Talk:Amendment to the Constitution of the Most Serene Republic of Kodiak

From The Kodiak Republic Wiki

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/28/2023 11:30 PM

Tabled by Josef Kovac, MGA as a independent members bill A amendment to the constitution of the republic Voting is currently set for the 12th of October The Kodiak Republic Wiki Amendment to the Constitution of the Most Serene Republic of Kodiak Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/28/2023 11:30 PM

@Assembly Member debate is now open for this amendment to the constitution Josef Kovac — 09/28/2023 11:33 PM I think recent events have made the need for this amendment very clear. It is always important to have a way of removing officials unsuited for government, and having a way constitutionally outline will prevent loopholes. Liam Harrison [KWP] — 09/28/2023 11:34 PM While I support the principle of this Bill, I believe it has been rushed, and thus has egregious flaws, such as the open-ended nature of the phrase "all elected officials" Josef Kovac — 09/28/2023 11:35 PM I did think of that, and was searching for my wiki info to change it to all officials. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/28/2023 11:35 PM

Yeah I support this amendment it’s reasonable and fair sometimes people should not be able to hold office after certain things Josef Kovac — 09/28/2023 11:35 PM If someone logged in could remove the word ‘elected’ in 1.1, I would appreciate that. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/28/2023 11:35 PM

Mabye better to have it as impeachment for all national level politicians? Josef Kovac — 09/28/2023 11:37 PM Would that be the same thing as all officials? Are you suggesting preventing impeachment of low level officials or of provincial officials? Liam Harrison [KWP] — 09/28/2023 11:39 PM The ability for the Assembly to impeach any official would be a grevious breach of the balance of powers, and would give the legislative total control over any other branch of the government, be it executive, judicial, or even the legislature itself. Josef Kovac — 09/28/2023 11:40 PM That is a valid point. What change would you suggest to limit the Assembly’s power in such a manner? Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/28/2023 11:42 PM

Scratch what I said only really works if Kodiak had smaller elected assembly’s in each region Liam Harrison [KWP] — 09/28/2023 11:43 PM I would limit it to solely enable the Assembly to impeach MGAs from the position of Member, and increase the requirements for an impeachment to be proposed to, say, 10 Members Liam Harrison [KWP] — 09/28/2023 11:43 PM (There must be some sort of Council or other governing body at lower levels in Kodiak, otherwise there wouldn't be any local administration) Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/28/2023 11:44 PM

That was my thought so perhaps we leave smaller impeachments to smaller bodies was my suggestion Liam Harrison [KWP] — 09/28/2023 11:44 PM Adding on to this, I would also allow a petition signed by 10% of the eligible voter population of a constituency to impeach the MGA for that constituency Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/28/2023 11:45 PM

10% seems way to low mabye 50 Josef Kovac — 09/28/2023 11:45 PM That would solve the problem of total control, but this solution completely removes the option to impeach Ministers or the Chief Justice. In addition, I think the 10 member requirement for proposal is far too high, given the most recent vote only received 18 votes, Liam Harrison [KWP] — 09/28/2023 11:46 PM (We have 200 RP members, an impeachment by 4 MGAs is only 2% of the Assembly) Josef Kovac — 09/28/2023 11:47 PM (10% of the full assembly is equivalent to all active members of the discord. The clause was intended to be somewhat OOC) Josef Kovac — 09/28/2023 11:48 PM I agree with this. To solve the issue of impeaching the executive or judicial branches, perhaps a national referendum to propose/convict? Liam Harrison [KWP] — 09/28/2023 11:48 PM (Perhaps we could have a note saying "4 player MGAs qualifies for an impeachment"?) Liam Harrison [KWP] — 09/28/2023 11:49 PM Sure Josef Kovac — 09/28/2023 11:49 PM I would be open to changing the clause to 10 members required to impeach, with an OOC note stating the four member number. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/28/2023 11:49 PM

Again just 10% I think that’s way to low for something this important at least it should be 50% or something Josef Kovac — 09/28/2023 11:50 PM It is a supermajority to convict. 10% is simply to level the accusation, but I would be open to changing it up to a 33% vote. Liam Harrison [KWP] — 09/28/2023 11:51 PM I believe we are getting mixed up, 10% was my proposal for the constituents to impeach a Member Liam Harrison [KWP] — 09/28/2023 11:51 PM I mean, less than 60% of eligible voters participated in the last General Election, and that's the biggest event in the political calendar A tiny sliver of that would be politically active enough in the mean time to be considering an impeachment. W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 09/28/2023 11:52 PM just as a note, constituencies are approximately half a million residents each. voters account for approximately 350,000 per seat. 10% would be 35,000 people Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/28/2023 11:52 PM

Yeah I mean sure but then couldn’t like 10 percent of the population who voted for the other guy just do this and waste our time? Josef Kovac — 09/28/2023 11:52 PM A clause could be added to encourage impeachment to be in a separate queue to avoid wasting time. Liam Harrison [KWP] — 09/28/2023 11:53 PM 50% is almost the entire actively voting population Shall we go with 25% of eligible voters in a constituency, then? Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/28/2023 11:54 PM

Fair enough I’m good with 25% W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 09/28/2023 11:54 PM I think a petition for impeachment should require 10,000 signatures of enrolled citizens, but that it should be up to the President on whether to introduce that petition based on the evidence provided with that petition therefore, if it is important to the President to seek 30k, or 50k, or 70k, its up to him but the procedure may begin at 10k Josef Kovac — 09/28/2023 11:55 PM 25% is 87000 people. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/28/2023 11:56 PM

That is true yeah mabye 10% is reasonable Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/28/2023 11:58 PM

Only problem i could potentially see with that is the potential of the president being corrupt and denying the petition because the MGA accused is their friend or something Josef Kovac — 09/28/2023 11:58 PM The point of the referendum was originally to impeach officials outside of the legislature. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/28/2023 11:59 PM

I mean same thing can happen for that too Liam Harrison [KWP] — 09/28/2023 11:59 PM I believe 10% was for the constituents of a particular MGA to impeach that Member. W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 09/29/2023 12:00 AM lets recall that impeachment is a formal indictment the grand jury may be the citizens of a constituency, but there needs to be some level of judicial procedure, even if the act as judge is performed by members of the legislature Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/29/2023 12:01 AM

I mean we can have the chief justice preside over it W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 09/29/2023 12:01 AM It should not be that if a vauge 10% of citizens hate their member, they may enforce an impeachment elections are often won with 50% and a swing of 1-2%. Finding 10% of a voter roll who wants to interfere with a legislator would be trivial. As a result, there needs to be an accountability question I suggest the President because they serve at the pleasure of the Assembly if the President is failing to fulfill their duties, the Assembly may forcibly remove them. Josef Kovac — 09/29/2023 12:03 AM I'm going to retire for the night. I will read over the discussion tomorrow and will present a list of proposed changes later. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/29/2023 12:03 AM

Same for me but before I go I do want to agree with Magnus on that front sounds reasonable Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 09/29/2023 12:48 AM I'm going to offer a contrary argument to the brief discussion on power here but as the Ministers serve after confirmation with the General Assembly who are made up of members elected by the people, it should be within the power of this chamber to impeach a Minister and have a Minister removed from office. Ideally, it will never come to that as I suspect the Chancellor would have done so long before if it got to the point where the GA might even consider being involved.

With that said separation of powers is an important issue to consider carefully so it would not be unjustified for this particular amendment to only focus on the impeachment of MGAs for justifiable reasons.

"W Magnus Ward (NUP) — Today at 2:01 PM It should not be that if a vauge 10% of citizens hate their member, they may enforce an impeachment elections are often won with 50% and a swing of 1-2%. Finding 10% of a voter roll who wants to interfere with a legislator would be trivial. As a result, there needs to be an accountability question"

Absolutely this. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 09/29/2023 6:19 AM (For reference, the US congress can impeach any federal level employee. It actually is part of the balance of powers for the legislature branch to have the authority to do so, imo) Jonn Stevens (DPPK)


a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages .

— 09/29/2023 9:31 AM

Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 09/29/2023 1:41 PM

Yeah In my opinion if anyone should have the power to remove a chancellor or a chief justice it should be the legislature So with that being said i believe this amendment should cover that the assembly can impeach any federal employee. Also with that being said I believe it would be Beneficial to include a oath of office every employee of the state elected or not should take to be able to serve. The Republic of Arcasis (DPPK) — 09/29/2023 1:47 PM All I have to say is...yes I see no problem with this proposal Josef Kovac — 10/01/2023 7:04 PM Sorry this took so long, but I've read the discussion several times and thought up some changes.

1: MGAs have the power to impeach the President, Ministers, and MGAs without a petition, but 60% of enrolled voters must petition for the removal of the Chancellor and the Chief Justice. Ideally, the petition would be created in legislature, ensuring 50% of MGAs also are pushing for impeachment.

2: In character, MGAs must obtain a consensus of 20 members in order to introduce impeachment; OOC, the number would be somewhere between 3-7.

3: MGAs can be impeached by a 60% majority of enrolled voters in their constituencies, and either a simple majority or a supermajority in the Assembly.

I think this covers most of the discussion, please let me know if there's anything you want me to add or remove. Just to clarify, when it says "between 3-7" or "either a," it's because I wanted to get the Assembly's opinion on that. W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 10/01/2023 7:07 PM Article 3, section 2 of the constitution already allows the Assembly to remove the CJ from office with a vote of two thirds. Would this impeachment need to be specifically for a criminal offence to bring the conviction threshold down from two thirds to majority? Josef Kovac — 10/01/2023 7:08 PM Yes, that was the intent. I think it's important to have a difference between "the Assembly doesn't like the CJ," and "the CJ murdered 18 people." W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 10/01/2023 7:10 PM Just personally, I'm not sure that it would ever be possible to gather support from 60% of an entire constituency, even on clear cut evidence. canvasing 200-500k people just seems an insurmountable task that does not feel worrthwhile including. as for number 2, I think we can stay with 20 and then when I use when making questions about "IC numbers vs OC numbers" is I use 200 : -number of votes in most recent general election- so we tend to have around 30 20 is 10% of 200, and therefore 30 votes would become 3 members Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 10/01/2023 7:14 PM

Could we also add a section saying elected officials and federal employees have to take a oath before taking office Josef Kovac — 10/01/2023 7:15 PM The number does seem a bit high, but the intent of that clause is to somewhat remove the Assembly from that impeachment. I don't expect it to happen often, but if 60% of a constituency wants to remove their MGA, they should be able to. That being said, I am very open to tweaking the number if you have a suggestion. W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 10/01/2023 7:16 PM my original suggestion is still my favourite so make of that what you will - that a flat 10 or 20k sends a request to the president to consider impeachment but does not in and of itself cause impeachment proceedings Josef Kovac — 10/01/2023 7:16 PM I would be open to that. Perhaps the CJ should handle petitions instead? Josef Kovac — 10/01/2023 7:17 PM Is this not already a thing? Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 10/01/2023 7:17 PM

I don’t believe so Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 10/01/2023 7:17 PM

I would also like this W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 10/01/2023 7:18 PM I think its complicated - while involving the CJ I think feels right, I'm not sure its mechanically proper. Since it muddles the seperation of powers. Politicians as a class are traditionally outside the usual judicial system when it comes to their position as representatives. So the Judicial can convict and imprison a representative for crime, but is not responsible for the construction of the Legislature the legislature would be responsible for convicting a member for a crime against their constituent responsibilities but not for a criminal violation. That would make the President the highest officer in that regard, and not the CJ. to simplify: the Judicial sends a man to prison for murder the Legislature bans a man from the legislature.

When the man is both an MGA and a murder, essentially they must be tried twice. once for the crime, and once for violation of the democratic principle Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 10/01/2023 7:22 PM

Fair enough though what about haveing the Cheif justice presiding over the chamber for impeachment W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 10/01/2023 7:23 PM I believe it muddles the seperation of powers. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 10/01/2023 7:24 PM Although the Chief Justice does have more of a basis for the operation of a trial than the President might. In the case of impeachment, the legislature acts as both jury and judge. All that a CJ might do is ensure the process is conducted smoothly, with fairness, and according to the laws of the Republic. Something that the President may be equipped to do, but may not be. The CJ, by the nature of their role, must be equipped. W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 10/01/2023 7:28 PM I don't believe the judicial can have a position in overseeing a political process (while maintaining the principle of separation of powers), which removal of a politician is. its an unfair cost to the trust in the office of Chief Justice. Daniel Anderson — 10/03/2023 2:38 AM I support I don't see any problems with the proposal and it's beneficial to remove corrupt or bad members from the assembly Braughn F. G. Kryos — 10/05/2023 3:37 PM I believe that 1.6 should be modified to include that being barred from any office in the Serene Republic should be an option presented to the Assembly. I do not believe it should be the default punishment for any removed officer of the government. I believe that the Assembly should be given the discretion to permanently remove the official from service, temporarily remove the official from service, or make some other punishment. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 10/05/2023 5:24 PM

their could be a case for officially codifying expulsion in the constitution, and making them separate things that the assembly can do. Josef Kovac — 10/07/2023 11:48 PM Here is a revised version.

Amendment to the Constitution of the Most Serene Republic of Kodiak

Amendment One: Impeachment

1.1: All officials of the Serene Republic may be impeached. 1.2: All officials of the Serene Republic are required to take an oath to uphold the principles of Kodiak and her people. 1.3: Officials may only be impeached for corruption, sedition, fraud, violation of oath, crimes against a person, or crimes against humanity. 1.4: Motions for impeachment require the support of twenty members. 1.5: While an impeachment motion is being heard, the official in question is suspended from their duties. 1.6: A motion of impeachment requires a two-thirds vote in the Assembly to pass. 1.7: A convicted official is to be removed from office and may be barred from future office at the Assembly’s discretion. 1.8: In order to impeach the Chancellor, a public referendum must be held. In the event that 50% of registered voters support impeachment, the Assembly may motion and convict as outlined. 1.9: Citizens of a constituency may petition for the impeachment of their representative. If the petition shall accumulate twenty thousand signatures, the President shall review the petition and may choose to pass it to the Assembly. 1.10: All impeachment hearings shall be presided over by the President, or an official appointed in their stead. I tried to take all of the discussion into account, let me know if I missed anything. W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 10/09/2023 5:15 PM Here's a question I have - traditionally the constitution has been rather short and it has been the preogative of the assembly to write legislation that fulfills its requests. Would it make sense to have 10 subpoints for an amendment that only does a single function - or should the amendment instead "empower the Assembly with the authority to impeach and convict officials of violations determined by the Assembly." And then if we need to make adjustments, we can amend a piece of legislation instead of needing to amend the constitution again. Josef Kovac — 10/09/2023 5:34 PM I feel that this cause is important enough to warrant 10 subpoints, but that may be the sunk costs fallacy talking. I am open to completely reworking the length if the Assembly wishes it. W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 10/09/2023 5:36 PM I agree, and I support the measure. I just think that it should be two items. One longer procedural law, and one shorter enabling constitutional amendment But I am open to the will of the assembly Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 10/09/2023 5:39 PM

I mean In all fairness, with the topic I think it would be better to have a very precise constitutional amendment. even if that is longer than usual, but I do see your point when it comes to length. W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 10/09/2023 5:40 PM I heavily disagree. The constitutions function as a foundation of governance I feel should not be used as a way to limit the rights of the democracy it creates. impeachment of officials is not the same level as 'creates a legislature' and 'freedom of speech' Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 10/09/2023 5:44 PM

I don’t know exactly how you jump from having a constitutional amendment being precise to having it limiting the rights of democracy. And your right it is not the same level as freedom of speech but I see that as why it should be more fleshed out not less. The power to remove a elected official should not be as up to interpretation as freedom of speech. But on that note perhaps it could be better served as two pieces of legislation. As you suggested but I’ll leave that up to the author to consider Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 10/12/2023 6:59 PM

@Assembly Member do we feel we need more time with this act, or should i start the countdown Josef Kovac — 10/12/2023 7:00 PM I'd like to look at it one more time and edit the wiki, but if nobody else objects, I'm fine with doing it later. Josef Kovac — 10/13/2023 1:11 AM I've decided to go with Mr. Ward's suggestion and create a shorter version of the Amendment that leaves it open to legislature later.

1.1 - All officials of the Serene Republic shall hold an oath to serve the people of Kodiak, and may be impeached for the violation of this oath, in addition to corruption, sedition, crimes against a person, crimes against humanity, or other crimes determined by the assembly. All motions to remove an official require a minimum of 2/3 vote of the General Assembly to pass, unless a higher standard is determined by the Assembly. W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 10/13/2023 1:12 AM I like that. full support Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 10/13/2023 7:54 PM

Ok then I assume that I can start the count now so if there are no objections the vote will happen in 24 hours I stand corrected W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 10/13/2023 7:54 PM You don't think you should bring the updated version to the attention of the members for their comments? Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 10/13/2023 8:07 PM

I mean it has been close to 13 hours with no comment. But I see the members argument so I’ll leave it up to debate for the foreseeable future. John Edwards [KWP] — 10/13/2023 8:54 PM I approve of the amendment as it stands, however, it now specifies breach of oath and crimes as reasons for impeachment/expulsion. Considering this originated over the scandal surrounding AM Caldwell, we will next need to examine the oath to determine whether she breached it. While that discussion should take place elsewhere, members should consider this when discussing this motion. W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 10/13/2023 8:55 PM I don't believe an oath of office yet exists - but should be a part of the expanding legislation Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 10/13/2023 9:00 PM

Perhaps it would be beneficial, to add to this amendment a oath of office each person working for the government should take elected or not. or perhaps just create another amendment adding it . W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 10/13/2023 9:01 PM I am still opposed to using the amendment process to create specific procedures as attempting to amend them in future becomes exceptionally difficult for what amounts to an issue of mild importance Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 10/13/2023 9:03 PM

Yeah fair enough we will create the oath after the fact John Edwards [KWP] — 10/13/2023 10:53 PM It should be a separate piece. Technically, the oath has always been around, just never officialised(?). Josef Kovac — 10/13/2023 10:56 PM My intent was for it to be decided in separate legislation. Josef Kovac — 10/15/2023 2:28 AM Fixed an accidental omission of the word "fraud" in the list of impeachable crimes. Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 10/15/2023 4:04 AM Agreement with the sentiment of constitution vs legislation, the original constitution was always to establish the core of the republic and give enough flexibility for procedural matters to be established as legislation. So the new proposal is excellent and I'm in favour. Thank you Mr Kovac. Josef Kovac — 10/17/2023 1:14 AM If there's nothing else anyone would like to say, I believe we are five days due for a vote. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 10/17/2023 7:19 AM

Ok then I’ll start the countdown if there are no objections this vote will be held in 24 hours Braughn F. G. Kryos — 10/17/2023 7:59 AM What is the aversion to setting up the procedure in the amendment. Wouldn’t a process such as impeachment be crucial enough to warrant the protections of the amendment process? Would leaving it to a regular procedural process leave it open to abuse and majority opinion? W Magnus Ward [NUP] — 10/17/2023 8:05 AM the first would be that it would be the only specifically set out procedure in the entire document. It would be anomolous. Second, any political process regardless of origination is a potential nucleation point for abuse - being more verbose will not resolve that issue. Third, it is unreasonable to expect that today's Assembly will be able to adequately prepare a procedure that will answer problems of tomorrow. Procedures that are not known to be 'perfect' shouldn't be enshrined with specificity into the document. Fourth, If an error or change is required, it means we must utilise the entire amendment process for what amounts to a minor administrative change, which is an aborogation of our responsibilities as lawmakers. Amendments to the constitution should be for more than mere procedural trivialities, which is what the majority of this specific process is - an administrative triviality. The only function of import is the right to impeach a sitting member. All the rest is administrative and should not be within the document. Fifth, even the more complete suggestions for administrative function are incomplete as the nuances of impeachment would likely require pages of text specific to what crimes, what intent, what civil penalties, what levies or levels, what punishments, etc etc are available to the assembly. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 10/17/2023 8:23 AM Mmm. True enough. Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 10/17/2023 9:51 PM Yep a great rule of thumb is - what versus how. How is probably more likely better off in legislation so that how something is done can be altered as we learn more about what works and what hasn't worked. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 10/17/2023 10:50 PM

I’m sorry, are we arguing in favor of this resolution being changed to just normal legislation, or the more specific parts becoming normal legislation? Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 10/17/2023 10:59 PM No, I'm in agreement with the updated version that Josef has done which has removed the procedural parts. EasyPoll BOT

— 10/18/2023 5:16 PM

Question do you approve of the amendment to the constitution

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░ [14 • 74%] 🇧 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [1 • 5%] 🇨 ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [4 • 21%] 19 users voted


alarm_clock: Poll already ended (3 hours ago)
spy: Anonymous Poll
one: allowed choice
lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 14373c77 Jonn Stevens (DPPK) OP

— 10/18/2023 5:18 PM

@Assembly Member voting is now open, remember this needs a two thirds majority to pass Braughn F. G. Kryos — Today at 10:05 AM @Assembly Member, voting is almost closed for this proposal. Keep in mind the necessary two-thirds majority required for this amendment to pass. Braughn F. G. Kryos — Today at 8:11 PM With 14 ayes, 1 nays, and 4 abstentions, the Amendment to the Constitution of the Most Serene Republic of Kodiak is declared passed by the General Assembly of Kodiak. This debate will be archived shortly.

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.