I'm not sure what exactly my political motivation is for this. I voted to uphold the removal of Bels's citizenship, but I feel that if the power were misused it would be incredibly difficult to overturn a Cabinet decision.

Sopo, next election next term the electorate would take care of this issue. That is what I feel. On the other hand crippling the power the cabinet has - someone once asked this before - why have a cabinet at all then?

It's not crippling their power; this just makes sure there is an adequate check on that power from the Assembly.

I don't think the current Cabinet abused this power, but I do think it could be abused by a future Cabinet. Bels said himself he wanted to use it to remove Uni and GR.

I agree about the last part and wish the revisions to the court system would help balance it out rather then the assembly. We really need three points to the government rather than two.

My point is, though, that if someone like Bels along with two other Cabinet members abused the power, its difficult to reverse, and it would be completely legal.

I understand your point of view, I'm trying to figure out a way for it to work so that the Assembly can't unilaterally overturn the Cabinet. Perhaps the Judicial system could be appealed to by the Assembly and if they agree then? Something that prevents whiplash (such as when article 9 was going through the first place).

I still hold that most security threats should go through the Courts unless they're a threat to the physical forums (spamming, hacking, etc). I'm not really sure how to reconcile the Cabinet's removal powers with the Courts as far as an appeal, though.

The thing is Sopo, we've never has a functioning court system in TSP. If you look on the old forum "judicial reform" was on the table for quite some while. Courts were plagued with inactivity and inability to do something. With the courts legislation for some types of norms and procedures and such in progress, its possible in the future at some time they could be a step in the process (Cabinet declares security threat, "security threat" asks for appeal in court system, )

An appeal to the Courts would be fair enough, but I doubt that would be any more popular. The Cabinet could make their case for why x person is a security threat, x person could make the case for why they're not... you know, like a trial. Only it would be guilty until proven innocent.

While I thank Escade and Sopo for their confidence in the Courts, I don't think the current bench of Justices have adequate expertise of GP to make a sound decision