Impeachment of the President

[Ebowed]

(1) Are you stating that the Vice President took your actions seriously Y to a degree
and was quite correct to move to have you removed from office for your actions? N
(2) Are you saying that you actually felt it would have been appropriate had Q 'taken the reigns' from you? Appropriate in what sense?
(3) Would you agree with the Secretary of Defence's apparant opinion:
(a) that your actions went too far, Y
(b) that you threatened the stability of the nation, Y, but only because of the way people like Earl reacted
(c) that you caused a revolution and; N
(d) that you were exercising dictatorial powers? N

(1) Did you insist that Senator EarlAW be dismissed? Y
(2) Did you insist that Senator jerusalemcar5 be dismissed? Y
(3) Did you insist that Senator Captain Vlad be dismissed? Y
(4) Did you declare that Speed of Sound was debarred from holding office? Y
(5) Did you declare limitations of his right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press? Y

(1) Do you believe that during the time in question, you did faithfully execute the office of President? N, I acted in an undignified manner that confused many people
(2) Did you to the best of your ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia? Y; my actions were not serious and had they been taken to court I would not have defended them

I believe you are once again intentionally ignoring all of the obvious truisms that the actions during the "incident" were a joke.

I do not see the authority for the President to do this either.  Earl should no longer be co-GM.

This all seems like one big joke, especially considering Ebowed',s silly "you are literally making me ill" posts.

It is my belief that you have gone insane for a number of reasons:

(a) you claim to have fired me, and have the right to do so
(b) you continue to believe that because of this, I am no longer a Senator
(c) you were once a good friend of mine, but suddenly you have turned your back against me
(d) you attempted to blackmail me into posting a resolution
(e) you continue to embarrass yourself by keeping up this charade.

But why let Earl unintentionally prove my point when you can view my own posts in the relevant threads on the matter?  I mentioned support of shipping Earl, Vlad, and jcar to Guantanamo Bay; I stated that I was free to fire Senators under an entirely irrelevant clause in the constitution which grants me no such power (as my own little in-joke, to see if people would bother checking the constitution); I told Earl that his remarks were making me "literally ill"; I launched a lawsuit against Captain Vlad for sexual harassment because he told me to kiss his ass.  The list goes on.

[True Democrat]

So when's the vote?

[Emsworth]

So when's the vote?

Under the rules of the Senate, voting begins when twenty-four hours have passed without debate from any Senator. This twenty-four hour time period is about to be completed; a vote will be opened in a new thread.

[Јas]

(1) Are you stating that the Vice President took your actions seriously Y to a degree
and was quite correct to move to have you removed from office for your actions? N
(2) Are you saying that you actually felt it would have been appropriate had Q 'taken the reigns' from you? Appropriate in what sense?

Appropriate in the sense that it would likely have brought an immediate end to the chaos.

(3) Would you agree with the Secretary of Defence's apparant opinion:
(a) that your actions went too far, Y
(b) that you threatened the stability of the nation, Y, but only because of the way people like Earl reacted
(c) that you caused a revolution and; N
(d) that you were exercising dictatorial powers? N

Do you believe it is fair that a sitting President threatens the stability of the nation and goes unreprimanded?

(1) Did you insist that Senator EarlAW be dismissed? Y
(2) Did you insist that Senator jerusalemcar5 be dismissed? Y
(3) Did you insist that Senator Captain Vlad be dismissed? Y
(4) Did you declare that Speed of Sound was debarred from holding office? Y
(5) Did you declare limitations of his right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press? Y

Do these actions not come within the ambit of exercising dictatorial control? (Or, at least, attempting to exercise dictatorial control?)

(1) Do you believe that during the time in question, you did faithfully execute the office of President? N, I acted in an undignified manner that confused many people
(2) Did you to the best of your ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia? Y; my actions were not serious and had they been taken to court I would not have defended them

I believe you are once again intentionally ignoring all of the obvious truisms that the actions during the "incident" were a joke.

I would say that I am not ignoring that you have said that these actions were jokes. In my view, that is irrelevant. I feel that acting in that manner debased the office of the Presidency.

You swore an oath to faithfully execute the office, and you willfully disregarded it. As far as I am concerned, it is unacceptable that this does not have official consequence.

[Јas]

So when's the vote?

Under the rules of the Senate, voting begins when twenty-four hours have passed without debate from any Senator. This twenty-four hour time period is about to be completed; a vote will be opened in a new thread.

I would ask for direction as to the rules for conduct of impeachment proceedings.

[Emsworth]

So when's the vote?

Under the rules of the Senate, voting begins when twenty-four hours have passed without debate from any Senator. This twenty-four hour time period is about to be completed; a vote will be opened in a new thread.

I would ask for direction as to the rules for conduct of impeachment proceedings.

The Constitution suggests that impeachment proceedings may brought "In the same manner as the proposition of a Bill." Thus, the rules that normally apply to legislation also apply to articles of impeachment.

Just to note, this is just a vote on whether to impeach the President. If impeached, a trial must be held before the people. There is no official impeachment trial procedure written down anywhere, so we will just have to adhere to normal parliamentary procedure.

[Јas]

So when's the vote?

Under the rules of the Senate, voting begins when twenty-four hours have passed without debate from any Senator. This twenty-four hour time period is about to be completed; a vote will be opened in a new thread.

I would ask for direction as to the rules for conduct of impeachment proceedings.

The Constitution suggests that impeachment proceedings may brought "In the same manner as the proposition of a Bill." Thus, the rules that normally apply to legislation also apply to articles of impeachment.

Just to note, this is just a vote on whether to impeach the President. If impeached, a trial must be held before the people. There is no official impeachment trial procedure written down anywhere, so we will just have to adhere to normal parliamentary procedure.

According to the Constitution:
"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."

A literal reading indicates that the similarity in procedure referes only to the proposal of the articles, not to voting rules, etc.

As my questioning has not finished I would ask that the vote be suspended until a vote is called.

[Emsworth]

A literal reading indicates that the similarity in procedure referes only to the proposal of the articles, not to voting rules, etc.

Correct. However, as the Senate has not adopted special rules relating to impeachment, it seemed appropriate to apply the normal procedures.

In any event, voting has been suspended for now, if the Senator has further comments. However, I will note that the Senator does not have the constitutional right to question the defendant (unless the defendant wishes to answer). No-one may be compelled to incriminate himself.

[Јas]

A literal reading indicates that the similarity in procedure referes only to the proposal of the articles, not to voting rules, etc.

Correct. However, as the Senate has not adopted special rules relating to impeachment, it seemed appropriate to apply the normal procedures.

In any event, voting has been suspended for now, if the Senator has further comments. However, I will note that the Senator does not have the constitutional right to question the defendant (unless the defendant wishes to answer). No-one may be compelled to incriminate himself.

I thank the Chief Justice for suspending the vote.
I also acknowledge the absence of a constitutional right to force the President to answer my questions.

[Ebowed]

Do you believe it is fair that a sitting President threatens the stability of the nation and goes unreprimanded?

Any action, whether intentional or not, may threaten the stability of the nation.  For example, making a poor diplomatic decision or going to war without allies not only threatens the stability of the nation in the future, but is usually done with full knowledge of these consequences.  Your wish to 'reprimand' a President in one instance for causing brief instability is essentially nothing more than constant nitpicking and an excellent example of the way strict legalism when applied to everyday affairs can contribute to a downfall in the fun atmosphere of the game and in turn, declining membership and activity on behalf of many citizens.

It is my intention not to answer any further questioning.

[Emsworth]

Do any Senators have further comments?

[Јas]

Do you believe it is fair that a sitting President threatens the stability of the nation and goes unreprimanded?

Any action, whether intentional or not, may threaten the stability of the nation.  For example, making a poor diplomatic decision or going to war without allies not only threatens the stability of the nation in the future, but is usually done with full knowledge of these consequences.

Certainly, well-intentioned actions could threaten the nation. However, what happened was not well-intentioned, but reckless in the first instance and negligent thereafter for failing to put an end to the crisis with due haste.

Your wish to 'reprimand' a President in one instance for causing brief instability is essentially nothing more than constant nitpicking and an excellent example of the way strict legalism when applied to everyday affairs can contribute to a downfall in the fun atmosphere of the game and in turn, declining membership and activity on behalf of many citizens.

Mr. President, I would ask for evidence that my impeachment action is leading to declining membership and activity. I would note that your actions contributed to a number of people decrying the state of 'the game' and at least one call for deregistration.

I did not submit the articles out of legalistic nitpicking, but because I felt that you undermined the Presidency, wllfully disregarded your oath and damaged 'the game' in doing so.

It is my intention not to answer any further questioning.

Entirely understandable.

[Јas]

Do any Senators have further comments?

Given that the President refuses to answer further questions, it would seem these proceedings have run their course.

I would urge my fellow senators to read this thread carefully. My position is clear, I believe the President's actions willfully and recklessly led to the chaos which caused dismay among many longstanding and respected citizens.

The President has admitted that he ignored his oath of office when he attacked our institution, the Senate. Allowing this to occur without consequence condones the actions. What message does that send to the current and, indeed, future executives?

On point of principle, I believe that we should vote to impeach and thus let the people of Atlasia decide on the future of this presidency.

[Emsworth]

Senators, voting is now open.

[TomC]

Why does Article III of impeachment refer to Article VI, clause 4 of the Constitution which reads "The right to bear fire-arms shall not be infringed"? I thought this was about freedom of the press, which is in clause 1. Did Ebowed allegedly take SoS's firearms away?

[TomC]

Yeah, maybe this doesn't matter at all. Just wondering.

[Јas]

Why does Article III of impeachment refer to Article VI, clause 4 of the Constitution which reads "The right to bear fire-arms shall not be infringed"? I thought this was about freedom of the press, which is in clause 1. Did Ebowed allegedly take SoS's firearms away?

You are indeed correct, that was a typo on my part.

[WMS]

General Question, related to the game/simulation: did Ebowed',s actions have an impact on 'real' Atlasia, or were there none?

[jerusalemcar5]

General Question, related to the game/simulation: did Ebowed',s actions have an impact on 'real' Atlasia, or were there none?

Well it did until he retracted it of course.  He slowed government to a halt and created a massive feud in the country.  He comitted those crimes, and regardles of what he did after, he did committ them.

[MasterJedi]

General Question, related to the game/simulation: did Ebowed',s actions have an impact on 'real' Atlasia, or were there none?

He slowed government to a halt

No he didn't, the Senate and regions went on as things were with no problems.

[WMS]

General Question, related to the game/simulation: did Ebowed',s actions have an impact on 'real' Atlasia, or were there none?

Well it did until he retracted it of course.  He slowed government to a halt and created a massive feud in the country.  He comitted those crimes, and regardles of what he did after, he did committ them.

And what impact they had is what I am trying to find out . I'm hoping for an official GM ruling on this.

[jerusalemcar5]

General Question, related to the game/simulation: did Ebowed',s actions have an impact on 'real' Atlasia, or were there none?

He slowed government to a halt

No he didn't, the Senate and regions went on as things were with no problems.

With the exception of Sentors having to defend their rights just to be in the Senate.  The Court had to review the consittutionality of it.  The regions had to muster armies (at least the NE).  And, at least temporarily, the Governor of the SE died.  Government was not functioning very well.

[Hatman 🍁]

There were protests in Nyman.

[Colin]

General Question, related to the game/simulation: did Ebowed',s actions have an impact on 'real' Atlasia, or were there none?

He slowed government to a halt

No he didn't, the Senate and regions went on as things were with no problems.

With the exception of Sentors having to defend their rights just to be in the Senate.  The Court had to review the consittutionality of it.  The regions had to muster armies (at least the NE).  And, at least temporarily, the Governor of the SE died.  Government was not functioning very well.

Actually the court never had to officially review the constitutionality of it since their was never a court case pertaining to the actions that the President is being impeached for. There were the civil suits that the President brought before the court which he later rescinded but the court as a whole had not begun any debate about those. I personally was conversing with Texasgurl just to try and get an opinion of what was going on and to be ready if legal action was taken against the President, and to really just try to figure the situation out as all Atlasians were. But we never officially reviewed the constitutionality of any of the Presidents actions nor did we take time out of any other official duties in order to pursue such review.

[ilikeverin]

Nay on all articles of impeachment.  President Ebowed has reformed since this unfortunate series of events.

I vote we impeach Count Olaf!