Impeachment Amendment

[7,052,770]

This will clear up some people's concerns:

The Impeachment Amendment
An impeached official is banned for serving public office for a period of six months rather than for life.

I ask the PPT to put this on the docket for debate and voting.

[Gabu]

Why do we need to ban the official from serving in public office for any period of time?

[King]

Why do we need to ban the official from serving in public office for any period of time?

I agree with Gabu on this.

[Peter]

This by no way or measure deals with even a tenth of the problems inherent in the impeachment process. If you read the relevant constitutional sections you will see that it doesn't make sense. Also there's never the time to get this through the Senate in all of 8 days.

[J. J.]

This will clear up some people's concerns:

The Impeachment Amendment
An impeached official is banned for serving public office for a period of six months rather than for life.

I ask the PPT to put this on the docket for debate and voting.

Ah, wouldn't it be easier for clause that the Senate could remove this disability by a 2/3 vote.  It would make it more of a judgment call.

[7,052,770]

This will clear up some people's concerns:

The Impeachment Amendment
An impeached official is banned for serving public office for a period of six months rather than for life.

I ask the PPT to put this on the docket for debate and voting.

Ah, wouldn't it be easier for clause that the Senate could remove this disability by a 2/3 vote.  It would make it more of a judgment call.

yeah, that's probably a better idea.

[J. J.]

This will clear up some people's concerns:

The Impeachment Amendment
An impeached official is banned for serving public office for a period of six months rather than for life.

I ask the PPT to put this on the docket for debate and voting.

Ah, wouldn't it be easier for clause that the Senate could remove this disability by a 2/3 vote.  It would make it more of a judgment call.

yeah, that's probably a better idea.

We'll why don't you amend your proposition?  :-)

[Peter]

When I was prepping for a push for a Constitutional Convention, I wrote a lot about this particular Section, mostly because I felt it to be the most contradictory section in the Constitution (given that Article III Section 2 is now repealed). I've modified it a little to cope with recent concerns over period of bans; As you can see the problems are grave. Wholesale reform of this matter is required.

Article I Section 3: Impeachment[/u]

The first item that came to our attention in the Constitution is the Section concerning Impeachment:

Clause 1. Upon impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Atlas Forum shall administer a poll to the public to impeach the person whom charges have been filed against. If it is the Chief Justice who is being impeached, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall administer the poll. The poll must be open vote, and all people must make their vote known publicly in the form of a post. The public must vote a majority in order for the person to be impeached.  In order for the Senate to remove the person from office, the Senate must vote two-thirds. Impeachment charges may be brought upon the President and Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices.

Clause 2. The Chief Justice of the Atlas Forum shall preside over impeachment hearings, unless it be for his or her own impeachment, in which case the President pro tempore of the Senate shall preside.

Clause 3. Any person impeached and removed from any position can never hold any position at the Atlas Forum again, be it elected or appointed.

The opening line is actually a brilliant line of cyclical argument and could actually nullify the process of impeachment on the grounds of not making sense. To paraphrase: In order to impeach an officer he must first be impeached.

There was actually some debate as to how the impeachment process was meant to proceed, i.e. was the public poll the first step in removal or the senate vote? Fortunately, the Supreme Court has previously indirectly ruled on this matter in Texasgurl v. Fritz:

“In addition, the Senate has the power to remove a person from office, after they have been impeached by the people in a public poll administered by the Chief Justice of the Atlas Forum.”

Whilst this seems to clear up some confusion, we are unconvinced that the Supreme Court’s presumption that the process would work is actually in line with the language of the Constitution.

A second point of concern was the process of "filing charges": There is no clear method for achieving this - the first stage of impeachment as it is meant is for public poll of the forum - does this mean that any random citizen can call an impeachment hearing? If so then we could have a rather regular turnover of impeachment hearings. If it is the Senators, then why do they once again crop up to try the impeachment at the end of the process? It could be the job of the Executive, but then it would require a selfless President to file charges against himself, or allow one of his own cabinet members to do it. To put it bluntly, we are stumped on this one.

We consider the present process of impeachment as outlined by the Supreme Court to be unwieldy as a public grand jury phase in the first instance is far more unwieldy than a Senate grand jury phase in the first instance. For this reason, we recommend that the procedure as outlined by the Court be reversed. We also consider that the option of impeachment should also be extended to cabinet secretaries, who are not included under present arrangements. This Commission recommends the following:

The Impeachment Amendment
1. Article I, Section 3 is hereby repealed. Article I, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby repealed. The language in Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 relating to impeachment is hereby repealed.
2. In the same manner as the proposition of a Bill, Articles of Impeachment may be proposed against any executive or judicial officer of the federal government.
3. The Senate will be empanelled as a grand jury to consider these Articles of Impeachment. A majority vote of the Senate under quorum rules will be necessary to impeach the Officer. In all impeachment hearings before the Senate, the Chief Justice shall preside, unless it is the Chief Justice who shall have been impeached, in which case the President of the Senate shall preside.
4. The People shall have sole power to try such impeachments. The Chief Justice shall administer a public poll to try the impeachment, unless it is the Chief Justice who shall have been impeached, in which case the Senate President pro tempore shall administer the public poll. The public poll shall be held for one week and shall require the consent of two-thirds voting to convict. Citizens shall make their vote publicly known in the form of a post.
5. Upon conviction by the People, the officer shall be removed from office immediately and shall be barred from holding office for a time explicitly specified by the Senate in the Articles of Impeachment.
----------------------------------------------------------
The process would proceed as follows:

The Articles of Impeachment would be proposed just as a bill is proposed - this is under the jurisdiction of  Senate Procedural Resolutions, and therefore method of proposition can be modified by the Senate; These Articles of Impeachment would be required to contain the length of time for which the officer would be barred from holding office. Presently, Senate rules require one Senator simply to introduce the bill and then the PPT to assign it debate time.

The Senate would then consider the Articles and would then vote on them; A majority would be required as long as the Senate was able to fulfil a quorum. The Chief Justice would preside over the debate on the Articles of Impeachment as specified (except for his own). If the Articles were agreed by the Senate, then the officer would be impeached, and the People would then get to try the impeachment.

The vote in a trial of the impeachment would last a week and people would be required to publicly post their vote; A two-thirds majority would be necessary to convict, and thus remove the officer concerned from their post. The convicted person could not hold office until the time for which they were barred had expired.

[JohnFKennedy]

This will clear up some people's concerns:

The Impeachment Amendment
An impeached official is banned for serving public office for a period of six months rather than for life.

I ask the PPT to put this on the docket for debate and voting.

There isn't enough time left in the legislative session, nothing further will go to debate.