 |
| |
|
|
Pedrunn
|
 |
of Natal, Brazil
Jul 2001
time: 02:23
|
|
I will use the amendment format as defined in the Polling article.
A discussion started here to decide how should a member of the government be impeached.
According to the current draft of the constitution. A resolution poll confirmed by the majority of the citzens is enough.
Still Locutus has been against this and has suggested that in order to be impeached. The officer must break a rule stated by the constitution. This infraction of the rules of the constitution shall be investigated by the court first so that a poll can be created to decide the future of the officer.
Here is some topics of the discussion:
In favour:
quote:
Originally posted by Pedrunn
The resolution poll is to give the power to citizen as if a protest/revolution. If the majority of the community accept it has to be accepted. |
quote:
Originally posted by Pedrunn
What if the people decides to impeachs a [government member] just because he is not doing a good job? This has no legal grounds. |
Against
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
If he doesn't follow orders, he can be impeached, if the people don't give adequate or plain bad orders, they should get their own mess sorted out first, before blaiming the president. Exactly why I think a Court investigation is needed before impeachment is started |
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
Well, start a poll if you must but if you can impeach people for doing a bad job and the only reason why people are doing a bad job is because they get bad orders, you sort of enter a repeating cycle that could potentially destroy the game. The legislative branch of the government should be the most powerful one but not omnipotent... |
So is one poll voted by the majority enough to decide an impeachment?
Last edited by Pedrunn on 14-11-2002 at 19:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:23
|
|
Edit: done.
To sum it up: Pedrunn's stance is that someone can be impeached just for being impopular, while my stance is that he should actually break the law before impeachment is possible.
In the Constitution this would like like this:
Pedrunn's proposal (if you agree with this, vote Yes):
quote:
(a) The impeachment of an officer in a government position is decided with a resolution type of poll accordingly to the rules for it in the polling article.
[...]
(c) If confirmed by the Court that an officer was killed or an impeachment resolution is confirmed, the office in question will be vaccant and new elections will have to be hold for it. |
My proposal (if you agree with this, vote No):
quote:
(a) Any Citizen may bring the case of impeachment of an elected Minister, President, or Judge to a member of the Court.
(b) The Court shall review the allegations made, allow an answer by the accused, and by a vote determine if there are proper and legal grounds to hold a Resolution poll to decide on impeachment. If the accusations are found to be without legal merit, the allegations shall be dismissed.
[...]
(d) If the Court decides there are grounds for impeachment, it shall start a poll in which it clearly states the person to be impeached and outlines the events that led to the impeachment. If the impeachment is confirmed by a majority of the voters in the poll, the officer in question can no longer practice its function. |
If you agree with neither proposal, vote Abstain.
Vote for my proposal, vote No! 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
H Tower
|
|
Vote No! there needs to be legal grounds to impeach.
I'd say that not following orders is a grey area for impeachment too, since the president is the only one who actually plays the game, conditions will change during his turns, and orders which in the past were brilliant, become dangerous.
If the president ignores orders or changes them completely for a good reason, I would vote against impeachment, however, if the pres cannot come up with a defense or was just plain negligent, then that is grounds for impeachment
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
I voted no. Its more logical if you ask me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:23
|
|
But this vote could also mean a revolution, not so logical to go via the court, but why not?
It is not only about impeachment, it would also include revolution/assacination/whatever.
I still like this idea
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:23
|
|
I know Pedrunn, I just went a bit further........
And it would still depend on the majority. If WE feel the president is crap, OK, never mind, let's shoot him, bury him and let's continue with the GAME.........
|
|
| |
|
|
|
H Tower
|
|
i don't suppport a majority vote, however, i might be persuaded to accept a two thirds vote, especially if the pres is streching the constitution
|
|
| |
|
|
|
H Tower
|
|
because impeachment is a big thing, it shouldn't be easy to achieve. the 2/3 reflects that IMO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pedrunn
|
|
of Natal, Brazil
Jul 2001
time: 02:23
|
|
So i guess it is decided them.
Decision:
No - Someone can only be impeached if he inflicts the constitution.
Does anyone wants to express a change of the vote or a new vote?
Last edited by Pedrunn on 20-11-2002 at 15:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:23
|
|
reminds me:
Locutus did you vote in the MAP-setting: number of cities threshold poll?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-11-2002 18:58
?
this means changing the section 3-III-e of the article: Polling. But could be managed! Looks logical. But still, why 2/3 rather than 1/2. why do you think the majority isnt enough?
|