SENATE BILL: The "Expulsion Has a Purpose Amendment" (Sent to the Regions)

[Хahar 🤔]

Why only one term? I think a more reasonable duration would be between six months and two years. At a minimum, anyone who has been expelled should be ineligible to run in the next election.

Because expulsion is not a punitive measure. Bans from holding office are the place of the Supreme Court to levy; while it is reasonable to prevent an expelled Senator from holding office for the remainder of the term, the Senate does not and should not have the power to prevent the Atlasian electorate from returning the expelled member to the Senate if the people so will it.

While the expulsion process does need to be fixed, this amendment doesn't deal with the substantive issue at hand. The seven-day requirement should be removed and the Senate should be able to expel any member it chooses. The requirements for expulsion are such that it could not be used for political purposes, and it would prevent the system from being gamed.

[Хahar 🤔]

So if a Senator disappears after winning reelection, what happens? Keeping expelled officers out of office and providing for their prompt replacement is a matter of preserving the functionality of the Senate.

This is confusing to me. If a Senator disappears after winning election, then they should be expelled, obviously. Either I don't understand you or you don't understand me or both, because I never meant to imply otherwise.

Besides, this is a constitutional amendment, not a change to Senate rules, so I can hardly imagine how it could be legally questionable. I wouldn't object to a more flexible expulsion process, nor would I mind depriving party  chairs of their power to make appointments, but this amendment is a separate and just as necessary aspect of correcting existing procedural flaws.

I don't mean that it would be unconstitutional; I meant that I don't like it because imposing punishments isn't the Senate's place, but rather the place of the judiciary. It confuses the separation of powers.