Seeking clarification re: impeachment and removal of SC member

Hi all, I've been looking at the Neualtenburg constitution lately, particularly those bits that talk about impeachment and removal of a member of the SC.

What I've noticed is that the language there is somewhat vague. Here are the releavnt bits:

Under Article 1, section 7:


Under Article 3, Section 2:


And again, Article 3, Section 7:


So here are the questions:

1. How does the RA go about initiating impeachment hearings?

Since there is nothing in the constitution about this, perhaps it is up to the discretion of the RA? If so, has the RA discussed this before, that is, are there already procedures for initiating impeachment hearings?

2. After the hearings, how do we go about deciding whether to remove the SC member or not?

Presumably some sort of poll where a 2/3 majority will force the errant SC member out.

3. 2/3 majority of what? The RA, the SC, the populace?

My original expectationwas that the RA would be able to vote the SC out of office, similar to how the US congress can remove the president. Placement of the sentence in Article 3 Section 2 seems to imply that 2/3 of SC members can remove one of their own. The sentence in Section 7, however is more vague, but I take it to mean 2/3 of the general populace (or 2/3 of those who voted) can vote out an SC member?

Thanks for any info that sheds light on these questons.

Flyingroc, while it is certain that any citizen can and will share their opinions about the issues you bring up, I suspect that the only definitive clarification can come from the SC itself.


Sudane

Edited: This interpretation of the constitution is in error. Please disregard. I've left it unedited for discussion.

The constitution states that the RA can seek impeachment of members of the Philosophic branch by initiating an impeachment hearing. It also states that the leader of the AC sits as the leader of the Representative branch if the Representative branch seeks to impeach a member of the Philosophic branch.

Thus the RA would have to vote (simple majority) to have a hearing. Once passed, Kendra, the head of the AC would join the RA and direct the hearing. After the hearing a 2/3 vote of the RA plus the AC lead (currently a total of six members) would lead to the ejection of the SC member.

This might actually be an interesting process to engage in. One has the issues of free speech to consider, whether or not behavior external to N'burg can be punished in N'burg, and if unpopular speech is grounds for the removal of members of the government.

~Ulrika~

I call for rule #21 to be invoked.


(sorry, I'm all excited by Harry Reid)

A lot of the wording in the Nburg founding documents is vague and a lot of the detail is not filled in (occaisionaly they are somewhat contradictory as well.) I remember showing them to some poli-sci friends of mine who basically just stared at them with giant question marks above their heads and crooked little smiles.

I suggest you go through these documents in detail, find the errors and post what you find in the forum.
Then we can all have a pleasant reasonable discussion about it.

You might want to stock up on Pepto Bismol and keep a few boxes of Kleenex handy though.

The document was drafted to give basic form to a government, later allowing the RA to fill in the details with law as the city evolved. It makes little sense to have a group of five people create a hundred-page document that describes every minutiae of governmental organization before we know what we actually need. This method of evolving a constitution and legal system was recommended to me by a Poli-Sci friend who has looked at the final product without a crooked little smile.

Also, I've heard two people state that there are contradictory elements in the constitution but when questioned no one has been able to point out where they are. Where are they?

~Ulrika~

Here's a seeming contradiction:



This is seems to contradict the earlier interpretation of the RA being the body that performs the impeachment hearings for an SC member.

Oh dear. You're right.

~Ulrika~

It looks like my earlier interpretation of the constitution is completely erroneous. I misinterpreted it terribly. According to Article 3, Section 6, all impeachment hearings have to be done within the SC. Thus the entries in the preceding sections are vague, referring to members from one body serving in another body even though the SC holds the hearing. Further, there seems to be no mechanism for initiating a hearing.

I'll work on this as soon as I return from some errands.

~Ulrika~

Yes, it seems to me that havign the sole source of impeachment from the SC be the SC itself is... not good. perhaps as an additional way, at most, which is how I read it myself - thet impeachments could be done by the RA calling for a hearing, or by the SC itself.

The reason that Article III, Section 6 was written, if I recall correctly, was to prevent large, majority political factions from eliminating members of other branches without a fair hearing. (Imagine if the stilted U.S. Congress could vote out U.S. Supreme Court members right now.) Because the SC is the judicial and enforcement branch where public hearings take place, the goal was to try to keep those hearings in the SC. If an SC member is the subject of an impeachment, then the Constitution states that that member must step down during the hearing.

The problem with the Constitution as it is now is that in the checks-and-balances section (Articles I through III), there are statements which say that members of branch A should sit in on the process held by branch B which is discussing a member of branch C. For example, AC members sit in on the RA for impeachment of an SC member. The goal is meant to put an outsider in as the leader of a hearing. Of course, this does not match with the better-articulated Article III, Section 6.


One possible solution to reconcile this incongruity would be to do impeachments in two stages. The first stage is a hearing held by the body that wishes to impeach an official and the second stage is a hearing held in front of the SC. If the first stage receives a 2/3 vote, it then goes on to the second stage for another 2/3 vote. In the first stage, branch A would run the hearing for branch B, where branch A is the SC for all internal impeachments and branch C for all others. In the second stage, the hearing would be done by the SC, minus an SC member if they're the subject of the impeachment.

What do you think? Naturally, we'll have to have the RA vote the clarification in as an amendment, so there's plenty of time for discussion.

~Ulrika~

Are you suggesting that this apply only to impeachment of SC members, or does it apply to any official of neualtenburg? If any official, what if the body who wishes to impeach an official is the SC?

As an RA member and regular citizen who never lets the constitution out of her sight (often to the groans of others.. hehe).. I think this is a rather good idea Ulrika! I'd be happy to present it at the RA meeting.