Proposed Amendment - Referenda and SC veto of constitutional amendments

This is a perfect example of how critically important it is to have a strong and impartial Judicial Branch (SC).

In posts with off-topic personal attacks, the SC ignores them because the SC shares the majority's dislike for the dissenting minority viewpoint. Because of this inaction the government ceases to function and becomes an ad-hoc direct democracy. It is proof right now that the system decays into mob rule and acts outside the law both by action (banning) and by inaction (failure to moderate).

Oh, snap!

~Ulrika~

Several things come to my mind —

1) This thread is supposed to be a discussion on a way to overcome limitations of "absolute vetos" on the part of the SC on constitutional amendments. Since that is the topic, I'll start with my opinion on it, which is not really a surprise to many.

Digging almost-2-year-old information from the forums is a hard task, well beyond my abilities, so I have to quote by heart. The issue of the "absolute veto" was discussed at the very beginning of Neualtenburg; I remember that my own suggestion was that there should not be "absolute vetoes", but that all vetoes could be overruled by a 2/3 majority.

One of the major principles in democracy is the art of compromising. At that time, I felt that I should not insist too much on the "overruling" notion. There was one practical reason for that: the Constitution, at least, should be stable enough; the RA should legislate, not amend the Constitution; the group was in its earlier stages, needing first to achieve both maturity, but more importantly than that, stability. During these stages, having "absolute vetoes" would ensure that there would be always a compromise between the three branches; none of the others could deviate much from the Constitution, until we got a fairly stable basis to work with.

Another major principle in democracy is, however, its adaptability — one of the "lesser evils" we gain from democracy is that it changes as the population changes. Other forms of government promote a static society: one where its rules are written in stone and immutable, and thus forcing the society to stagnate. Democracy is about being agile and flexible: giving it the required tools to shape a changing society, and be changed by the society that evolves.

This mostly means that what was good for Neualtenburg in 2004 is not necessarily good for Neualtenburg in 2006. So many things have changed! From group-based, tiered land, to ownership of an island, and a second one coming up; from an orientation towards building a lovely city — which was ever the major drive — to a new focus on expanding business relationships, creating new opportunities, promoting the arts, establishing schools, and defining the roots for a legal system. In the mean time, people have come and gone; new, "fresh blood" has come to Neualtenburg, questioning past choices, and proposing new ones. The younger citizens are the boldest ones and the ones driving the city forwards in time — hopefully by still listening here and there to the past experiences of the "oldtimers" who watched it grow.

What this means is that Neualtenburg has changed — as it was supposed to do — and that we still have the tools to adapt to those changes.

In a sense, the concept that "everything was written in stone since the beginning of time" is naturally skeptically questioned — and very rightly so. One mark of the RA's current term of office is to correct first what was unclear (or blatantly incorrect) and to introduce new concepts which were simply not necessary on the time we had a tiered, group-owned half-sim. Also, from a handful of laws that were passed here and there, we have grown to the point that 5-6 new laws are introduced every week; and new bodies have emerged — the MoCA, the School — that now need to produce their own documentation. The City grows. It's grown far beyond the original thoughts. It also gets more complex.

What many citizens have experienced in the past is that there are certain things in Neualtenburg that have prevented growth, expansion, and change. One of them was definitely the dubious position of the Scientific Council. Did it participate in the legislative process? It was not clear — so this was clarified. Did it stifle growth, by promoting stagnation through blindly following ancient rules? Well, if it did, it should encourage growth and change instead. This was dealt with. Did it use bureaucracy and cross-references to ancient comments buried deep in forum discussions? Well, then, new forms of recording were introduced, as well as new models to evoke "precedent" into a clear, transparent form, which would be easily accessible. Step by step, all branches in the City Government evolved to adapt to circumstances — none was exempt from change.

One of the biggest changes, if you pardon my arrogance for claiming some merit in the choice, was bringing very bright and intelligent people into the SC, with contradicting opinions. While the RA is elected, and can thus reflect better the views of the citizens, the SC could easily become the "elitist oligarchy" so many have feared — if only a certain type of individual would be ever asked to become a member of it. You have publicly seen how Aliasi and Dianne, both members of the SC, can disagree on the same issue, but still be proudly part of the same SC. Perhaps it's not so clear to many how often Diderot and I have completely disagreed on the same issue, and stubbornly argued against each other — mostly in-world, in public spots. And Flyingroc sometimes managed to disagree with us all

This is actually the strength of a body that is supposed to have one of the hardest tasks in Neualtenburg: emitting a fundamented opinion on the interpretation of the Constitution.

One might consider that task impossible: 5 heads have 5 different opinions. But that is the whole point; a strong SC is not an SC that only has a single opinion — very likely, one that hangs desperately onto a past that doesn't resemble at all the dynamics of the present (yes, I know — I tend to be the one clinging to the past That's my role in the SC...). Instead, we have a group of individuals, each one with a certain opinion, and often disagreement as to the "right course".

What saves us is the first rule of democracy: learn to compromise. Absolutes do not exist, like Obi-Wan tells us: "Only the Sith deal in absolutes." There is no absolute way to interpret the Constitution; there is no "right" way and no "wrong" way. The way it's interpreted depends on time, space, and the person doing the interpretation.

If we assume that, as a body of independent sentient beings (instead of "yes-men" and -women echoing the Voice of the One), we will always have different opinions, we can at least recognize that each and every one of us has the right to interpret things as they think it's best. I personally can only hope that, by joining fascinating, but very different people, in the same group, we not only represent differing views and opinions on what Neualtenburg means for each of the citizens, but that the SC, as a body, is also able to present to the rest of the citizens the valuable gift of the art of compromising.

Back to the issue of having referendums as a means to overrule the SC's veto. Personally, I think that the major point is not if the SC has (or not) "absolute power" to interpret the Constitution. What is important to me is that the body that has this power does not abuse it. If this power remains with the SC, it has to be balanced — I hoped that having a body of very different individuals would be enough to make sure that this would be enough. Differing opinions at the SC level would mean that the exercize of the veto power would not be abused; on the other hand, it would provide a successful means of preventing the RA to go the easy way of amending the Constitution every other day to their whim. The process of amending the Constitution, like both Claude and Dianne have defended, should be a difficult one, specifically on the changes that would affect the balance of powers.

The RA's current proposal wishes to shift the ultimate power to make amendments unto the citizens themselves, by means of a referendum. While I can't in principle oppose that concept — since someone, more patient than myself, might look up the very old post I made defending that very same concept around October 2004 or so — I would certainly strive to make that ultimate power very difficult to wield. That way we can hopefully attain some measure of balance.

Thus, I can only suggest the following draft for the amendment:

- If the SC vetoes a Constitutional amendment, the RA has the option of calling a referendum to override that amendment (and only in those cases)
- The RA has to vote unanimously by all its members to call the referendum to specifically override a SC constitutional veto
- The referendum will pass with a vote by a majority of 2/3 + 1 citizens (yes, that's total citizens)
- Only one referendum can be called per term, or 6 months, whichever is longer (this was actually something I suggested during one of the RA sessions where this issue was raised)

There will be no "legislative referendums"; only advisory ones, to be called by the RA by a simple majority vote, and having no binding effects (note that this is just to officialize what else we would call a "forum poll".

In particular:

- There will be no "direct democracy", ie. binding referendums on legislation
- Approval of constitutional amendments is through the SC, not the citizens (thus clarifying where the power of approval lies); citizens can only override an SC's veto in the case of an SC veto on constitutional matters
- This will encourage the RA to approve a series of constitutional amendments at the same time, because they will be able to call a referendum to override the SC's veto just once. The idea behind this is that if it's hard to get a whole set of changes to pass the SC, it will be even harder to do that through a referendum (there will always be citizens disagreeing on one or two points). On the other hand, a critical issue that must pass, as demanded by most citizens, and is being stubbornly refused by the SC, will very likely succeed to win the citizen's votes
- This encourages compromise instead of a show of strength, but it gives the RA an escape route if the SC is refusing compromise

As always, remember that today's interpretation is probably changed tomorrow, as the needs of N'burg change...

2) I hardly view that the SC "is on hiatus". It's true that we're just now handling our first trial case (a difficult one, because technically the SC only has jurisdiction over its own sims and its citizens, of which the status is not always clear), and thus the whole "judiciary branch" has not had much to do — but that's a consequence of the generally law-abiding folks we have around Neualtenburg (I would hardly be whining for the lack of an unruly mob to deal with ).

The other function of the SC is the constitutional interpretation of the legislative aspect of the RA, and I don't see that the SC is "on hiatus" on that. Just by not jumping at every tiny itty bitty detail that the RA has been incorporating on the Neualtenburg Code of Law does not mean the SC is ignoring them; what it means is that all laws so far have been much in tune with the current understanding of the Constitution, as interpreted by most of the SC members (as you can see from the SC meeting transcripts, "most" does not mean "all" — yes, we disagree! Publicly!).

I might remember that officially the SC has only once vetoed one single bill in the past; this current proposed amendment might, as a matter of fact, be the second one (in eighteen months or so) to be vetoed, for obvious reasons — although this will require the SC to agree upon first — if the RA does not change the wording.

On one thing there seems to be unanimous agreement: both the SC and the RA — and I would also think that the Guild agrees as well! — believe that there is a certain degree of change that has to be brought to the way the City Government works. It's only natural that this change comes at a time of growth and expansion, where so many things are being questioned. Allowing change, and not fearing the results of that change, is a sign of maturity. I'm all for it — and just happy to make sure there is no deviation from established procedures. Justifications on the current trend and work of the SC can be glimpsed on the publicly posted meeting transcripts on the Wiki.

Still, anyone's opinion on the current work of the 5-member SC is naturally welcome.

3) Due to the nature of the quasi-impossibility of digging information out of the forums, I find that some people really have such short memories. People have actively tried to sabotage Neualtenburg in several ways — in-world unruly behaviour, sim bombs, the "cat plague" (Sudane, do you remember that? ), or, more often than not, by mere words and not much action — by publicly dragging the good name of Neualtenburg into the mud.

All it takes is a good, solid understanding of the English language; practice in rhetorics; and years of experience with online forums (to know how far one can push the line).

Yes, we have been victims of all the above, both in-world and on the forums. In-world we dealt with it by removing offending objects, calling in the Lindens when we could not remove them, and abuse reporting the offenders, adding them to the "ban list" until the Lindens dealt with it; on the forums, which have been established as being under the moderation & control of the SC as the de jure judicial branch, people's comments have been edited, deleted, and people refered to the Lindens to eventual suspension.

Of those that were excluded, history has been harsh: they have been quickly forgotten. Their ranting on other forums or in-world conversations have subsided after a while. Forum drama only captures the attention of a very few, and for little time, unless it gets repeated over and over again — in that case, we all know where this leads: sooner or later, people get permabanned from the forums. That's beyond our powers, and the prerrogative of the Lindens.

To clarify, Neualtenburg law does only extend to the borders of the sim(s) held by the City Government, and to its citizens. We are unable to "press charges" against visitors, welcome or not. The only "sanction" that the City Government has to apply to potential threats against its integrity is suspending their right of visiting; technically, in SL terms, this means adding people to the sim ban list.

What the SC will now do is the following:

- review the reasons for suspending the access to Neualtenburg
- hear the citizens that feel they have been wronged, or libeled, and listen to their pleas
- ask the non-citizens involved if they're willing to be heard in a Neualtenburg Court of Law (since their participation is entirely voluntarily, they're allowed to decline to participate, and the decisions will not be binding to them)
- interview supporters of the decision to revoke the suspension
- try to do it as quickly as possible
- keep or revoke the suspension, as appropriate; and instruct further processes if it's the case

Notice that as per the last SC meeting, it was established that these proceedings will take place in private, and only after the hearing will these be publicly posted.

Also, a suspension is always a preventive measure, following fair warnings that have been amply given in the past.

I should also remind some of the citizens on this thread that some wordings you've employed are also liable to eventual accusations of difamation; non-citizens are allowed to ask for a trial by the SC on those.

Excellent.

I really debated long and hard about returning temporarily from my forum hiatus to voice my concerns about modifications to the Constitution which weaken the SC. It's rat soup that I was unable to make that post without Sudane following it with a snarky repost of my departure letter. This error was compounded when I was accused of being a terrorist and then banned from the sim. There was a time when I was held to very high standards when in office and I would like to see the SC apply the same standards here to both members of the government (and do some forum moderation when necessary).

In addition to any penalties imposed internally, I would request a public apology.

~Ulrika~

I expect to be brought to interview, as I'm entirely opposed to this sanction against Ulrika. Further, unless this course is rectified in a manner satisfying her, I fully intend to withdraw my citizenship and support from Neualtenburg permanently.

I realize I'm an outsider, but you all look really effing silly saying crap like this.

FREE SPEECH IS TERRORISM!!!!! WOO!~!!!!!

I like to see that projects like N-burg continue to succeed, so I swung by.

I get the *feeling* that statements like that I quoted don't represent the actual feelings of N-Burgers, but I suppose I'll wait and see how they respond.

You mean, like one where it's not just you, right?

I don't want to prejudge anything but if we are going to have hearings about "Ulrika being banned from the Neualtenburg sim," then we would probably look into the entire sequence of events. This would include the inaccurate and disparaging statements you have been making about Neualtenburg and it's officials as well as the inappropriate editing of other peoples posts on this forum.

The ex-official of any RL organisation would likely be hit with some sort of defamation suit over this kind of behaviour and although that is likely not in the cards here, it is certainly something to consider when thinking about the way people have reacted to you.

Sophomoric ad-hominem one liners do not serve to support the position that you were acting in the best interest of the city when you banned me from the sim. Instead they appear as evidence that your act was outside of governmental roles and motivated by anger.

The resentment that exists between citizens of N'burg has tainted this project. Like an individual, the city must resolve its past conflicts if it wants to be healthy and move on. Until these issues are resolved, these episodes will continue. To be continued ...

~Ulrika~

It's horribly inappropriate for someone on the SC to speculate in a manner which reveals an obvious bias, especially if that individual is expected to serve as an impartial judge. I feel you have done that and will hopefully recuse yourself from any case involving this situation.

With that said, here are the individual cases as I see them:

1. A government official banned a foreigner without SC consent. Did Aliasi operate outside of the government in banning an individual from a sim? Does her role in government allow her to do so? Shouldn't the SC be responsible for banning just like moderation? Who has the power to ban and how does it relate to the existing government? Should the ability to ban individuals be transfered to the SC only? What will the penalties be if the banning was inappropriate?
   
2. A foreigner was banned. What are the requirements required for banning a foreigner? Were those requirements met? What are the requirements for removing a ban from a foreigner? Have those requirements been met?
   
3. A foreigner moderated a post. Can foreigners moderate posts if the SC leaves their name in the moderator list? Why did the SC leave a foreigner as a moderator? Was the post a personal attack and should have been moderated? What penalty exists for a foreigner who moderates a post justified or not?
   
4. A government official called a foreigner a "terrorist". Is that official qualified to designate foreigners as terrorists? Should that be the role of the SC? How much freedom do government officials have in what they say in the forums?
   
5. The city is built upon intellectual property of the foreigner which has never been paid for. Should the city pay for the IP? Is there proof that the IP was transferred to the city? Should the IP be deleted to resolve the conflict?

The question now is, can the SC meet on these issues in a timely manner and enforce the results despite a reluctant majority?

~Ulrika~

DISCLAIMER: In this thread generally and in this post particularly, I speak for myself and only myself. I do not claim to speak for the city of Neualtenburg or any subdivision of its government

1) When I read Sudane's post. I, despite her role as Gildemeisterin, understood it only as her personal opinion and not as an official pronouncement from the city or Gilde regarding Ulrika's status.

2) Although there are actions Ulrika has taken and statements she has made recently with which I strongly disagree, I personally believe that. especially as related to those statements, the characterization of her as a terrorist was inaccurate and a poor choice of words.

DISCLAIMER: SEE ABOVE

Any words that I have placed or will place in this public forum represent my own personal opinion and my own understanding of the facts. They are no more and no less than a human being offering her own perceptions of the people and events around her. The same can be said for the comments contained in this forum of every other contributor, regardless of their position in Neualtenburg.

In fact, Neualtenburg is a community in formation, and has no mechanism for declaring a public position, as a entity itself. This is one of its profund vulnerabilities. Since everyone here speaks from their own personal position, the onslaught of outside events can easily fracture the delicately assembled relationships formed for the cooperative work of community building. Hopefully, Neualtenburg can soon establish such a system, where the collective position of the community can be expressed.

Regarding terrorism, I commented by analogy, which, of course was a mistake in light of the frenzy which surrounds the use of the word today. Ulrika commented that she felt she was being accused of being a terrorist threat (an equally inappropriate use of the word), and my response was meant to suggest that by analogy, in her disruption of our community by her words, she already was. It *was* a poor analogy to make, and I regret it.

Please understand. I am profoundly aware of the nature of terrorism. My office in New York, on a high floor, faced directly and with a full view the former World Trade Towers, from less than 2 miles away. And I sat in that office and watched as the planes struck the towers and as the towers later collapsed. Knowing that upwards of 40,000 people worked in those buildings, I was sure that many more people were dying in those moments than the 3000 who actually did.

So, yes, terrorism is about death. There is no death in SL; we are, after all, a dream world. But terrorism is about more than death. It is about disruption of lives, of communities. It is about rupturing the multitude of delicate balances which people have built with each other, in order to achieve better things. About destroying the ideas and intellectual creations that dedicated people have invested so much time and energy in. It is about destroying the spirit of community.

If you say words cannot do such things, look at history again. The words of leaders build up community, and they pull it apart. The words of leaders have caused destruction since history began. No wonder that in a virtual world, words cause so much more significant destruction than all the silly popguns and griefer tools.

So, now, with everything else we are trying to put our energies to, we must now add a thorough investigation of the facts of this episode, and come to a fair and appropriate resolution. Gwyn has laid out the procedure. Lets get on with it, and hope that the result will be a stronger community.


Sudane

Pot, Kettle, Black.

It would be nice to respawn this thread to have a discussion about the original topic, one of the reasons I'm here. I really have no interest in trading insults or one-liners with individuals. I'd only like dialogue concerning the proposed amendment.

~Ulrika~

Ok, I'll probably regret this, but I'll bite.

Here , in a mini tribute to Craig Kilborn, are three questions.

1. Should there be any checks on the SC other than impeachment?

2. Is impeachment of one or more SC members an appropriate response to public dissatisfaction with SC decisions?

I'm now going to work from the presupposition that your answer to these two questions is no.

If that is the case....

3. Why is the following statement inaccurate? (see below)

Ulrika, I have a cave on my land, you can squat in, we can gather mercenaries from around the grid, and mount a coup.
This would not be griefing, this would be a legitimate development in the political evolution of Neualtenburg, after all, RL political entities suffer civil wars and coups... Why should Nuealtenberg be any different...

And yes.....



... I'm a little stoned.

Dude. Dude. Imagine like your nostril is a cave. And, like, Ulrika and a band of tiny avatar freedom fighters are like hiding in it and stuff.

Whoville?

Question:

If so many of you didn't like the setup of N-Burg's government, why did you join in the first place?

Why try and change this experiment? Why not start one of your own if you're so passionate about it?

I'll make this exception to not saying anything further, as it's somewhat tangential.



In my case, it was because the arrangement was materially misrepresented.



The point of a government where the citizens can pass laws would seem to be the very ability to change, would it not?

In any case, it's one thing to participate in an experiment to see how it will go; a political experiment by a rational anarchist such as m'self doesn't seem like it would go very far.

I joined Neualtenburg because it was an interesting experiment in player-governance. At that time, it was the only project of the sort that I knew. When I joined Neualtenburg, it was not perfect. It has many many flaws even now. But it was what I was looking for -- a group of civic minded people, with some sort of government infrastructure already available. To the extent that there were some flaws in its organization, there was already a mechanism in place to fix those flaws.

Now, one of the big flaws I saw soon after joining was that the SC held too much power. The SC has the power to veto everything, including constitutional amendments. Some have even argued that the SC had the power to veto an impeachment of one of its own members. A single-minded SC with a sharp intellect and an even sharper tongue could bully the rest of the government into submission.

Thus, a proposal to curb some of that power has come to light. Though I've not proposed it myself, I'm quite in favor of giving power to nburg's citizens to override the SC's veto of constitutional amendments, just in case the SC becomes capricious. Before the we got sidetracked, a discussion was underway to determine whether a referendum was a good thing (I actually thought in the previous RA meeting that there was broad consensus that referenda on consti amendments were a good thing), and what the mechanism would be for such referenda.

Government rules are not writ in stone. If we find flaws in them, we should fix it. And as times change, so should we.

Let's look at this from a governance point of view. This is a constitutional debate, even after the vote nothing is written in stone. This is an evolving political/social body and everyone needs to tone down the rhetoric.

I fully support Claude's general governance, pragmatism and ability to represent people with wildly divergent points of view. The NB gov't has never had more life and activity than now. As a citizen I look to stability and pragmatism and the benefits they offer. Sudane has done the work of 10 people to make NB run smoothly.

We can get into a wild debate, but let's focus on the ideas, not the personalities, and let's vote on time.

Everyone has the right to free speech. No one has the right to deface a citizen's forum posting. If there isn't a law against it, we'll write one. Likewise ultimatums for leaving, I believe, are forbidden.

I'm a new citizen, I've been active on the forums and I watched them very closely before becoming a citizen. With regards to Ulrika's ideas, here's where I stand (personal opinions):

1)Ulrika was a founder of this City/State and I have suggested that the RA erect avatar statues near the hub for both her and Kendra to commemorate their wonderful acheivements. They are the Washington and Franklin (or whatever) of this place.

2)I read Ulrika's NB political philosophy with much interest as we can take a look at what the "founding mothers" intended. Having said that, I'm not a constructionist, I view the constitution as a living document.

3)Ulrika is not a citizen, has vowed never to return here and generally her behavior has contributed to a degeneration of what the Canadian Constitution calls "peace, order and good government". I view her political opinions based on their philosophical merits and frankly ignore everything else written for or against her. I would also remind her that she is a welcome guest here and that she respect our government and its laws in order not to run afoul of the SC.

I respectfully suggest other citizens do the same...

This is a vigorous debate, let's weigh the merits of the ideas and vote according to the laws in place.

Pelanor Eldrich (Joe Citizen)

Nonsense! It holds as much power as the Judicial Branch of the U.S.

The SC exists not to wield power (everyone keeps saying "too powerful" but instead to make sure the government absolutely, positively adheres to the founding documents (Constitution and Bill of Rights) without exception. By allowing an override to the veto, you create the possibility of creating laws that are in violation of the Constitution or Bill of Rights or even logically or functionally incompatible with other laws.

However the true danger lies in the what the law will do to minority groups. Imagine if the RA passes a law that states Ulrika will never be allowed to post in the forums again. While clearly a violation of the Bill of Rights, would it not meet the simple 66% popular-vote threshold that's been proposed? Unfortunately, quite easily and this is why a democracy must be tempered in the form of a republic with founding documents and a strong judicial branch.

Finally, the worst part of such a modification to the Constitution is that it's irreversible. A democratic body will never vote to reduce its own power. As can be seen since the inception of this city, democratic bodies always seek to extend their power. Even in RL, you can see democratic arguments that seek to undermine judicial rulings.


Adding this clause into you Constitution is an undoable mistake that will provide citizens with no real immediate benefit and will in fact jeopardize their freedoms in the long run.

~Ulrika~

Question:

How could it even be added without the approval of the SC?

I'd also like to add that in fact the most powerful branch of the Government is (and should be) The Artisanal Branch. The Guild.

In reply to Hiro, the whole reason of joining Neualtenburg is the ability to change the way it works, and to adapt to change — that's the whole point of the project in my not-so-humble opinion.

While obviously not all change is welcome, and definitely many people won't agree with some of the proposed changes, the mere fact that you're able to discuss those changes publicly — with more or less emphasis — is the "Neualtenburg way". We might not agree on everything, but at least we can try to compromise — or decide by a vote.

Of course, the ultimate test to Neualtenburg is always: what rules are written in stone? How much should the past weight? What have we learned in the past that can be useful now? And, for some of us, it's also interesting (even important sometimes) to see how much RL experience is important for Neualtenburg? (the old principle of not needing to reinvent the wheel)

In this particular thread, the issue mostly is: can you avoid both direct democracy and oligarchistic control of Neualtenburg? Is there a middle term? (I think there is, but that's just one opinion)

I have always defended that the system of checks and balances are rather well implemented, considering everything, but I'm willing to admit that my perceptions are based on the historical past of Neualtenburg — the amount of abuse exercised by either SC or Guild with their vetoes has been next to zero. However, the counter-argument runs that no attempt has been made to force the vetoes to come into effect (ie. there has always been compromise), so the system of checks and balances has never been truly put into practice — perhaps for the very reason of fearing what the outcome would have been.

And I have also defended before that "impeachment" should not be tied to "criminal" charges — in a sense, this means that I wouldn't mind using impeachment as a political tool. What this mostly mean is that if one member of Government is accused of criminal behaviour — in Neualtenburg's terms, this means: alleged violation of the Code of Law that is validated and proven in Court — that member faces immediate sanctions, independently of any "impeachment" trials that might be running (or not).

Impeachment is vaguely defined "as being contrary to the Constitution and Founding Documents" and generally interpreted as "being contrary to the overall spirit of the citizens of Neualternburg". This vagueness aids future governments to be able to interpret what this means at will, according to place and circunstance. But what seems quite clear to me is that "by being contrary to the overall spirit of the project" is not illegal! Nothing in either the Constitution or the Code of Law says that we all have to think the same way (heaven forbids!), and that thinking otherwise is a crime. Rather the contrary, we have included the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to make sure that each and every citizen is allowed to speak freely about what they think.

So, impeachment is actually not something that should be tied to "illegal" behaviour (always in the sense of violating N'burgs' laws).

In this sense, I've always assumed that the best way to remove abusing members of Government from power is to have them impeached — because all illegal conduct will be prosecuted and punished in the Court system anyway, no matter if there is a pending impeachment or not. However, this is my view; an alternative model is one where impeachment is "sacred" (ie. a weapon of last resort...) and that other means are implemented to remove Government members from office. I agree that these are lacking (we only have impeachment as a tool, which I assumed it was deemed necessary), and that it's worth discussing further mechanisms.