The Make PS Happy in His Retirement Amendment (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I wonder if I could successfully offer the same amendment myself, accept it as friendly and then go 24 hours without anybody noticing. hmmm

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment to establish fair redistricting has failed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators this Constituional Amendment is at Final Vote, please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain


Aye

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Obviously best thing Atlasia can get with bipartisian lack of courage to take little more radical steps... which ic usual, by the way.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Obviously best thing Atlasia can get with bipartisian lack of courage to take little more radical steps... which ic usual, by the way.

If you want to hold the bastards accountable, you have to ride their asses till they get the message, and then ride them some more to make the point stick.

[bgwah]

[Badger]

I get it. "Dog and pony show". Right?

[Purple State]

It means "nay," as in "neigh!"

[Badger]

It means "nay," as in "neigh!"

Oh Bgwah, you big sillypants!

[HappyWarrior]

AYE

[Ban my account ffs!]

Nay

We already have the power to expel a senator if need be.  In the end, there's no good reason to amend the constitution in such a way.

[Bacon King]

aye

[Purple State]

I personally don't see the need to amend the Constitution on this issue. Currently the Senate has the power to expel members by a vote for any reason. There is no problem creating guidelines in the OSPR by which that power should be used, which provides flexibility and doesn't over-constitutionalize the process.

[AndrewTX]

nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I personally don't see the need to amend the Constitution on this issue. Currently the Senate has the power to expel members by a vote for any reason. There is no problem creating guidelines in the OSPR by which that power should be used, which provides flexibility and doesn't over-constitutionalize the process.

You are the one who over constitutionalized the process by questioning the legitmacy of Article whatever the hell it was Clause I don't give a damn right now of the OSPR.

There is no way to create a guideline in the ORSP to force 2/3rds of the Senate to put duty over politics and frienships, to ensure fair and firm enforcement of any activity standard, thus any activity standard is useless. Its ironic because you were the one who raised fears of a partial PPT reading the OSPR however he wants, when at the same time you are insuring that any activity standard will be enforced differently in each case when such is invoked. If there is even a standard in place when all is said and done.


The other problem is that you view it as just a way to remove people who are permently gone not hold the Senators accountable. Thus if a Senator keeps going innactive, with the current standard he loses his Senate seat if its 21 days straight of innactivity. However when you require the use of the expulsion to remove the Senator, he can come back during the vote on day 22, 23, or 24, take advantage of political divisions/favors/friendships (behind closed doors out of the public eye) and secure four nay votes to prevent his expulsion. If that same Senator is At-Large and is the first preference choice of a large party he can guarrentee that he will never be held accountable to voters and he can through manipulation of the expulsion vote ensure they don't hold him accountable either for his innactivity.  Compare that to the current set-up that this amendment reinforces. A senator who is absent 21 days w/o leave of absence is l'histoire, gone, out of here. He comes back pleading mercy, he has to plead to the voters in the special election and convince 51% that he derserves to be sent back (An at-large senator represent all in the nation, mind you), and if he is sent, he will loose his seniority so he doesn't get off completely. I think the pro-activity insentive in that is obvious to anyone truly concerned with activity of Senators, and there is no risk of differential enforcement, it shall be the same regardless of party or connections, and the people get to decide whether he should be given a second chance, not a bleading heart PPT or 3 of his pals. We must keep in mind the political reality in Atlasia, with regard to both Senate seats but the At-Large seats especially, the recent events regarding similar circumstances and how the interpretation you adhered to could be determined by party affiliation, and that finding 3 votes to save you isn't that hard.

The activity standard is still in the OSPR, I still support it and beleive it is both 100% constitutional and enforceable, as such till it is change, I shall continue to enforce it.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

aye

[Purple State]

The OSPR is a set of guidelines created by the Senate for the Senate. Its implementation is completely at the discretion of the Senate, but its implementation also may not contradict law or the Constitution.

Currently, the Constitution provides a specific and limited way for the Senate to expel members. The OSPR provides a guideline for when that power should be exercised in the event of inactivity. So if a senator were to go 21 days without posting, the Senate has recommended itself to initiate expulsion measures.

While the OSPR language should be cleaned up to clarify that it cannot actually be implemented, in accordance with the Constitution, without going through an expulsion mechanism, I don't think activity requirements should be placed in the Constitution itself.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The OSPR is a set of guidelines created by the Senate for the Senate. Its implementation is completely at the discretion of the Senate, but its implementation also may not contradict law or the Constitution.

Currently, the Constitution provides a specific and limited way for the Senate to expel members. The OSPR provides a guideline for when that power should be exercised in the event of inactivity. So if a senator were to go 21 days without posting, the Senate has recommended itself to initiate expulsion measures.

While the OSPR language should be cleaned up to clarify that it cannot actually be implemented, in accordance with the Constitution, without going through an expulsion mechanism, I don't think activity requirements should be placed in the Constitution itself.

The Constitution provides the guidlines under which the procedure of "expulsion" has to be conducted and that is it requires a 2/3rd's vote. If any other implement of "expulsion" were to be used, it would be illegal and unconstitutional.

However, I don't consider the procedure in question expulsion, nor should that procedure be used. Expulsion is a limited method with a definite means by which it should be carried out. It doesn't limit or restrict or prevent the Senate from creating another method by which a Senator's term ends early. The Constitution does give the Senate the right to establish its procedure, doesn't limit any other means of removing a Senator, and an activity standard is within the relm of Senate procedure.

Your interpretation is wrong, you are glued to the damn Expulsion procedure and inist on it being used in this instance where it will only serve to destroy any effective activity standard and open up the very irrational fears of partial enforcement of procedure instead of impartial enforcement. My way, doesn't have that risk at all. You are innactive, you are gone, regardless of party.

[Purple State]

The problem is that the Constitution doesn't provide a means of emptying a senator's seat aside from "expulsion," but it does define the length of a senator's term. The result is that there is no way to abbreviate that clearly defined term length with sub-constitutional methods, such as statute or the OSPR. The only way to abbreviate a senator's term is by the methods set out by the Constitution, and that is a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

That said, the Senate may provide itself guidelines by which it recommends use of that power.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The problem is that the Constitution doesn't provide a means of emptying a senator's seat aside from "expulsion," but it does define the length of a senator's term. The result is that there is no way to abbreviate that clearly defined term length with sub-constitutional methods, such as statute or the OSPR. The only way to abbreviate a senator's term is by the methods set out by the Constitution, and that is a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

That said, the Senate may provide itself guidelines by which it recommends use of that power.

Thank you for clearing that up without sounding all oogly googly.  It further solidifies my nay vote.

I'd be more than happy to consider expulsion for a senator who is gone for 3 weeks without prior notice. 

And any JCP member who might just decide to be absent for a long period of time will have to deal with bgwah upon their return... and he might make you eat his vegan stirfry and turn you into teh azn.

[Јas]

The problem is that the Constitution doesn't provide a means of emptying a senator's seat aside from "expulsion," but it does define the length of a senator's term. The result is that there is no way to abbreviate that clearly defined term length with sub-constitutional methods, such as statute or the OSPR. The only way to abbreviate a senator's term is by the methods set out by the Constitution, and that is a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

So, presumably by the same reasoning, it would be your contention that a Senator cannot resign from office?

[Purple State]

The problem is that the Constitution doesn't provide a means of emptying a senator's seat aside from "expulsion," but it does define the length of a senator's term. The result is that there is no way to abbreviate that clearly defined term length with sub-constitutional methods, such as statute or the OSPR. The only way to abbreviate a senator's term is by the methods set out by the Constitution, and that is a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

So, presumably by the same reasoning, it would be your contention that a Senator cannot resign from office?

I would say the difference is that the Constitution is silent on the issue of a senator willingly abbreviating their own term and so it is "fill in the blank," while the means of abbreviating a senator's term through the Senate is defined and therefore limited.

[Purple State]

The problem is that the Constitution doesn't provide a means of emptying a senator's seat aside from "expulsion," but it does define the length of a senator's term. The result is that there is no way to abbreviate that clearly defined term length with sub-constitutional methods, such as statute or the OSPR. The only way to abbreviate a senator's term is by the methods set out by the Constitution, and that is a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

So, presumably by the same reasoning, it would be your contention that a Senator cannot resign from office?

I would say the difference is that the Constitution is silent on the issue of a senator willingly abbreviating their own term and so it is "fill in the blank," while the means of abbreviating a senator's term through the Senate is defined and therefore limited.

As a followup on this thought, just as a person may not be forced to take a Cabinet position by the President and Senate, a person may not be forced to stay in a Senate seat if they wish to resign.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay then, we are right back where we were before.

The problem is that the Constitution doesn't provide a means of emptying a senator's seat aside from "expulsion," but it does define the length of a senator's term. The result is that there is no way to abbreviate that clearly defined term length with sub-constitutional methods, such as statute or the OSPR. The only way to abbreviate a senator's term is by the methods set out by the Constitution, and that is a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

So, presumably by the same reasoning, it would be your contention that a Senator cannot resign from office?

I would say the difference is that the Constitution is silent on the issue of a senator willingly abbreviating their own term and so it is "fill in the blank," while the means of abbreviating a senator's term through the Senate is defined and therefore limited.

As a followup on this thought, just as a person may not be forced to take a Cabinet position by the President and Senate, a person may not be forced to stay in a Senate seat if they wish to resign.

Then wouldn't the obvious solution be to then pass this darn amendment to that.


It seems to me that the debate is down to one of priorities. Is an activity standard important enough to amend the constitution or is not important enough to amend the constitution, and by extention make such a standard weaker or worthless to comply with a very strict interpretation of the constitution, which is debatable at best?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Is this vote still going on?

Nay