convict of wrongdoing) Clinton for what he did, but I 'm not sure. I do think it's morally wrong, but Clinton violating my moral code is not necessarily illegal. And if there was nothing illegal done, there is no basis for punishing him. Was there actually a crime committed? If not, it is not the place of the Court to impeach. The legislature can makes laws concerning morals (that is their jurisdiction) and the Court can rule on those laws, but should not on the morals themselves.

The Court should only rule to impeach (as defined by Kman), if a LAW has been broken. Courts are here to rule on legal matters, that is the jurisdiction. As much as legal matters are moral matters, there is a distinction and the Court should be aware of that. Judges may have differing interpretations but there is only one law. How difficult would it be for the Judges to decide on moral matters! Judges opinions are empowered concerning existing law and precedents only. Personal opinion on moral matters should not be a factor in Court rulings.

OH GOD! You misunderstand me! And it is my fault cause I was just trying to be short and didn't work to get my point across. I agree with you absolutely. Morals have no place in law. This is at the base of my own political beliefs. Law should only be made to protect society, because morals are relative to peoples backgrounds. I could go way into detail on this but I'll stop there.

It is not true that Clinton was impeached soley for being 'immoral', and Im upset I accidently got this point across and i see why when i reread, I was just typing my example quickly and not really thinking. He was impeached because it was believed he lied to the American public when he famously said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", and it was found he did have sex, but then he said he techniqually didn't because it was oral... but anyway, it is against the law for the President to lie to the people because that brings charges of corruption - which happened to Clinton. Nixon was also impeached, but for other corruption reasons (the White Water scandel), but he resigned before he could be removed from office.

I DONT KNOW WHY YOU SAY I WANT TO MODEL US ON AMERICA, I was just using the Clinto example to show the definition of impeachment to those who may not of been aware to the real definition.

I also couldn't tell you how much I agree that the court should only rule on legal matters, and not morality, that would be rediculous. I definately wouldn't want a conservative Christian making rulings on my life style, which some parts he may see as immoral, as a muslim may see his life style immoral, and so on. Again I can preach this all day because this is the backboe of my beliefs, Captain. I find we have more in common everyday.

As for your other suggestions for changes, I all like and will add them.