Impeachment of the President

[Ebowed]

Out of curiosity, I would like to ask supporters of this impeachment where they would have stood on the following situations had they been in a relevant position of authority at the stated time:
* The re-election of DanielX to the Senate in November of 2005;
* The appointment of True Democrat to Game Moderator in May of 2006;
* The motion to expel Senator Keystone Phil in June of 2006.

Thanks in advance.

[Ebowed]

A few notes to consider.

Firstly, I stated repeatedly following the closure of this "incident" that my actions in the Important Announcement thread were of a nonserious nature, as well as null & void.  It is plainly obvious that the nature and style used in the posts by yours truly in the aforementioned threads were over the top; as an example, in response to EarlAW calling me "insane," I stated that his remarks were making me literally ill.  In my initial "firing" of EarlAW from the Senate, I stated I was "delighted" to announce it and claimed that he had been removed five minutes before the post had been made; I will let this testament to how serious the post was speak for itself.  It is quite obvious to anyone who is not set on writing articles of impeachment that these posts were not official, nor were they meant to be constitutionally sound or actual executive decisions.  Had these decisions been serious I surely would have sent word through to the President of the Senate that he was meant to recognize my vacancies as valid.

Second, I have made it a tradition throughout my service in the Presidency that official announcements, proposals, and speeches are posted in one thread and one thread only: the White House.  In the past I have deviated from this only for state of the union addresses and my initial inauguration address; recently even these have been posted in the White House.  The fact that my "important announcement" was posted in a separate thread is notable.

Third, while the second and third articles of impeachment would be valid as unconstitutional actions were they to be taken seriously as official executive decisions, it appeared to be the general opinion of various members of the Court and public that it is not strictly unconstitutional for a President to dismiss a Senator.  The fact that a constitutional amendment has been proposed to alleviate this loophole here speaks volumes; the Senate therefore has absolutely no reason to vote in favor of the first article brought fourth.  I should note that it is not my intention to suggest that the serious firing of Senators by the President is a morally sound procedure.  I believe I have made it clear that this would be inconsistent with my political philosophy and my general view regarding how the government is supposed to work: I opposed a former President's proposal that would allow him to directly introduce legislation to the Senate, and in real life politics I have been opposed to various extensions of power by the Bush administration in the name of fighting terrorism.  Given these points, I think it is quite clear that the nonserious nature of the "Important Announcement" thread is not something that may be easily dismissed.

[Ebowed]

It is plainly untrue that I was the only Atlasian who considered these actions to be offical actions.

I did not say this was the case.

If this was true, why did the newly appointed Secretary of Forum Affairs Peter Bell seek official clarification from the leaders of the Senate? (See here.)

I corresponded with the Secretary of Forum Affairs before he posted his thread, telling him that he was free to post his clarification request because I was sure that the PPT and President of the Senate would not consider my actions official.

Why also, did your own Vice-President then move to have you declared unable to discharge the powers and duties of your office and your newly appointed Secretary of Defence vote in favour? (See here.)

As you are likely aware, I was very busy while these events occurred and while I was able to briefly correspond with Q, I had many conversations going on at the same time throughout the course of that evening and was unable to inform him that because of the way the situation had turned out, everything was being reverted (per my proposal to Earl and other allegedly affected persons) before he posted this thread.  The fact that my Internet access kept going out that evening, which several can attest to, was not a great help in both the proposal process and attempting to discuss the situation with the Vice-President.

As to why the Secretary of Defense signed it, you should note that he found the situation amusing and only signed for the sake of national stability - due to the way some certain people were stubbornly reacting, it was in all actuality better that Q take reigns while I attempted to work something out with the Social Democratic Party.

As I've stated above, the declarations were taken seriously by many Atlasians, be they citizens are members at all levels of government. ... Once again, I reiterate that your actions were taken seriously by many.

This is an appeal to popularity fallacy and has no relevance to the constitutional aspect of the matter.

[Ebowed]

has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice ... has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice ... has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice

By the way, how many times has this happened?  How many people have been punished for that?  I made this point earlier:

Out of curiosity, I would like to ask supporters of this impeachment where they would have stood on the following situations had they been in a relevant position of authority at the stated time:
* The re-election of DanielX to the Senate in November of 2005;
* The appointment of True Democrat to Game Moderator in May of 2006;
* The motion to expel Senator Keystone Phil in June of 2006.

Thanks in advance.

The fact that no response has yet been given by one of the parties here who is quite forceful in demanding my impeachment is only confirming my suspicions.  The double standard being applied here is certainly worth considering, especially because in the aforementioned cases all of the guilty parties were serious in their attempts to subvert the rule of law and justice.

[Ebowed]

Finally, I would say that you took an oath to faithfully execute the office of President and uphold the Constitution. The actions of recent days, to me, are anathema to that Oath. I do not believe it is fair to simply overlook and ignore that.

This reminds me of Clinton's impeachment trial, only less worthy of a cause.

It is true that I did swear in and affirm to uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the duties of my office:

I, Ebowed, do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of President and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, so help me Dave.

Let me ask the Senator; am I currently insisting that Senators EarlAW, Captain Vlad, and jerusalemcar5 were actually dismissed at my request?  Am I attempting to enforce that Speed Of Sound does not hold office for the next year?  Are bans on his newspaper actually being enforced?  Actually, his newspaper was recently bought by Atlasian World News, making Speed Of Sound a Game Moderator.  So his newspaper isn't banned and he's got official powers as Game Moderator- if these actions of mine that you claim caused so much injury to Atlasian persons were serious, why are they not in effect?

[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.

[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.