Join the new world

Here's the one where I thank those who voted for me and congratulate those who won in Manitoba, and the members of the CNC - regardless of which political stripe the ran under - who were elected in yesterday's elections, and commiserate with those who weren't elected. And I do, trust me, but it has been a bitter pill to swallow.

It's a bitter pill because based on the composition of the new Congress the idea of an active Congress, which I was promoting in my platform, is about as dead as it was with the last Congress. My prediction is that, unless something is done to encourage or shame members into participating in the Forums - both in debates and in votes - the greatest number of votes cast in an in-forum vote will be the election of the Speaker, and that most in-forum votes will continue to have an average of 14 or 15 votes cast, on issues which are sometimes quite important. I know for a fact that there were members elected who will not be as active as I have proven to be during my fiv terms in Congress.

Am I bitter? Ummm - Could be.

Let's turn to the big issue of the day however, the attempt to impeach Chucky Norris. The vote appears to be going down to defeat, as well it should. Had I been elected to Congress I would have voted against it as well. The fact that the attempt to impeach the President was patently illegal under the rules of Congress is part of the reason why I would have voted against. It did not receive the requisite 24 hours of debate or the approval of the Speaker to be moved in game and as a result must be voted down.

However it is not the only reason why I was and am opposed. Based on the information that I have, there is a question of whether or not the President has broken a law, and interfered with the actions of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Justice, allowing Samuel de Champlain to be remasked as a citizen in the forums, a procedure which according to the Constitution must be done. In this case it required an investigation by the Ministry of Justice which was completed. Other means of delaying the in-Forum masking pending further investigation by the Supreme Court were available but the people concerned in this matter did not avail themselves of those legal means. Instead they declared the existing system, in which the Attorney General is appointed by the Prime Minister, to be corrupt and moved to Impeach. From my viewpoint, and with admittedly incomplete information I would vote against the articles of Impeachment even if all of the Congressional prcedures had been followed to the letter.

I was a member of Congress for most of William Duncan's time as President. During that time, breaches of the Constitution and of established common law procedures were commonly and blatantly violated - including laws that he himself wrote. We did not impeach Duncan, but rather we issued a letter of censure to President Duncan. Based on what I've been able to discover about this case, President Duncan's actions were far more deserving of impeachment than President Norris. Even if it had been debated long enough and had the approval of the speaker to move to an in-Game vote this measure should never have been passed.