Discussion: Amedment - Impeachment

[Kramerman]

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.

We can not do this. We would have to develope an entire law code, and that is not preferable, to say the least. The justices just need to be able to gauge, in all their wisdom and honor, whether an individual has been corrupt or neglegent.

EDIT: Captain read my previous post on the bottom of the last page. It is imperative you read it, you dreadfully misunderstood me, and it was my fault.

[Captain]

Kman,

no worries, I get it now. sorry for the misunderstanding. I see that something illegal did happen, and therefore the Court had a basis. I also see that *most* people felt this was minor enough not to warrant removal. although if he lied about that, what else would he have lied about, hiding behind a technicality? "No, your Honour, I did not divert public funds for personal gain. I just gave myself an interest free loan that I'll pay back in a millenia...

but as for the next post, ... we already do have a COL. And it states the ministers responsibilities. Unreasonably failing in those responsibilities, whether by negligence, abuse, or gross incompetence leading to grievous endangerment of the nation, - is breaking the law. The judges can render decisions based on that. Did the ministers break the law by unreasonably failing in their responsibilities as outlined in the COL? (I say unreasonably because missing a turnchat because your video card fried is totally understandable and not a reason to impeach... missing four turnchats cuz you didn't feel like it and didn't bother telling anyone or sending in plans, that's impeachment worthy.)

I'm not sure why we'd have to create "an entire law code" for that. The ones we have now are sufficient for our present purposes once we add the impeachment amendment.

---
btw, totally aside from the Court discussion, I actually do have a fairly "strict" personal moral "code" but that is important for me as part of my relationship with God and improving myself. I believe adhering to such a "code" has to be entirely voluntary to have real meaning, so that is why I never impose it on anyone else. True morality cannot be legislated. What can be legislated are laws governing behaviours, not by prevention but by deterrence (namely by punishment and enforcement). That's what our laws should stick to. Beyond that, it is up to each of us to help develop our society by being better people ourselves and fostering more positive relationships. If that's not voluntary, it's not sincere. And if it's not sincere, it's deception. Self-deception and a society built on deception can never be healthy. There can be no trust. Where there is no trust, there is fear. And as a wise Jedi once said, "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." well, that's the end of my sermon!

[Kramerman]

Well then, the justices can just use the code of laws to base and also back their 'finding merit' in a case and voting on impeachment. With that out of the way, Captain, I believe we are in agreement, as far as the general way the system works so far? We still got some holes to fill, but we'll need to wait until tomarrow for more people to pip in their ideas and opinions. I'll repost the layout I had put together again on thios page, for easy referal. I bid you all g'nite, on this thread anyway. We have accomplished much so far and I am quite satisfied as of yet, with our progress. The rest will wait till morning.

Kman

[Kramerman]

Ok, Im just reposting this basic, rough draft of what we got so far, for easy referal. Read it over, and look at the main ideas for ideas and suggestions. The language and stuff will all be re-written to be more formal. Everybody is still open to compromise, i believe, so don't be shy. The basic system below, though, I think is great, especially with a little work.

1) Any citizen, excluding High court justices, but including all other elected officials, may bring a claim of neglegence, gross incompetence, or corruption directly to the High Court against any other citizen including High court justices. 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 the plantiff's 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]

[Epistax]

What's not mentioned here:
Justices cannot bring a claim against an official.
Can officials bring a claim against an official?

If a justice in impeached, (VP?) takes his spot, or else a unanimous decision is needed by the rest of the court.


As far as an official being removed for being convicted, that should be handled the same as if they resigned turning mid term, meaning it should be handled somewhere else.

[Kramerman]

Justices cannot bring a claim against an official.

Oh, yeah! I'll update this.

Can officials bring a claim against an official?

I will update this in section 1), but its open to debate.

If a justice in impeached, (VP?) takes his spot, or else a unanimous decision is needed by the rest of the court.

Good question.
The court, I think, needs to always have five members at anytime, to be able to function to the fullest of its capabilities. I'd just throw out there that perhaps the VP should take over until a replacement is both nominated and confirmed. If this process cannot be completed before election time of the judge that was removed, then the VP would just finish the term. If the process can be completed, even with just a few hours to spare, then the replacement would just finish out this term, and perhaps be renominated in the next term. This is just one idea though.

As far as an official being removed for being convicted, that should be handled the same as if they resigned turning mid term, meaning it should be handled somewhere else.

I agree, except in the case if a justice is removed.

Kman

[civman2000]

I see no reason why justices and officials might not be allowed to bring claims against officials. They have rights too.

My version:
Either:
1. SOmeone starts a discussion and then a poll for impeachment without going to the court, requires 2/3.
2. Goes to court (4 or the justices hear the case).
2a) 3/4 agree with plaintiff. Poll is created, needs 50%+1.
2b) <3/4 impeach. Poll can still be created, but it needs 75%.

Thus you need only half of the people if you get the courts approval, 2/3rds if you don't get the courts approval or denial, and 3/4 if you get denied impeachment by the court.

[jdjdjd]

Insignificant point, Clinton had charges against him because he lied under oath, in grand jury testimony. If we could get every politician for lying to the public in general, we'd have none left.

It was insignificant to the public, because he lied about an affair, which had nothing to do with breaking the law, like lying about a murder, or an illegal war, or something.

Anyway, again insignificant point, I just interject for historical clarity.

Carry on.

[Aggie]

Some observations on kmans points.
1)agree
2) We need a # of judges who would have to see merit in the case. I say 2 should be necessary for the court to have hearing/trial.
3) I'd prefer, a written summary then a 1hr chat with 30 min of questions to each side. Or perhaps the traditional prosecution then defense, then final statements. But the first one is easier and more practical.
4) Votes need to be a matter of record. I do understand the need for secret ballot. However this is so important to our country, we must have this in the open so we know no deals were made. Transparency in government leads to honest government.
5) No appeal on this issue, but perhaps if the court rules 3-2(a majority but not the needed numbers), a impeachment vote could procede but require a 75% vote.
6.
7. I will do this as a seperate thread, since regardless of how this turns out, we do need a mechanism for replacement of people.
Basically the impeachment amendment will say "if convicted the official shall be removed immediately".
How power is passed will be dealt with in another thread/amendment

Now to other points.
A judge who is the accused must not be included on his hearing.
There should be a "guilty but not worthy of removal" option on the impeachment. This way people can vote that "yes he did it", but still retain the person in the job. This is very similar to the clinton trial since everybody agreed he was guilty, just that the charges didn't merit removal. I don't want somebody to say I was found innocent, when the fact is he was guilty but what he did, wasn't severe enough in most people eye's.
Best regards
Aggie

[GodKing]

Nt many people voting in the info polls I set up. Buy the looks of it, it doesn't appear that many people are hanging around our glorious society much lately.....

We are getting some interesting results though.

I am a firm supporter of what Togas is saying. KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) and leave as much power with the people as possible.

[BigRed515]

With impeachment, an issue that is bound to be controversial, I must add my voice to those calling for as much simplicity and as little invovlement for the court as possible.

I think the case, once it has passed the minimum standards of merit (2? Judges), should be presented by the accusor in a clear, fixed format so that the charges are fixed and easily understandable by all. The accused should also respond in a mirror format to the claim, to make it simple on the judges when they compare the arguments. After the claim and response are read by the judges, they should ask questions for clarification, etc, only on points brought up in the claims.

I'd prefer if the claim/response/clairification was conducted through PMs so that public rhetoric entered into the decisions as little as possible.

I think the raging public "courtroom" debates should be reserved for after the Court had made a decision to impeach and a vote on removal from office is required. I think that these courtroom threads need to be opened a day or two before the vote thread is opened, if only to ensure both the claimant and respondant get a chance to debate publicly before the first vote is cast.

My reasons are as follows:

1) Expediency. If we are going to suspend the Minister/Judge in question for the duration of the hearing, we should also do our best to ensure such limbo doesn't go on for multiple turnchats. Further, a fixed format garuntees that more random charges aren't lumped on during the courtroom thread and that there are a finite number of points to argue over.

2) Simplicity. The mirror claim and response will hopefully make it easy for everyone to understand what the issues are and will make it easier to make sense of a long and disjoined courtroo, thread. The fixed and finite format should also keep ambiguity to a minimum.

3) Impartiality. This concerns mainly my desire to keep the court's proceeding out of the public eye. The less the public independantly debates the case, the less likely the judges will be swayed by anything but the claim and response.

I'll stop here before actually proposing details, becasue this is as much effort I want to spend on a proposal that will probably be rejected out of hand.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by civman2000
I see no reason why justices and officials might not be allowed to bring claims against officials. They have rights too.

My version:
Either:
1. SOmeone starts a discussion and then a poll for impeachment without going to the court, requires 2/3.
2. Goes to court (4 or the justices hear the case).
2a) 3/4 agree with plaintiff. Poll is created, needs 50%+1.
2b) <3/4 impeach. Poll can still be created, but it needs 75%.

Thus you need only half of the people if you get the courts approval, 2/3rds if you don't get the courts approval or denial, and 3/4 if you get denied impeachment by the court.

Justices may not bring charges against anybody because they need to be objective in any case. If they bring charges against another, then they will be biased in their court decision. Of course, there is no way in stopping them from asking someone else to bring charges against someone for the judge. Officials can bring charges against anybody else including other officials. Anybody can bring charges against anybody, except court justices may not bring charges period. However this can be debated. I included it because it was mentioned earlier an I saw no objections to it.

Your basic idea above, is what we have, civman, if you support a way for the people to bypass the court, like i do. But, if you read the previous pages of this thread, their is strong sentiment against this. That is why I left blank spaces on the basic thing so far to be filled in after more debate.

[Kramerman]

damn, it is thundering and lightning here like a mofo. It'll be at least a few hours before I can turn my computer back on, and then I'll finish reading what everybody has said.

[Captain]

looking good so far!

okay, there's alot of issues still to reach consensus on... but the big one we're missing is:

What happens if more than one Judge is accused?

Who judges the judges, if there's more than 1 judge under "trial"?

Let's say the VP is under impeachment "trial", a judge is under impeachment (say for protecting the VP), and another judge is under impeachment (say for conducting a witchhunt)? What then? Do the remaining three "untouched" Judges render judgment on the others?

I can see the VP taking the spot of 1 judge as his job is sort of to fill in missing spots, but what would make, say the SMC or FAM, a good substitute judge? Should the ministers really be involved in Court procedures? Doesn't our COL specifically say Justices cannot hold any other office?

Perhaps we need "aides" just like the ministers are asking for them.

Or set up some kind of succession line (preferably not...)

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Aggie
Some observations on kmans points.
1)agree
2) We need a # of judges who would have to see merit in the case. I say 2 should be necessary for the court to have hearing/trial.
3) I'd prefer, a written summary then a 1hr chat with 30 min of questions to each side. Or perhaps the traditional prosecution then defense, then final statements. But the first one is easier and more practical.
4) Votes need to be a matter of record. I do understand the need for secret ballot. However this is so important to our country, we must have this in the open so we know no deals were made. Transparency in government leads to honest government.
5) No appeal on this issue, but perhaps if the court rules 3-2(a majority but not the needed numbers), a impeachment vote could procede but require a 75% vote.
6.
7. I will do this as a seperate thread, since regardless of how this turns out, we do need a mechanism for replacement of people.
Basically the impeachment amendment will say "if convicted the official shall be removed immediately".
How power is passed will be dealt with in another thread/amendment

Aggie

1) ok

2) 2/5 to find merit in a case sounds good to me. But I'll leave this up to debate before adding it.

3)the thing with a chat is that to find an hour where all the judges, defendent, and plantiff could all be present for an hour may take a week in itself. And we need to try to make the process as quick as possible, otherwise with one month terms it would be easier to just let an accused person finish their term, if accused of something towards the end of their term. This should not be so. They should feel justice if deserving of it. Also, a defendent could try to stall, saying he isn't available at a certain time when he might actually be, in an attempt to finish out his term. With a thread, the plantiff makes his arguement and it is in the defendants best interest to be there and defend himself.

4)I just fear that if the judges were made to reveal their votes, then they might fell pressured to vote other than they would normally. Like if they are going to impeach the president who put them in power, they aren't gonna want him to know they voted to impeach him and stuff like that. But i do see your point. This topic should also stay open to debate before any updates are made. Im sure we can find a good solution.

5) That is a new one. Perhaps a good compromise between those like me and civman who want an appeal, and those like Captain who don't. Good idea. Again keep this on for debate. I want to be certain to pass this thing into an amendment the first time around, so its gotta be good.

6) ok

7)again, that sounds good to me, but we should leave this up for arguements.

A judge who is the accused must not be included on his hearing.

Ok. Maybe when a judge is under trial, to impeach a 3/4 vote is needed by the court, by all the judges other than the one under trial. How about this?

There should be a "guilty but not worthy of removal" option on the impeachment. This way people can vote that "yes he did it", but still retain the person in the job. This is very similar to the clinton trial since everybody agreed he was guilty, just that the charges didn't merit removal. I don't want somebody to say I was found innocent, when the fact is he was guilty but what he did, wasn't severe enough in most people eye's.

To me, I think this could just be covered by an official getting impeached by the court, but not removed from office by the citizen vote. The court, and this should be put into the bill, should first except the merit of cases on the grounds that a person may be deserving of removal, then the judges should only vote to impeach if they think the person should be removed, then the public should only vote to remove if they think he deserves it. If you look at the system so far from the right angle, basically the court finds guilt, and the people decide to remove or not, though they may vote not to remove, of course, if they disagree with the court in the first place. So a person who has been impeached by the court but not removed, will always be guilty of impeachment and can never say he was inocent.