Governor Never Again Impeachment

[Wisconsin+17]

As many of you already know, Governor Never Again has had numerous criticisms of the Chamber of Delegates now that he is no longer a member of it. However, his criticisms have been lawful.

Until now.

Governor Never Again has issued an illegal order to attempt to intimidate delegates into withdrawing legislation that he does not approve. This is well beyond the legal scope of his authority as Governor.

He is more than permitted to criticize.

I have posted his ILLEGAL order issued in the order paper thread to attempt to intimidate me into complying with his unlawful order.

I ask that citizens of the South sign this Impeachment proceedings so that we can express our displeasure with the outrageous conduct of Governor Never Again.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is the illegal order issued by Governor NeverAgain to attempt to intimidate me into withdrawing legislation that he does not like.

[JA]

Ben Kenobi,

While Governor NeverAgain's wording was a bit harsh and perhaps too excessive considering the limitations of his office, I also understand his frustration. We acknowledge that you abide by the rules in your conduct in the Chamber, however even you must admit, even if not publicly, that your rush to introduce numerous pieces of legislation following the impending results of the election were politically motivated. It may be legally permissible, but it isn't courteous and is excessively partisan. Since that time you've proceeded to engage in obstruction of legislation, delaying of proceedings, and unnecessary bickering with Labor delegates. I'm not going to pretend that all the fault is yours, but you have played an outsized role in the gridlock plaguing our Chamber.

You were elected by Southerners just as JTC, fhtagn, diptheriadan, NeverAgain, and I were. You owe it to those same voters, as do all of us, to find a way to resolve these issues without causing further difficulty and delay. I won't make any threats or try to exert any power over you, for I have no interest nor ability to do so. I'm simply asking you to consider finding a way to work with the new majority, just as I'd like us to respect you and work with you.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed. I have no desire to condemn Never Again for expressing his opinions regarding the Chamber. However, he crossed a line here.

Would you, as a Laborite delegate, want to see your legislation struck from the order paper by a federalist governor who did not approve? You'd be in uproar, especially if the governor threatened you.

The same protection that protects all of your bills, protects mine too. Never Again does have the authority to do many things but it is important that he stay within the bounds of his office. He needs to trust the legislative process.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, the legislation, all of it, was older legislation that had existed in the South prior to the reset. If I wanted partisan legislation, why would I put forth this type of legislation? Surely you can understand the change of name to the IDS is not partisan, there are IDS supporters within both parties.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And putting forth a bill that is solely intended to negate my euthanasia bill is courteous and neutral?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you stated, I have acted within the legal bounds of my office as delegate of the South. I am sorry that the legislative process is not as quick as you would like, but again, I have an obligation to represent my constituents to the best of my ability.

Surely you can see my duty to them? Just as you have your duty also. I would never attempt to criticize you for doing your job.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have a process. Debating the bills and discussing them before voting on them is not an unreasonable request. I realize you'd probably prefer other bills to be debated, but, I was Speaker too.

We debated and discussed every bill in front of us. I did not remove Laborite bills from the order paper, but brought all of them up in their proper order.

I merely ask to have the same respect returned.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's hardly working with me when JTC puts up his bills to erase bills that were just passed... What do you have to offer to me to break this impasse?

[JA]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed. I have no desire to condemn Never Again for expressing his opinions regarding the Chamber. However, he crossed a line here.

Would you, as a Laborite delegate, want to see your legislation struck from the order paper by a federalist governor who did not approve? You'd be in uproar, especially if the governor threatened you.

The same protection that protects all of your bills, protects mine too. Never Again does have the authority to do many things but it is important that he stay within the bounds of his office. He needs to trust the legislative process.

No, I would not like that. Nor do I think your legislation deserves to be struck by Governor NeverAgain. Like I said, I think out of frustration he went too far and his language was too excessive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, the legislation, all of it, was older legislation that had existed in the South prior to the reset. If I wanted partisan legislation, why would I put forth this type of legislation? Surely you can understand the change of name to the IDS is not partisan, there are IDS supporters within both parties.[/quote]

I was not suggesting your legislation was necessarily partisan, only that you introduced them all in such haste for partisan purposes. If that was genuinely not your intent, then I apologize for making that assumption. But you can admit that it had the effect of slowing down any attempts the new Labor majority would have at introducing and voting on new legislation, hence why we became frustrated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And putting forth a bill that is solely intended to negate my euthanasia bill is courteous and neutral? [/quote]

I wouldn't say it's discourteous, considering many of us have strong reservations or opposition to your proposed legislation. It is partisan, however. But that's standard politics since we have obvious disagreements. What I was calling discourteous and excessively partisan was the assumed tactics you were using to slow down the new Labor majority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you stated, I have acted within the legal bounds of my office as delegate of the South. I am sorry that the legislative process is not as quick as you would like, but again, I have an obligation to represent my constituents to the best of my ability.

Surely you can see my duty to them? Just as you have your duty also. I would never attempt to criticize you for doing your job. [/quote]

I wouldn't ask or expect you to do anything to defy what you believe to be the wishes of your constituents, as I'm sure you know. My point was simply that we, including Laborites, should move legislation along as quickly as possible and not fall prey to partisan bickering.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have a process. Debating the bills and discussing them before voting on them is not an unreasonable request. I realize you'd probably prefer other bills to be debated, but, I was Speaker too.

We debated and discussed every bill in front of us. I did not remove Laborite bills from the order paper, but brought all of them up in their proper order.

I merely ask to have the same respect returned. [/quote]

And I agree with you. As I said, I disagree with Governor NeverAgain's language and hope he rescinds that threat. You may also know that I seconded reinstating the debate on your IDS bill because I agreed with you that it didn't have a fair debate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's hardly working with me when JTC puts up his bills to erase bills that were just passed... What do you have to offer to me to break this impasse?
[/quote]

Attempting to erase bills you had just passed is understandably frustrating for you, but I also understand JTC's disagreements with your legislation. Both your proposal and his should be given a fair debate and vote. Not knowing the exact wording of his legislation at this time, I can only say I hope that it wasn't unnecessarily provocative.

At this point, I'd extend an AYE vote for your IDS legislation, offer to consider and work with you on potentially bipartisan legislation you've proposed thus far to help move the process along, and will ask JTC to be less confrontational. In exchange, I'd like you to promise to not engage in partisan bickering, restrain from unnecessary obstruction of legislation (such as allowing the emergency bill put forward by fhtagn to proceed to debate), and be open to working with me or other Laborites on potentially bipartisan legislation. I'll also ask Governor NeverAgain to rescind his threat in exchange for you dropping the lawsuit against him and putting this behind us. What do you say?

[diptheriadan]

I can understand where he (Nev) is coming from, but the rules are the rules. Doing what he has done has stepped over the line. If the Governor can, at any time, threaten the legislature to do want he wants, the South goes from being a representative democracy to a third world dictatorship.

[diptheriadan]

Also, 'impeding progress' is too vague to be used as an excuse to suspend the rules. If this is the precedent we're going to set, it's waiting for a dictator to come in and turn the South into his own personal playpen.

[NeverAgain]

Aw, I was hoping for a Supreme Court Case.

I was not asking for you to solely delete your legislation, I merely asked to put it at the end of the queue or to delete it all together, as we MUST establish true rules before all else.

On the issue of perceived executive overreach, my "threat" was that Mr. Kenobi move the legislation to the end of the queue so we can focus on the rules, before moving it back, or I would've opened an emergency slot on the rules, as the Speaker has and as federal precedent, under Pres. Yankee, holds.

I would never, repeat NEVER, demand or force a delegate delete their legislation or I will delete it for them, but these pieces of legislation, along with those of delegates of my own party, cannot and should not be seen as as important to setting the ground rules for this chamber.

I singled out these pieces, as first, they lack the vetting and support of other members of the Chamber, showing them to be desires wanted by one Delegate and not the urgent wishes of the Chamber. And two, these were not live and die issues. I personally believe I can live a couple more days without having milk as the regional drink.

But, you are absolutely right as I didn't make it clear, as I should of for this important subject, that this was a push to talk about the rules, and not to decimate everything its path.

In the future, we should all clarify with each other, myself included. I thank Mr. Kenobi for keeping everyone on track here, though.

[diptheriadan]

Nev, here's what I think you're not understanding.

You, the Governor of the South, decided that the rules of the Chamber were 'entirely and thoroughly unclear". Believing this, you introduced new rules for the Chamber. That is fine, absolutely fine, and entirely legal. But instead of waiting for the Chamber to vote on your new rules, rules which are only decided by the Chamber, you threatened the Chamber and the Speaker into opening an emergency slot for your new rules. Your reasoning for doing this was that Ben's bills were 'silly and detract from what we were all elected here'. Do you not see how easily abused this can be? Do you not see the precedent your setting? Do you not see how you have abused your power?

[JustinTimeCuber]

Good lord. That's nowhere near an impeachable offense. The wording was a bit harsh, but you are the one to talk about abusing power, when you discounted a duly elected Delegate's vote without warning.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think any legal mind or mind with the ability to comprehend basic law would think this. I am not only the Governor of this region, but also a former Delegate who went through the problems that arise from dangerously unclear rules.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have spent now weeks not able to get to any legislation because of these rules. The time for waiting is over. You may feel it is desirable to wait possibly months until we can establish clear operating procedure and are not at risk of constitutional crisis every time a problem arises, but I cannot. This is not a question of my desire to detract legislation, this is about morality. And it is not moral to waste the lives of all Southern citizens when we cannot establish how we clearly proceed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, my rationale was, if we cannot establish operating procedure, then we cannot do anything. Agree or disagree with any bills ahead of these rules, we cannot do a thing unless we are able to have set understanding of the procedure on which to proceed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did I demand anyone withdraw legislation, or I would do it myself? No. I asked that we move all legislation, singling out those seen as obviously frivolous in the comparison to the scope of what affects Southerners lives, to the back of the queue, or the sponsor could remove it, if they so desired. Or else I would, using President Yankee's EO as precedent, move the proposed rules to an emergency slot, as he did to continue the process of the legislature's movement and to administer the executive authority, is endowed by the national Constitution, as is in our regional Constitution.

[Blair]

Oh please IIRC Yankee did the exact same thing when he was President and opened up a thread in Congress to put legislation in place (something I supported at the time)

This is frankly is a complete joke, and has absolutely no merit.

[diptheriadan]

It doesn't matter what the  f!ck Yankee did. Giving the Governor the authority to bypass the current rules of the chamber and the wishes of the chamber itself sets up a dangerous precedent.

[NeverAgain]

It doesn't matter what the  Yankee did. Giving the Governor the authority to bypass the current rules of the chamber and the wishes of the chamber itself sets up a dangerous precedent.

Would you mind finding where exactly it states in the rules the Governor cannot use their executive authority, bestowed to him or her by the Constitution, in the pursuit of setting up an emergency slot for legislation?

[JustinTimeCuber]

It doesn't matter what the  Yankee did. Giving the Governor the authority to bypass the current rules of the chamber and the wishes of the chamber itself sets up a dangerous precedent.

Would you mind finding where exactly it states in the rules the Governor cannot use their executive authority, bestowed to him or her by the Constitution, in the pursuit of setting up an emergency slot for legislation?

[diptheriadan]

Would you mind finding me exactly where in the Southern Constitution it states you have the authority to do this?

[NeverAgain]

Would you mind finding me exactly where in the Constitution it states you have the authority to do this?

If we're reading the rules correctly, any Southern Citizen, Governor or otherwise, can. The Rules of Order as they now exist clearly give power to the Speaker to "organize... functions as deemed necessary". What was discussed was having the Legislature create an emergency slot, and the Speaker has used her power to do such entirely legally through the rules, that are done through Article 4, Section 9's allowing the legislature to establish their own rules.

[diptheriadan]

Would you mind finding me exactly where in the Constitution it states you have the authority to do this?

If we're reading the rules correctly, any Southern Citizen, Governor or otherwise, can. The Rules of Order as they now exist clearly give power to the Speaker to "organize... functions as deemed necessary". What was discussed was having the Legislature create an emergency slot, and the Speaker has used her power to do such entirely legally through the rules, that are done through Article 4, Section 9's allowing the legislature to establish their own rules.

Yes, but you threatened the Speaker into doing this. And there was no discussion. You basically gave fhtagn an ultimatum. Open an emergency slot for my bill or I will.

[NeverAgain]

Would you mind finding me exactly where in the Constitution it states you have the authority to do this?

If we're reading the rules correctly, any Southern Citizen, Governor or otherwise, can. The Rules of Order as they now exist clearly give power to the Speaker to "organize... functions as deemed necessary". What was discussed was having the Legislature create an emergency slot, and the Speaker has used her power to do such entirely legally through the rules, that are done through Article 4, Section 9's allowing the legislature to establish their own rules.

Yes, but you threatened the Chamber into doing this.

With what? I said that legislation will need to be rearranged or we'd have to pursue an emergency slot for the rules. If that's a threat these days, then goodness gracious, people are becoming soft.

[diptheriadan]

You told the Speaker that either she was going to open an emergency slot or you were. You stepped over the line. You had no authority to do this.

[diptheriadan]

Also, where is this emergency? I will admit that we spend a little too long on Speaker vote, but the Chamber has only had 5 days to do anything. I have a feeling that by 'emergency' you mean 'the chamber's not debating what I want'.

[NeverAgain]

You told the Speaker that either she was going to open an emergency slot or you were. You stepped over the line. You had no authority to do this.

Asking the Speaker to make an emergency slot, and then theoretically authorizing it through an EO is a threat? I didn't threaten the Speaker, and any claims of this is hearsay. If you have any questions about what the Constitutional roles of the Governor are, or the current (soon-to-be changed, we can only hope) rules are, you are more then welcome to read them yourself. I feel like this has gone from stating I was threatening Ben, to theoretically issuing an unconstitutional EO, to threatening fhtagn, all of which are entirely ridiculous of you read what I said and am saying.

If you have a complaint, PM me or sue me yourself. I am done playing games.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Okay Ben, good luck convincing JA and fhtagn to impeach their own party's Governor over nonsense, cause I sure as hell am not.

[JA]

Okay Ben, good luck convincing JA and fhtagn to impeach their own party's Governor over nonsense, cause I sure as hell am not.

The worst Governor NeverAgain could possibly be accused of is using harsh language, which isn't grounds for impeachment by any means. So you can count me out on impeachment or any other reprimanding of the Governor.

[diptheriadan]

This isn't nonsense. We can't give the Governor, of whatever party, the power to decide what the Chamber should and should not do. We can't give the Governor the power decide what bills are worthy of consideration.