Originally posted by Napoleon
A bill of rights, I don't have a problem with some form, and to peacefully depose the emporer, while that sorta removes the point don't it, the emporer is their so that he can do things that need to be done even if they are unpopular. By making him able to be impeached then he has to worry about popularity.
Hmm ... that works as long as the emperor is a good guy.
However, if the emperor ever goes bad (a la Caligula
or Nero) it takes a bloody civil war to remove him.
The English Civil War of the 1640s is instructive: The
English kings had, since Magna Carta, governed
'constitutionally', checked by custom and by first the
Barons, and later by Parliament. However, Charles I,
using the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, asserted
absolute, unchecked authority, and that he was responsible
only to God for his actions. His Protestant subjects
were unwilling to accept such rule from a Catholic King,
and the result was a 10-year civil war that devastated
the country. Had the English constitution explicitly
given Parliament the power to veto the King's decrees,
and to remove him if need be, it is possible things
never would have reached that pitch.
I think a 2/3rds majority for removal would work well
for your system -- the reason the US has that rule for
removing the President is that a 2/3rds majority is
nearly impossible to achieve under normal circumstances.
In the US Senate, for example, the split has been as high
as 60-40 and more usually is around 55-45. Currently, it
is literally 50-50.
A simple majority means the Emperor
is subject to the whim of the Senate's majority party.
A 2/3 majority means that both the ENTIRE majority
party AND a considerable portion (about half) of the
minority party have to agree that the man has to go. In
a >2 party system such as the UK or Isreal, a 2/3rd majority
becomes even harder to achieve. Thus: a 2/3rd majority
means that an OVERWHELMING proportion of the nation's
people, not only all the Emperor's opponents but most of
his (former) supporters as well, have to agree that he
has to go.
I suggest that if the Empire is THAT united and THAT firm
against him, then violent revolution is the inevitable
result unless he is peacefully removed. So: A 2/3rds majority will sustain the emperor in unpopular but
just actions , but provide a peaceful mechanism
for removing a Nero or a Caligula. He need not fear
removal ordinarily -- in American history a President has
been impeached only three times. Twice they have been
acquitted by votes of about 65-35 and 51-49, and the
3rd time he resigned to avoid removal. That 3rd
was President Nixon, whose guilt was clear-cut and
indisputable.
Respectfully,
Brian P.