Mentioning us is one thing, discussing things like "what if admins go rogue?" is another. If an admin wants to step down, or needs to be dismissed for some reason, that would fall under our remit, and wouldn't be part of the constitution. The idea here is that we have two separate documents (manifesto and constitution) for two separate structures. Formalising one within the other is problematic.
Now, your hypothetical situation can be easily resolved in a number of ways, either technical (e.g. an off-forum voting system) or organisational (allowing for multiple ways of voting and introducing e.g. e-mail votes). It doesn't warrant a discussion of how moderation should work.
Acknowledging that a separate document specifying how administration and moderation works is about as much as you can do if you really need to put a mention in there. Trying to prevent us from turning into tyrants via policy is simply unworkable. So Parsifal goes rogue and you tell him to step down - who cares? If he's gone rogue, he owns the site anyway and he won't listen to you. If Parsifal doesn't go rogue, but I do, it'll be him that deposes me, not you. Even if I didn't have organisational concerns about this idea, it's practically impossible to execute.
Your concerns are already addressed by the solution we have in place - the site and society are separate as far as management goes. If the society isn't happy with the website run for it, it can move, because there's nothing in the rules that ties it to the site. Trying to formalise this connection and then come up with a system where it can be severed is a waste of time.