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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Oakvale
Co-Sponsor: Ben

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator you have 24 hours to start advocating for this.

[Franzl]

I think this is a good idea, but I would ask whether it might be more sensible to specify a maximum amount of time (such as 1 year) for Section 4.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I think it's fine to have the specific articles specify.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would seriously recommend townhalls on this or something. Because there will likely be some opposition to it, from certain old guard types. I don't know why that was put it in there like that, but it has been that way since time immemorial. That was the reason that I decided not to tamper with (and I think Scott was part of that process to) during the previous Impeachment Clarification Amendment and subsequent second attempt. It would have something that the Judiciary should have looked into.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I don't see how we can allow impeachment to continue in this manner.  It's too risky that cabinet officials, many of whom have large political bases, can just win a popular vote.  I don't like it.

[Bacon King]

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 would seriously recommend townhalls on this or something. Because there will likely be some opposition to it, from certain old guard types. I don't know why that was put it in there like that, but it has been that way since time immemorial. That was the reason that I decided not to tamper with (and I think Scott was part of that process to) during the previous Impeachment Clarification Amendment and subsequent second attempt. It would have something that the Judiciary should have looked into.

Since this is a constitutional amendment, note that "The People" will be voting and deciding on whether to have their own power taken away, once this passes the Senate. IMO the amendment process thus removes any need to consult the judiciary on this- the Atlasian people will be deciding whether to delegate their power of impeachment to the Senate, under the same rules they delegated every current legislative power to the Senate when they ratified the Constitution.

However, my concern is that this amendment might not garner enough support to pass the regions. 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.

[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.

[Simfan34]

I strongly agree with this proposal; we are not holding recall elections but trials and making the whole nation the jury is grossly inappropriate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As Bacon King said, this bill needs to be altered to be functionally practical and even achieve what the sponsor desires.


As for the rest of what Bacon King said, I don't think he understood what I was saying. I was saying that underlying bill should have been considered by the Judiciary Committee to review any concerns and reasons why people would want to maintain the current system. The townhalls were similarly aimed at viewing public concern about the underlying bill. That entire paragraph was geared towards a "political strategy" to achieve passage of the underlying bill. Bacon King seemed to think I was listing ways to alter the impeachment process.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Stupid question, did you use the newly ratified Impeachment Clarification Amendment, or the Wiki Constitution page, which hasn't been updated since Herman Cain was going to be the next President, as the baseline for writing this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'll let Oakvale address the specifics of how to set up the amendment (we may have a bit of a debacle with the Impeachment Clarification Amendment), but I do have a few concerns.

For one, this is a huge power we'd be giving ourselves. I agree that the current system is flawed, but to pretend that senators are not also political beings with agendas is a bit problematic.

If I may suggest, could we establish some sort of "Impeachment Convention" that includes the senators and the regional executives? I feel like the senate is a bit too small to deal with something of this nature completely on its own. I think it would make impeachment a little too easy.

If not, I'll still probably support the amendment. But I think giving the regions more of a say certainly can't hurt.

[Oakvale]

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

[Napoleon]

There is absolutely NO logical justification for bringing regional office-holders into the process.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

My justification was that this senate would likely impeach you if articles of impeachment were ever introduced, whereas your chances might be a bit better if the regional executives were involved. If you'd like to concentrate the impeachment power in just ten politicians and trust their judgement, I'll withdraw my suggestion altogether.

My thinking was that including the regional executives would show that we're trying to be more represenatative of The People, as this amendment would completely remove their voice from the impeachment process otherwise. Moreover, it's not like the regions are detached from events that happen at the federal level. They're just as much a part of Atlasia.

[Napoleon]

My justification was that this senate would likely impeach you if articles of impeachment were ever introduced, whereas your chances might be a bit better if the regional executives were involved. If you'd like to concentrate the impeachment power in just ten politicians and trust their judgement, I'll withdraw my suggestion altogether.

My thinking was that including the regional executives would show that we're trying to be more represenatative of The People, as this amendment would completely remove their voice from the impeachment process otherwise. Moreover, it's not like the regions are detached from events that happen at the federal level. They're just as much a part of Atlasia.

I don't care about my "chances". I care about a fair and sensible process. There's no reason to change the amendment process in any way, shape or form. If a change is made, however, it certainly need not involve regional officeholders.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

All right, what's your argument?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I don't like the Governors idea either.  It should be a trial by the 10 members of the Senate.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I respect that, but I'm still curious to hear what's so bad about the governors idea. I'm honestly open to scrapping the suggestion if I can be convinced of its shortfalls.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This has been silent now for three days. Another and I will open vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I MEAN ING BUSINESS GOD DAMN IT !!!!


A vote is now open finall passage of the Trial, Not Turnout Amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Abstain

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have detailed the only situation that will lead me to halt this vote, in my PM.

If I don't get what I demand (active and substantive contributions and immediately), the bill will die as I squash it between my fingers like an insect.

Damn now I have to wash my hands.

[Marokai Backbeat]

An unwavering Nay.