Well my goal was to simplify and to improve the current senate rules.
-The
part is simply unconstitutional because it would violate the right of the senators to file a lawsuit against anyone.
- The 2 current most senior senators: TNF and Polnut aren't interested by the administration of the senate, and that's their right. That's why they shouldn't be forced to spend their time to administer the senate until the election of a new speaker. With this senate change, they would be able to appoint someone else for these duties.
-I deleted the
, not a big deal but just to make sure no one believes this is
exclusively a VP duty (it can be a Speaker's duty when the VP is absent). Just to clarify.
-Cranberry, I decided to reduce the number of slots by 1 because often during my tenure as Speaker and as VP a long time ago there was a risk that no bills anymore would be debated because all the queue would have disappeared. As speaker, during a time, I was literally forced to slow down the administration of the senate because of this risk. By the way, I would like to remind everyone that the 2 presidential slots have almost been both empty, and 1 of them has always been empty. So if really there is a problem (like me now asking bore to use one of these slots for this reform because I risk to be elected Governor), 2 additional slots can be used.
-Cris, you misunderstand Article X: this is an article about seniority. The senate rules always talk about "the most senior senator". That's fine. But what happens when the 2 longest serving senators have been elected at the same time senator? That is currently the case with me and Cranberry. So this article basically ends this problem. If 2 senators have been elected at the same time, the tie breakers would be: 1) if they have been before a member of the senate (as Senator and then as VP, who is the President of the Senate), 2) if they have been before a legislator in a local assembly 3) if they have executive experience (president and then governor) and finally 4) the username.
For example, I'm behind Cranberry for seniority because he has been a former senator before being elected senator 6 months ago (1st tiebreaker) while I was only VP before (2nd tiebreaker).
-And finally, the regions I believe passed the 21st amendment, so fortunately senators can't be impeached anymore. But the constitution still allows the senate to expulse its members. The article about expulsion of a senator has never been updated. The current senate rules still speak about a "PPT" for example. So basically, I believe it was time to write something new. With this article, the senate would be able to expulse its members:
- if 5 senators sponsor the article of impeachment for any reason. (5 is really a high number in order to make sure it doesn't happen often).
-And like before, if a senator doesn't post anything for a week: possibility of facing expulsion procedures.
The President of the senate would administer that because I don't like the idea of a senator administering that. If there is no VP, it would be the Speaker except if it is against himself. Some things added to that: the presiding officer shall not be able to debate in order to make sure this is the fairest possible. Anf if this a senator who administers that, he would have to vote only if his vote matters and in this case, the last senator to vote.
