Discussion: Amedment - Impeachment

[jdjdjd]

Perhaps something like this....

"This amendment will hereby set the rules of impeachment for all officials of the governement in an elected or appointed post, and limited to these positions, President, Vice President, Justice of the High Court, and Minister, incuding any Minister position currently described in the Code of Laws and any Minister position created in the future. This amendment shall override any prior rules on Impeachment and the Removal of an official from office mentioned in the Code of Laws.

1. Any citizen may bring the case of impeachment of an official to a member of the High Court.

2. The High Court will review the allegations made and by vote of a simple majority can approve the case is with merit and to be brought to the people. The Full Court (all five members) will decide this issue, unless one of the members is being impeached. In such a case where a judge is being impeached, the remaining four Justices and the Vice President will become the Full Court, and will review the case.

3. Once impeachment has been approved by the Court, the matter then goes to trial. The party who started the impeachment process will present the facts and evidence against the official including all specific allegations. The defendant will then have a chance to answer these allegations. Both parties must post their arguments for the public to see, this will be in a thread on the matter started by the High Court. The defendant will have three days to respond once the allegations are posted by the complainant.

4. After the arguments are presented, the public then can debate the topic in the thread, and may request that the court hold a public forum for arguments (a chat). The chat will be moderated by at least one member of the High Court. There will be a three day time limit to this thread after the defendant files his answer and the chat must occur within that period of time.

5. The general populace will then review the case and vote for removal from office of the defendant in a poll. This requires a 2/3 vote. This poll will last for three days.

6. If for valid reason, the defendant did not file his answer timely, he will be able make a case for filing late to the court, which they can grant if the lateness is within reason as agreed upon by a simple majority of the Full Court.

I add number six in case the party being impeached happens to be away and does not know about the case until too late. Any time some one is impeached without a chance to defend themselves, then they do deserve a second chance. However, if they are away that long, then maybe they should not be in office.

We can edit this, just trying to compile all the thoughts in....

[jdjdjd]

Oops, "perhaps spmething like this" should not be in the quote

[Captain]

Sounds good to me! good work jdjdjd!

one thing... does the minister stay in power during the process?

Or is he/she on suspension once the trial begins (that is, the Court has decided the case has enough merit to warrant trial)?

Adding #6 is a good idea.

This is what I imagine the process to be like:

1) Accuser sends PM to Court official with list of complaints/accusations.

2) Court official contacts other Justices.

3) Court official notifies defendent by PM that an Accusation has been filed and the allegations being reviewed. Court does not indicate who has filed the Accusation, simply states the charges. The defendent may respond to the accusation if desired. If the defendent makes no response, the Court assumes that the defendent pleads NOT GUILTY.

4) The Court decides if the case has merit. If so, it PMs the defendent and the accuser to let them know the case will go to trial. Otherwise, it PMs both to let them know the case is being dismissed.

5) If it goes to trial, the Court begins a thread titled: IMPEACHMENT.

It lists defendent, the accuser, and the charge. The court must indicate the reason for the impeachment trial, that is, the LAW that the official is accused of breaking but the Court does not give evidence or arguments one way or another. The Court also gives the closing date for the Trial.

The accuser and the defendent then get the chance to give their arguments and evidence in this trial. No one else should post in this thread, unless called as a witness by either side.

6) Then, after the trial closes, the thread is open for ANYONE to post their opinion. Or request a chat, with a Judge present.

7) At a determined date, the poll will be posted by the Court. No one should post in the poll thread, aside from the CLOSING arguments of the accuser and the defendent.

8) Even though the poll results are visible before the poll closes, only when the poll closes are the results valid. Then, if impeached by 2/3 the official is removed immediately. Otherwise, they are acquitted.

[Spiffor]

I think jdjdjd's amendment, and Captain's way-to-do are pretty fine. Should this amendment be suggested, I'd vote for it.
(I still prefer a chat rather than a thread for the trial, because it's more fun ; however, I acknowledge a thread would be more practical)

[Epistax]

The President shall establish an emergency member to take his/her place until a new election can be held,...

I was suggested to point the out. This is text from the original Code of Laws, Article II, Impeachment and Resignations. My concern with this wording is that it does not take into consideration the very real possibility of the president him/herself being impeached.

The United State's position on this matter is that the Vice President would assume full presidential command for the duration of the term, and the Secretary of State would take the VP position. We do not have a Sec. of State. It has been suggested that the SMC be kicked up a notch to VP.

1) Should the VP take the Pres's term?
2) Should the SMC take the VP's term, or should there be an appointment or election for the VP?
3) Should there be an election or appointment for the SMC if they have taken over the VP.

Discuss (no I am not stealing from you, I am stealing from the original SNL)

--edit--

This should probably be listed as another amendment, but there's no reason not to steal the popularity of this thread, as it is partly related. The chain of command would also take effect if anyone left their position for the remainder of their term for any other reason.

[Captain]

1) yes
2) No, a new VP should be elected. if not possible, the Minister of Economy take over, or the FAM should take over before the SMC.
3) No, because the SMC should stick to military matters. The military has a role to play, VP is not it.

btw, just to highlight (might have been lost in my lengthy post)

Should the official under trial stay in his position until the trial finishes or should he be placed on suspension?

[Spiffor]

I'd say the official stays into function until the trial finishes, but should be suspended once the impeachment poll is opened.
If not, any absurd (but legally backed) impeachment procedure would make it possible to cripple our government.

[Kramerman]

ok, sorry it took me so long to reply, i was kicked off the server and i couldn't get back on for the longest time for some reason. Anyway, i read spiffor's post and he had some goodpoints, however i have good arguements aswell:

You speak about a " minority successfully removing an official". But, in an election, more than 50% is never a minority.

You misunderstand me. When i speak of a minority in this sense, i mean that indeed a 51% vote is the majority of the vote for that poll, however, that doesn't mean 51% of the public feel that way. For many reasons, be them designed or coincidental, a minority of the population could decide something for the public, just by particiapting in a certain poll. Say the pop of Apolytonia is 100. Maybe only 60 (im just throwing these relative numbers out there) would participate in any poll for any number of reasons. The majority vote of the 60 who participated in the poll, is by no means the majority of the population (say 40 of the 60 were for impeachment, 40 is not 51% of 100). I dunno about all you, but i know I haven'y participated in every poll. Now this could happen in any poll,including elections, but we just assume that everybody who wanted to vote in those polls, did vote in the alloted time. But when it comes to impeachment, not a light topic, I think that can be a dangerous assumption. This is why I think the court should be involved in a removal decision in some other way than just moderation. Do see what Im saying? I know im not writing that very well, im having problems putting my thoughts into words, if you know what i mean...

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.

I see this point very clearly, and this is why Im very willing to compromise with a less strict percentage of vote, by either the population or the court.

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.

This is why the people should be able to override the court with a high enough percentage vote. I agree that 80% is way to high, but i like civman's 2/3 vote. And no, I dont think it is possible for a truly corrupt president muster 1/3 of the population behind him. And if he can, and it is concievably possible, well then that president would stay in power no matter which system of impeachment we choose of the ones suggested thus far (unless i missed one) would he not??????

Here is my position, quite well justified if I may say so. But if the 'majority' (being a relative term, as I've pointed out, of course) are against me, then so be it. That is Democracy at work.

Kman

[Kramerman]

My basic (modified) propsed sytem is this:

1. court votes to impeach. 3/5 or 4/5 vote (im flexible on this) required.

2. Once the official is impeached, a 51% vote is necessary (again im flexible on the percentages) to remove the official from office. If this fails, the official stays in office, though his impeachment by the court is a potential black mark for his future political career (if you recall, Bill Clinton was impeached, but he was not removed from office. Though, i dont think this hurt his political career....).

3. If the court fails to impeach, and there is strong public sentiment against an official, then a 2/3 public vote can remove the official from office directly, without ever going through a court or bypassing a court's decission.

EDIT: I like the idea of the court hosting a trial by posting the arguements and what not... perhaps this can be worked in? If not, no biggy.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I'd say the official stays into function until the trial finishes, but should be suspended once the impeachment poll is opened.
If not, any absurd (but legally backed) impeachment procedure would make it possible to cripple our government.

I agree whole heartedly. Until an official is officailly declared removed from office, then he should remain in the postiton and should continue to carry out his duty. Innocent until proven guilty, basically.

Kman

[Epistax]

1. court votes to impeach. 3/5 or 4/5 vote (im flexible on this) required.

It was stated that the entire court must rule on impeachments, but if 3/5 is required, then a unanimous quorum is also enough (3/3). This isn't a pro or con, but a suggestion to wording.

I do like the idea of the court being bipassed. 2/3rds is a good amount for public disagreement, however anything over 50% should probably cause some sort of action, such as a reevaluating by the court.

[Kramerman]

It was stated that the entire court must rule on impeachments, but if 3/5 is required, then a unanimous quorum is also enough (3/3). This isn't a pro or con, but a suggestion to wording.

I like those suggestions mucho! Keep 'em coming.

Edit: i like the other suggestion too, just it didn't paste when I wanted to quote what you said. I should of just quoted your entire post....

[Captain]

again, I want to point out, as others have also, that the Court is there to ensure a LAW has been broken. Impeachment is not simply because of popularity. Popularity can ensure an official stays in, but unpopularity should not be sufficient to oust one. You will have a chance to get rid of them when the election comes.

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.

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.

Remember that the Court is not deciding to impeach, they are simply facilitating the process. The people decide. The court makes sure there is a fair trial and that the process is legal.

[Epistax]

Scenario:

President Bubba has made a few moves as prompted by his political party, The Gooses. These moves were not ordered by the ministers that should have given them, but are supported by a majority of people.

An impeachment trial is started anonymously. The court rules 2/5 against, but claims of political bias spring up so a vote is cast against the president.

The vote reaches 59% against the president. The court reconvenes on the issue, one justice changes his position, and the vote is 3/5 for impeachment.


Has anything here been illegal? Perhaps after this is done, the public should vote one more time to convict, so that it is not the court making the decision.

[Kramerman]

EDIT: what the hell, it posted my thing before i finished? My complete arguement is below.