Discussion: Amedment - Impeachment

[civman2000]

The ministers should in no way be involved. Though I would like only the people to be involved, i might compromise with something like this:
1. judges impeach 4/5, people impeach 51% OR
2. people impeach with 67%.

[GodKing]

I agree similar with civman2000, except with some of the percentages.

judges only 2/3, with people confirming by simple majority.
The people with 75%, as this is going arount the investigative procedures of the court. I am scared of some sort of hystaria occuring in which a person is accused of something, they aren't on the boards for the weekend to defend themselves, no real investigation takes place and they get impeached, then they arrive on monday to find out about whatever and they were innocent, but now without a position. OK, not the most likely of situations, but it is something that is possible.

[civman2000]

with 5 judges, 2/3 is the same as 4/5.

[GodKing]

Ya, but I think only 3 should be needed to look into this as in any other case. Also, what if a judge or 2 is out of town on holiday. Does the whole thing get put on hold....

I think it should be kept as flexable as possible.

[Spiffor]

I still say no government and no judges involved (except the one who sets up the poll as soon as a citizen asks him to do).
I keep my position because I want impeachment to happen when the need arises. With an even more outstanding majority (Kramerman's 80% are delirious : that's 4 yeasayer per naysayer), or the same delirious majority of the court, impeachment will most probably never happen, except if someone made a major offense combined with perpetual incompetence.

We should impeach bad officials. With Jdjdjd's or kramerman's proposal, we'll keep very bad officials into power (because everybody has some merits, when you look closely), and we'll fire only the worse among the worse, i.e nobody -because the voters can(t be fooled into voting for the very worse possible minister.

Accepting jdjdjd's or kramerman's proposals will exactly be like deleting our procedure of impeachment : we'll never impeach.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I still say no government and no judges involved (except the one who sets up the poll as soon as a citizen asks him to do).
I keep my position because I want impeachment to happen when the need arises. With an even more outstanding majority (Kramerman's 80% are delirious : that's 4 yeasayer per naysayer), or the same delirious majority of the court, impeachment will most probably never happen, except if someone made a major offense combined with perpetual incompetence.

We should impeach bad officials. With Jdjdjd's or kramerman's proposal, we'll keep very bad officials into power (because everybody has some merits, when you look closely), and we'll fire only the worse among the worse, i.e nobody -because the voters can(t be fooled into voting for the very worse possible minister.

Accepting jdjdjd's or kramerman's proposals will exactly be like deleting our procedure of impeachment : we'll never impeach.

I guess I was looking at it from a different perspective, that is, the removal of an official who was already placed into power by the people, whether this is confirming vote by the people of a judge or an election of Pres, VP or minister. Should an official the people chose be able to be removed so easily?

I also consider as Godking mentioned, that tempers could rule the day and oust an official, without properly looking at the facts.

And finally, as can happen in democracies, is that the majority uses its influence to destroy the minority, or at least silence them.

I think that is what I was thinking. Do the ministers and the court need to be in the process, no, but there should be some formal procedure for review of the charges and for presentation of a defense of the charged. And the official should have violated certain rules, or the Code of Laws, or something specific to come up for impeachment, not just in general that people do not like his opinions.

I said at the beginning my proposal would need revisions...so let us revise it or scrap it and start from another point; but I think the original language could use some more detail.

After all, having the extra layers is for the protection of the innocent man, not the guilty.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by civman2000
The ministers should in no way be involved. Though I would like only the people to be involved, i might compromise with something like this:
1. judges impeach 4/5, people impeach 51% OR
2. people impeach with 67%.

I like civman2000's proposal. I would vote for this impeachment system.

[Kramerman]

I made my percentages in a hypothetical sense, but like Jdjdjd, I fear a political impeachment of a relatively good official by a select few of nay sayers who are only impeaching through political motives. This is why I think the percentages should be higher and the process be covered with checks and balances, i.e. the court and public system. No matter the decided percentages though (mine were, again, just tossed out there for debate, which I'm gald I'm seeing - let democracy work baby!) I believe a system of a court ruled impeachment then a public vote needed to finalize the removal be nessecary. And then, for checks and balances sake, a extremely high % vote by the public can bypass a courts decision to not impeach and directly remove the offending official. This basic system, as described in more detail in my above post, provides the essential checks and balances neccessary to squelch either corruption or a minority successfully removing an official.
Again, my percentages (4/5 judicial plus 2/3 public; or just an 80% public) are very debatable and should be.

Kman

EDIT: civman's proposal mirrors mine, but with lower percentages. I find this acceptable and would vote for either his or my higher ones. Again, the checks and balances is the main security for protecting against a minority winning or corruption.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by GodKing
Ya, but I think only 3 should be needed to look into this as in any other case. Also, what if a judge or 2 is out of town on holiday. Does the whole thing get put on hold....

I think it should be kept as flexable as possible.

The impeachment of an official is no small deal, it can be the deciding factor of a polictical career. An impeachment is almost a permanent black mark it it is unlikely that the individual would ever again be elected or appointed again. This is why if we must wait a couple days for some justices to return, than that shouldn't be a problem. If we must wait longer than we can always by pass the court by just polling the public for the much higher percentage that is needed for impeachment and removal with out the courts input or overriding their decision.

Kman

[Spiffor]

Jdjdjd :
Back in the old days, when we just begun to debate about the court (at least 10 days ago), someone suggested the court would have a role in impeachment : to be a place where people listen to the attack and defense of the impeached.

I don't know if this suggestion was yours, but I think it's great. Indeed, such a "trial" would be of best use to inform the public of the achievments (good and bad) of the impeached official. It would also be fun to roleplay a whole trial.

In my view of the "trial" suggestion, the court has no power, except giving someone the right to speak (such as "now, the official can speak", "now, citizen #xxx can speak" etc.). A trial would be a chat where members of the court are moderators.
Once this chat has been held, present justices select someone among them to write a comprehensive and neutral summary, for the citizens who couldn't attend the chat. The complete log of the chat must also be disclosed, for the very interested citizens who coulmdn't make it.

Once the trial has been held, and the summary is out, then we can consider the people are informed enough, and can vote on the impeachment, with a 2/3 majority.

This trial suggestion will slow things down a bit (up to 5-6 days), but it will adress the problem which haunts court-partisans : uninformation among the people.

[Togas]

I have a proposal:

First, we need to state grounds for impeachment. One should not be impeached for being unpopular, that's what elections are for. Impeachment should be a serious affair where someone is violating the rules or abusing the system.

Second, any citizen should be able to bring charges of impeachment before The Court. The Court would either give it's stamp of approval on the impeachment (majority vote), or deny the impeachment (and state reasons). The Court's role to make sure that it's a valid impeachment -- that there's some evidence to proceed, and that it's not a popularity issue, etc.

Third, the citizen takes his case to the people. At this point, we need to decide if we want a poll, informal trial, whatever. The vote happens, 2/3rds majority, and if enough people vote to oust the minister, he's out.

I don't feel we need to change the original text too much, just give some explaination of why a minister would be impeached. I like the idea of the people being able to directly remove their elected officials. We should try to keep it in their hands. The Court's role shouldn't be to preside over a "trial" (it would be impractical to try to hold one), and The Court shouldn't need a super-majority to let the people decide for themselves. The Court is there to make sure that it's a valid call for impeachment -- to rule on the legal aspect of it only -- not to decide who stays and who goes.

--Togas

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Jdjdjd :
Back in the old days, when we just begun to debate about the court (at least 10 days ago), someone suggested the court would have a role in impeachment : to be a place where people listen to the attack and defense of the impeached.

I don't know if this suggestion was yours, but I think it's great. Indeed, such a "trial" would be of best use to inform the public of the achievments (good and bad) of the impeached official. It would also be fun to roleplay a whole trial.

In my view of the "trial" suggestion, the court has no power, except giving someone the right to speak (such as "now, the official can speak", "now, citizen #xxx can speak" etc.). A trial would be a chat where members of the court are moderators.
Once this chat has been held, present justices select someone among them to write a comprehensive and neutral summary, for the citizens who couldn't attend the chat. The complete log of the chat must also be disclosed, for the very interested citizens who coulmdn't make it.

Once the trial has been held, and the summary is out, then we can consider the people are informed enough, and can vote on the impeachment, with a 2/3 majority.

This trial suggestion will slow things down a bit (up to 5-6 days), but it will adress the problem which haunts court-partisans : uninformation among the people.

Hmmm, interesting proposal, I do like it, a good compromise.

It could even be in written form, i.e. all present there cases in written form, with a pre-poll debate, such as this, with a time limit that starts once the original complaint is made and defendant's answer is filed.

Oh BTW, I would love to take credit for a good idea, but impeachment was brought up in conjunction with the court by someone else.

BTW, BTW, I like Togas idea, but I see that a good amount of us are against the court having the power to dismiss charges.

What do you think of Togas idea Spiff? It is in line with Civman and Kramerman thoughts.....

Hmmm, I must think about all this.

[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.

[GodKing]

Togas summerizes my views very well. Thanks. Spiffors idea of how to handle the situation is excelent - the idea of a review of the charges, a chat, then debate and voting on teh forums is good. I am glad that there is no rush to get this out fast, as this can be very important. I have a final exam tomarrow, but after that I should have some more free time so if people want help with wording, I would be glad to do some then. Thanks.

[Captain]

I agree with Togas.

The court doesn't decide if a minister goes or stays. It simply decides whether there are grounds for impeachment, that is, has any LAW been broken?

If not, the charges are dismissed. Unpopularity is for elections, not impeachment.

If so, the Court sets a date for the Impeachment poll - this is to provide sufficient time for both sides to make their cases.

Then, the accusor(s) list their charges and their evidence and arguments. The defendant can list their evidence and arguments.

At the determined date, the official poll is created. 2/3 vote is needed for the indictment.