SENATE BILL: Trial, Not Turnout Amendment (Sent to the Regions)

[Oakvale]

Okay, my argument's here pretty simple.

We've been discussing impeachment of government officials a lot recently, for obvious reasons, and as it stands the Constitution requires impeachment to be A) passed by the Senate and then B) subject to a popular vote by "the people".

The problem with this should be clear. It effectively turns impeachment - what should be a sober and objective consideration of criminal charges - into a recall election, subject to the whims of turnout and partisan politics.

In the old days, if, for example, a JCP Cabinet officer or President had been guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours there'd be no chance - or very little chance - that they'd ever be removed from office, because the JCP (or RPP) turnout machine would kick into action and the impeachment would come down to how many zombie voters, few of which would have any information or awareness of the charges, the party whips could badger into voting the 'right' way.

This remains true today. We don't have impeachment in Atlasia, we have recall elections. This is not good policy. If we want to allow recall elections, then let's do that, but it should be an entirely seperate issue to impeachment.

I expect the argument against this amendment will be that the Senate could supposedly impeach Cabinet officers for petty partisan reasons. Well, maybe, but that's much moreso the case now - theoretically, if, say, Labor and the Liberals decided they wanted to remove a Federalist President just because, they could do it just as easily under the current system by reducing a serious matter like impeachment to what's effectively a test of turnout machines.

[Oakvale]

Just a note- presumably, this bill would also replace clause two as well, unless the intention here is to require a two-thirds vote, a trial, and then another two-thirds vote. Since that seems a bit redundant, this bill should probably be amended to clarify it replaces clause two as well, and then 3 and 4 there should be renumbered 2 and 3.

I thought it was sufficiently clear that it's the same vote but if there's confusion we can cut the final sentence of Clause 2 -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- which should make it clear that the Senate trial, presided over by the Chief Justice, would be only impeachment vote necessary.

EDIT: Btw, Senator Ben has indicated that he would like to co-sponsor.

[Oakvale]

I'm incredibly busy today but I'll be introducing an amendment to address some of the issues raised here tomorrow.

[Oakvale]

*bursts through church doors, breathless*

I objec—er, not so fast, Yankee!

I apologise sincerely for my absence - my WiFi kicked the bucket earlier in the week, briefly worked when I replaced my modem on Tuesday, and then... died again until I got the overpaid tools at my ISP to come to my house and fiddle around with some cables.

I've read the concerns, many of them valid and worth debating, mentioned in this thread and hope we can postpone a final vote until we consider some changes. I really don't want this to die, not yet. While there's obviously several Senators who are opposed to the very principle of my poposal, I hope I can sway enough people to at least send this to the regions.

With the complaints mentioned in mind, I move to postpone the vote, and propose an amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really want to try and get something like this passed, and I'm more than willing - eager, even! - to compromise as much as is necessary.

I'd be open to giving the Supreme Court a more active role - although that could prove problematic were we impeaching a Justice - but I think a good place to start if it would make it more palatable is from Mr. Kingman's idea -

If the Senators are similarly concerned, I'd recommend amending the bill to delay the impeached officer's removal for, say, 72 hours, and then allowing a "check" on the impeachment to be possible during that time frame, which if happens makes a public poll mandatory before the officer's removal. The "check" could be something like, official requests from 3 or 4 regional legislatures or governors, a petition with X% of registered citizens signing it, or something else to that effect.

Thoughts?

To address some of the concerns raised -

I can't really believe we're at the point where some think the Senate should have the sole and easy authority to impeach anyone they want. Christ, guys. Really? This body, which has made a ton of mistakes, constantly overlooks things, and is far too easily swayed in a landslide to one side of one issue or another depending on the month, should be entrusted with the ability to impeach anyone with a 2/3rds majority?

You have much less faith in the Senate than I do. I'm pretty confident that as flawed as this body often is, it's nonetheless - usually! - a group of active, engaged members who are aware of what's going on in Atlasia. My fear is if we ever do see an impeachment election, because that's what they are - that hordes of zombie voters will be turned out by whichever party machine is running at its highest capacity and return the offending officer to power, probably even by a comfortable margin.

I just don't find this arugment very convincing. We give the Supreme Court, which is just three people, easily swayed to a landslide to one side of the issue, who make mistakes, etc, etc, etc the power to ban people from holding office and voting - perhaps you'd prefer we make all trials public, since the same logic surely applies.

I'm optimistic that if this amendment were to pass the Senate the members considering the charges would do so with solemnity and sober judgement. The same cannot be said for a national election.

I can't stress this enough - Atlasia does not have impeachment trials. We effectively have recall elections. That's fine, but if we want recall elections then let's actually legislate for recall elections, not pretend that our impeachment process is something entirely different, becuase it's not.

Frankly, the only way I'd be happy with the current system is if we had anti-zombie voter laws, but those are, obviously, genuinely impossible to design, let alone enforce, so hence this amendment. I don't want people who aren't active in Atlasia, who don't even know the issues, voting on whether one of our Cabinet officers remains in their job. It's like ex-pats voting on things that don't concern them, but have a big impact on those of us who actually remain in the country.

Please, guys. I know you hate Napoleon, but 7 people do not deserve that power. Not at all. We shouldn't have that power, and we don't deserve it, either.

This is nothing to do with Napoleon. Well, I guess it kind of is since it's largely inspired by his Cabinet officers neglect of their duties, but I don't believe for a second that the 'people' - which is, let's face it, largely composed of people who don't take any part in Atlasia or even know who most of these Cabinet officers are - are more prepared and capable of reaching a proper conclusion to an impeachent trial than a Senate that can actually observe the behaviour of the Cabinet firsthand.

It merely takes a simple majority in the public vote to impeach someone. If impeachment is truly deserved, that should be trivial to achieve.

Senator, I respect your opinion on this, and know neither of us is going to convince the other, but do you honestly believe that, for example, a JCP President in the old days would ever have been impeached?

At least he's trying to do something this time he got elected? I don't know.

Rich irony given the reason for this amendment is half of your Cabinet, erm... not doing anything.

Friends, colleagues, please hear me out.

I know this is a controversial debate, but I firmly believe this is good legislation that I want to improve with your help and input.

The name of the amendment is important. Trial, not turnout. If you believe that we should put people on trial by letting political parties turn out their zombie voters without considering the issues and allegations at hand, by all means vote against this, and do so without hesitation.

But if you think that impeachment is something that should be considered by people who've worked with the Cabinet, who are aware of the issues, and can conduct - most of the time - a reflective and intelligent debate, then please consider lending this your support. I do not think the Senate is perfect, but I think we are, at least, better equipped to deal with these situations than masses of anonymous voters with no stake in Atlasia.

I apologise again for my unexpected if unavoidable absence, and humbly ask that you work with me to improve and modify this amendment.

...and, hell, if you think the people should decide impeachments, then why not let them... decide whether they should decide impeachments by sending this to the regions?

[Oakvale]

The amendment is unfriendly. While Senator Marokai's proposal is a great improvement over the current system, it nonetheless does not address the principle my amendment is focused on - changing the impeachment system from one of competing turnout machines to one of a trial by Atlasia's strongest institution, the Senate.

[Oakvale]

Nay.

[Oakvale]

Nix, if you were to change your vote to Nay I'd be willing to accept your suggestion as a compromise.

[Oakvale]

When the vote ends I will be introducing the following compromise that I hope most if not all of us can get behind.

We can change the language about "80%", I made it a percentage for instsance when we're missing Senators but I wouldn't have a problem with making it simply 8 out of 10 so we don't end up with a situation where impeachment requires 3.7 Senators and so on.

I'm obviously willing to make the threshold 90% / 9 out of 10 Senators if that's the minimum that would be acceptable to a majority of Senators, but naturally I want to make the requirement relatively lax since that's how the original amendment was written.

I'd also like to note how proud I am to have put a comma in the title.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Oakvale]

I temporarily (or maybe not, I'll want to see what input our new members have before reintoducing) withdraw my amendment and accept Barnes' as friendly.

[Oakvale]

The amendment is friendly. All this does is allow the Senate to legislate for recall elections should the need arise.

[Oakvale]

I've thought about this a little more and I think I'd only like to legislate for recall elections in the event of my original version of this amendment passing - i.e. the one abolishing the popular impeachment vote. As is, I'm not convinced - changing my vote to Nay.

Sorry, Barnes.

[Oakvale]

Assuming you also remove my huge text, I'm ready for a final vote.

[Oakvale]

Aye!