Impeachment of Aggie, Togas and Arnelos

[DAVOUT]

notyoueither,

Nobody knows if I am the only one, but others dont bother with that, or dont care, or let me do it. But to be honest, would I be the only one that would not change my thinking.
What is also true, is that I have been told so many wrong arguments, or so many statements without arguments that I feel quite comfortable with mine.
To be franck, I must say that the ruling is one of the worst piece of decision I ever red; you cannot expect that we understand such a ruling. The Court should have explained a bit the decision, all the more that it was quite clear that at least one citizen will read it. I made a short comment by PM to the Senior Justice; ask him what he answered.
Now, I have explained what I (but fortunately not only me !) understand by precedent. Tell me where I am wrong.

[notyoueither]

You have explained nothing. All you have said is that you disagree. That is fine, you are free to disagree.

You are not free to drag the nation through the mud. Well, actually, you are free to do that. Just don't expect any allies in the effort.

Now, if you can tell me why your crusade is vital to the well being of the nation, I would like to know. I will have to make some decisions within the the next 12 or 24 hours, and I would like to rest easy knowing that I gave you a fair hearing.

[DAVOUT]

I wonder what it becomes when you are poking and trolling ...

Anyway I have said enough; it is fruitless to speak to somebody who refuses to hear.

[notyoueither]

Now you are insulting DAVOUT. Good plan.

Now, who is it who refuses to hear?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Now you are insulting DAVOUT. ?

Could you explain, I dont see the point.

[DAVOUT]

To The Court,

I have the regret to deny the presence of Justice notyoueither amonst the Justices stating on the present case.

He has clearly expressed a bias againt my case and hostility against my person in the course of the hearing (see above post).

[Beta]

Davout - restez calme, mon ami, or at least take a valium (that is meant as light humor, to make sure there is no misunderstanding).

notyoueither(nye) approached you reasonably. He fully acknowledged your right to as he put it 'drag the nation through the mud'. As have most of the people on this thread.

He simply wanted to understand your position. And look at your reaction.

So - let me ask - is this roleplay? (and I ask this question fully acknowledging the quantum leap from real life to apolytonia) If it is, it is well done, but I would humbly suggest has gone too far.

Or, are you just trying to be difficult for the 'fun' of it'? (my assumption is that you are a stubborn individual, but that you are not just doing this for the fun of it. If you are, then I would not be alone amongst Apolytonians in being more than dissappointed with you.)

Or, are you truly concerned with the rights and wrongs of the case? And, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I will assume this to be so. In which case, talk with notyoueither as a member of the court, so as he has indicated, he can understand your position.

Your modus operandi (if there is a Latin expert out there, please correct my spelling) in this thread has been to dismiss those who disagree with you. I am relatively new to Apolyton and Apolytonia, but I find the general population intelligent, open-minded, and with a well-developed sense of fairness and justice. The fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has is a testament to this.

So please Davout, work with notyoueither to resolve this. Thank-you for reading. ..... beta

[Arnelos]

DAVOUT,

You have asked why all of us can't see what you see. All of us are equally perplexed as to why you can't see what we all mutually see. The level of misunderstanding has amounted to the point that I can see many are convinced that you MUST be role-playing because they have too much faith in your capability to reason to believe that you can't see why the Court decided the way it did (and that we supported it).

In the event you REALLY still don't get it:

- The Constitution has a provision for how cases of Impeachment are handled. That provision is for the Court to be place of hearing and for all citizens to have the right to bring matters before the Court, no matter how petty or how stupid or how unpopular.

- The Senate is not given a right (anywhere) to pardon anyone of any crime. The Court is explicitly given the power to determine what is and what is not a crime.

- The one power the Senate DOES have is to decide whether to remove from office a minister who is deemed by the Court to have committed an impeachable offense. This means the Senate may act on punishment AFTER the Court has already argued on whether the offense is impeachable, not BEFORE.

- While the Senate is given powers not otherwise stated in the Constitution, the power of interpreting and enforcing laws, especially as it regards hearing cases of impeachment, is given explicity to the Court. It is therefore NOT the right of the Senate to take that power away (unless it be by an ammendment).

- More broadly, there are larger principles at work here. You seem to be upset because the power of the Senate is being infringed upon by the power of the Court and this reduces the scope of democracy. This is true and I believe, unlike what you saying, we DO understand this to be the case.

The difference is that we seem to understand why it is NECESSARY. You see, majority rule is only half of what makes a functioning democracy work. Making some rules (namely the civil rights of individual citizens) sacrosanct and beyond the reach of majority rule is essential to the operation of successful democracy. Otherwise, the majority inevitably tramples the rights of any minority it so chooses. In this case, the right which you seek the majority to trample upon is a very key right - your right, as an individual citizen, to a hearing before the Court.

It is not only the case that the Senate is not given this power in the constitution, but seemingly everyone (perhaps even you) understands that it should NEVER be given this power, regardless of the circumstances.

About Precedent...

The other issue you've attacked is the one of precedent.

You have argued here that we needn't pay any attention to the establishment of precedent. That we can violate the law here with a clearly unconstitutional Court decision and then trust the Court to follow the constitution more strictly in other matters.

But that is where the problem lies... if the Court is to violate the Constitution it was created to protect here, does not that create the expectation that the Court will be permitted to violate it again in the future? What is to stop the Court from doing so?

You seem to think that the Court has overstepped its bounds by invalidating a Senate Bill... nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the Court would be grossly overstepping its bounds if it ALLOWED for a Senate Bill that violated the Constitution.

In the practice of "common law" and the concept of the rule of law upon which it is based, it is understood that you cannot simply choose for the legal system to break its own laws today and follow them tomorrow. Once the legal system stops following the laws that are written, what's the point of writing them down after that? If the rules are to be established by whatever is convenient at the moment, why have a constitution?

We have a constitution because whatever may seem convenient at the moment (allowing the majority to pardon the president for a clear violation of the law) is NOT advisable from a broader perspective. We want a democracy, not a MASSocracy.

Or, as another put it:

"Democracy doesn't work without rights. Because you can't have 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner."

We have chosen here to allow the majority to rule, but have compelled it to respect individual rights and the rule of law in doing so. To do otherwise is to risk not having any rules or rights at all. That is why I termed the precedent you wish for "dangerous".

[ManicStarSeed]

I have a solution for this whole silly affair...

To what is left of Court of Apolyton:


If procedure allows me (If it doesn't tell me where it does belong), I ask (move) that this case be thrown out as it has no merit.

as for Arnelos and Togas, they DID NOTHING and can not be tried without evidence of wrong doing. They have been forthcoming and do not deserve this.

As for Aggie, It is in presidential power to make such a desision;
Per Article I
1.d - The President must follow the instructions of the Senate and Ministers while playing the game unless the instruction is clearly erroneous, or made impossible and/or harmful by changed circumstances. he must abide by the intent of the Senate or Minister in making the changes.

Made harmful by changed circumstances = Rome Declaring War - 2 front war is scheduled.
Abide by the intent of senate or ministers = Willingness of the senate and he FAM to enter MMPs and Alliances for assistance in the current war effort (though yet declared). And it was reasonable to assume that in a two front war (made harmful by changed circumstance) we needed a cheap set of alliances (the MPPs in this case).

This fact is a matter of public record displayed in the subsequent discussions and polls that agreed with the decision but "condemed the process"


It is case a misapplication of the constitution and should be thrown out.

Please note, The evidence in this case is all public record. I encourage the court to look back through threads and JUDGE for YOURSELVES if the if Aggie (Not Arnelose or Togas) followed the intent of the Senate by entering the MMPs. I put forth that the general mood of the Senate "Wow, ROME AND germany, those extra MPPs will help, heck we are planning some others soon.."

On a personal note, I am sorry that I created a bill that started all this nonsense. I can agree with roadcage now, but I was not seeking this. Just watching a back.


Respectfully;
Mss

[DAVOUT]

Betahound,

I never took a valium in my life, I will not begin now and for that. Your light humor is welcome, and your questions interesting.

Is this role play ? Can it be something else ? Are the Justices roleplaying ? Would it be possible that only one guy was roleplaying in Apolytonia ? Then, what means too far in roleplaying : the dead end, the situation leading nowhere, or in no direction interesting the roleplayers. No big deal, go back to the last crossroad and take an other way.

But when it comes to me (what I am trying, my motives) I am a bit more reluctant: the problem is not me. My personal influence in the present situation is almost nothing; the whole thing is a consequence of the system which not only made it possible, but to some extent caused it. And in front of that, that I do not think good at all for Apolytonia, I did the only thing I could do, I acted according to the law. But I am unfortunate, any time I use a right according to the law (call for impeachment or dismissal of a Justice), someone with a better understanding come and tell me that I should not have done so.

I am surprised that in a population where we find so many great strategists, no one has anticipated, in time, the coming of this (small) crisis. I am also surprised that it is apparently so difficult to find a legal outcome without killing a scapegoat. In that, I want (stubbornly if you like) the abscess to be drained. And they are many ways for open-minded people as you are with so many others.

As far as notyoueither is concerned, I tried recently, as plaintiff, to discuss with him as Justice, and it failed badly. I don’t think appropriate that a plaintiff be treated as a culprit, already condemned in the mind of the Judge.

Well, not exactly what you wanted, but we have been taught that the Apolytonian law must be applied to the last letter.

[ManicStarSeed]

CONSTITUTIONAL NOTE

For the Court to consider:

Also, on a CONSTITUTIONAL NOTE---> I tried this point in my now infamous court case, but it poorly as it did not sink in. The Senate is a body, singular, governed by majority.

Our all our citizens are EITHER senators, ministers, prez, vp or judges. Citizen DOES NOT always EQUAL Senator. You can RESTRICT behavior for being a member of any ONE of these OFFICES and the restriction does not apply to the individual rights.

The SENATE and FAM were wronged in this regard. It must be either one (only 2 possiblle wronged) that calls for the trial. Since Davout was not FAM and he can not speak for the SENATE as a body, he has no personal claim to injustice. It was not a personal action, No individual can claim it personaly enough to

This is what happens when you do not let the decision for impeachment go through the legistalute BEFORE trial. That is why I tried to create that cursed err... "poll"

The point of this whole thing is that to be a member of the Senate you DO sacrifice yourself to the will of the vote when you speak as THE SENATE.

Since this case is so tied to #7,
THE SENATE can decide not to press charges for wrongs against it.
THE SENATE can decide to change its mind.
This is all done via bills and laws.
Individual rights do not include speaking for THE SENATE. which can not SPEAK except by democratic vote.
If the law stood, Any one of the ministers could have callerd for an impeachment. because it did not revoke an individuals right, just THE SENATES.


Ok thats enough. I've said my peace.
Thanks Davout for putting your head on the chopping block.
Thank you court for your energy and attention to thes matters

Thank you O Great Banana and Apolyton for this huge bag of nuts

Mss

[Beta]

"Amen" to that.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
To what is left of Court of Apolyton:

I am not going anywhere. Davout's request will be reviewed.

[notyoueither]

Sheik. Empty your PMs.

[Sheik]

Emptied