> all who voted yes would then be marked, with repeated offenders being investigated and potentially charged with attempted treason.
Not possible by design in any country. Democratic countries would invoke separation of power, authoritarian countries wouldn't have independent justice in the first place.
People usually call separation of power that the people that
* apply the law to cases (judges)
* execute these decisions (police)
* decide what the law is (politicians)
Need to be separate organizations.
My daydream you've cited there would not be in violation of this, and I struggle to see how you would think it is.
You're surely aware that such a court already exists in all democratic nations I'm aware of and can slash down these passed laws already/force amendments to be made for it to take effect, yes?
Or did you take offense how I didn't write a 10 page document outlining how this could be legally implemented in a specific country?
A politician can't be investigated or prosecuted for doing his/her job, no matter how badly incompetent or evil it is. If a judge would have the power to do that, then it indirectly gains the legislative power which breaks the separation of pwers.
A politician can be held accountable of they break the law.
This should be obvious to anyone, otherwise actual corruption would be legal - not just the similie of lobbying which does effectively the same, but skirts the actual legality by not promising anything for the money received
What I obviously said was make voting for anything clearly incompatible with the foundational laws to be illegal, just like actual corruption already is. Hence no, it would not be in violation and I continue to be surprised you're unironically of this opinion
Not possible by design in any country. Democratic countries would invoke separation of power, authoritarian countries wouldn't have independent justice in the first place.