Reintroducing the 21st Amendment (Final vote)

[Cranberry]

Ah, this was the bill where Windjammer and I had this page-long discussion on the word "automatically"

Your clarification here is not really what this was about, Cris. The point was not whether citizens should be allowed to post articles of impeachments in the Legislation Introduction Thread - they are not, because the Senate Rules say only Senators may post in that thread at all - but rather did I try to prove Senator Windjammer that automatically is not really possible in this instance, as there will always have to be a person posting these articles - thus the process not being automatic anymore. You see the dilemma?

Anyway, a majority of Senators of the last Senate apparently shared my opinion, they voted for my amendment after all, so I will introduce the same one again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Regarding the bill in general, I so intend to support it this time, same as I did last time.

[Cranberry]

Of course, expulsion does make sense for Senators, but Potus is the best example why we need precisely impeachments, that is for non-Senator federal officeholders... So no, I don't support your amendment, and I will not withdraw mine.

[Cranberry]

Of course, expulsion does make sense for Senators, but Potus is the best example why we need precisely impeachments, that is for non-Senator federal officeholders... So no, I don't support your amendment, and I will not withdraw mine.

My amendment doesn't end "impeachments." Potus wasn'r even concerned by the 19th amendment. So I don't understand your opposition. Without the 19th amendment, 3 senators can still motion for an impeachment, like what happened with him. But that's your right

There are still the President, the Veep, Justices that are affected by this amendment... I do know that Potus himself wasn't affected by this amendment, I never said so either, just that we do need swift(er) impeachments for those offices affected by it - a Potus situation could after al very well arise with other officeholders, those mentioned in this amendment...

[Cranberry]

Of course, expulsion does make sense for Senators, but Potus is the best example why we need precisely impeachments, that is for non-Senator federal officeholders... So no, I don't support your amendment, and I will not withdraw mine.

My amendment doesn't end "impeachments." Potus wasn'r even concerned by the 19th amendment. So I don't understand your opposition. Without the 19th amendment, 3 senators can still motion for an impeachment, like what happened with him. But that's your right

There are still the President, the Veep, Justices that are affected by this amendment... I do know that Potus himself wasn't affected by this amendment, I never said so either, just that we do need swift(er) impeachments for those offices affected by it - a Potus situation could after al very well arise with other officeholders, those mentioned in this amendment...

You oppose my amendment because you seem to believe that abolishing the XIXth amendment would abolish every impeachment.
This is not true.
Even after having abolished the XIXth amendment, senators would still be able to impeach:
-the President, the VP, and every cabinet officer with that: Article I, Section II Clause 1 of the Third Constitution: "In the same manner as the proposition of a Bill, Articles of Impeachment may be proposed against any executive or judicial officer of the federal government.Impeachment proceedings shall be initiated only when at least three Senators have publicly announced their support of the Articles.23 "
-and senators would still be able to be expulsed the senators: section VII or VIII of the senate rules.

You have the right to oppose my amendment. But it's just I have the feeling you have misunderstood my intentions.

I have not. I know that impeachments are not abolished with it - it just makes calling for an officeholder's impeachment much more complicated. In a situation where urgent action is needed, for example when the President is absent, it can take its time until three Senators announce their support. The 19th amendment does away with a bit of this complication, by enabling impeachments to be posted after seven days of inactivity any way. Think of the situation I told you in PM - it is helpful there to have a "safety mechanism" in place, in case something goes wrong and urgent action is needed. I do know that also should this amendment be abolished, impeachments are still possible. I do however also think, that there are cases where such a "shortcut", which the 19th amendment obviously aims to be, will be needed and we will be glad to have not abolished it then.

[Cranberry]

Of course, expulsion does make sense for Senators, but Potus is the best example why we need precisely impeachments, that is for non-Senator federal officeholders... So no, I don't support your amendment, and I will not withdraw mine.

My amendment doesn't end "impeachments." Potus wasn'r even concerned by the 19th amendment. So I don't understand your opposition. Without the 19th amendment, 3 senators can still motion for an impeachment, like what happened with him. But that's your right

There are still the President, the Veep, Justices that are affected by this amendment... I do know that Potus himself wasn't affected by this amendment, I never said so either, just that we do need swift(er) impeachments for those offices affected by it - a Potus situation could after al very well arise with other officeholders, those mentioned in this amendment...

You oppose my amendment because you seem to believe that abolishing the XIXth amendment would abolish every impeachment.
This is not true.
Even after having abolished the XIXth amendment, senators would still be able to impeach:
-the President, the VP, and every cabinet officer with that: Article I, Section II Clause 1 of the Third Constitution: "In the same manner as the proposition of a Bill, Articles of Impeachment may be proposed against any executive or judicial officer of the federal government.Impeachment proceedings shall be initiated only when at least three Senators have publicly announced their support of the Articles.23 "
-and senators would still be able to be expulsed the senators: section VII or VIII of the senate rules.

You have the right to oppose my amendment. But it's just I have the feeling you have misunderstood my intentions.

I have not. I know that impeachments are not abolished with it - it just makes calling for an officeholder's impeachment much more complicated. In a situation where urgent action is needed, for example when the President is absent, it can take its time until three Senators announce their support. The 19th amendment does away with a bit of this complication, by enabling impeachments to be posted after seven days of inactivity any way. Think of the situation I told you in PM - it is helpful there to have a "safety mechanism" in place, in case something goes wrong and urgent action is needed. I do know that also should this amendment be abolished, impeachments are still possible. I do however also think, that there are cases where such a "shortcut", which the 19th amendment obviously aims to be, will be needed and we will be glad to have not abolished it then.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.1700
It took less than 12 hours for that .

You told me yourself Potus was a special case

[Cranberry]

Of course, expulsion does make sense for Senators, but Potus is the best example why we need precisely impeachments, that is for non-Senator federal officeholders... So no, I don't support your amendment, and I will not withdraw mine.

My amendment doesn't end "impeachments." Potus wasn'r even concerned by the 19th amendment. So I don't understand your opposition. Without the 19th amendment, 3 senators can still motion for an impeachment, like what happened with him. But that's your right

There are still the President, the Veep, Justices that are affected by this amendment... I do know that Potus himself wasn't affected by this amendment, I never said so either, just that we do need swift(er) impeachments for those offices affected by it - a Potus situation could after al very well arise with other officeholders, those mentioned in this amendment...

You oppose my amendment because you seem to believe that abolishing the XIXth amendment would abolish every impeachment.
This is not true.
Even after having abolished the XIXth amendment, senators would still be able to impeach:
-the President, the VP, and every cabinet officer with that: Article I, Section II Clause 1 of the Third Constitution: "In the same manner as the proposition of a Bill, Articles of Impeachment may be proposed against any executive or judicial officer of the federal government.Impeachment proceedings shall be initiated only when at least three Senators have publicly announced their support of the Articles.23 "
-and senators would still be able to be expulsed the senators: section VII or VIII of the senate rules.

You have the right to oppose my amendment. But it's just I have the feeling you have misunderstood my intentions.

I have not. I know that impeachments are not abolished with it - it just makes calling for an officeholder's impeachment much more complicated. In a situation where urgent action is needed, for example when the President is absent, it can take its time until three Senators announce their support. The 19th amendment does away with a bit of this complication, by enabling impeachments to be posted after seven days of inactivity any way. Think of the situation I told you in PM - it is helpful there to have a "safety mechanism" in place, in case something goes wrong and urgent action is needed. I do know that also should this amendment be abolished, impeachments are still possible. I do however also think, that there are cases where such a "shortcut", which the 19th amendment obviously aims to be, will be needed and we will be glad to have not abolished it then.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.1700
It took less than 12 hours for that .

You told me yourself Potus was a special case

Potus is indeed a special case. But he has never been concerned by the 19th amendment. He has been impeached after normal procedures: ie 3 senators sponsoring impeachment, etc.

So you can't use your fear of him in order to oppose my amendment .

And you can't use him as an argument for supporting your amendment

[Cranberry]

This surely has been the case, Mr President, but I think this amendment has also a symbolic value added to the pure game engine based one, in the sense that it determines what exactly is expected of a Senator/President/Veep/Justice. I would very much like to see this retained in our constitution.

[Cranberry]

What is windjammer's amendment?

The repeal of the 19th amendment to the constitution.

NAY

[Cranberry]

Why can a Senator not be impeached when he's not doing his job? I see no reason to abolish this. I do know that we have expulsion as well, but why not both? What's so bad about it?

[Cranberry]

Nay, for the record and what it's worth

[Cranberry]

Since debate here has died out, let's get over with it, I'd say.

[Cranberry]

Aye