SENATE BILL: The Committee Approval...Impeachment Amendment (STR)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: NC Yankee

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am willing to remove the word committee to expand flexibility if that is desired in echange for gettign this passed.

The purpose of this to actually effect the intent of the Clarification Amendment passed last year, which is two fold.

1) If serious and offered, they would be considered and not just ignored like Ebowed did with Worm's articles
2) In exchange for that frivolous articles would be weeded out using the committee process. However, the experiment provided by the attempted impeachment of the justices revealed the language doesn't provide that effectually.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To prevent a future Wormyguy from introducing Articles of Impeachment against you for "asking" the Fed to raise rates, and having it get time on the floor.

You see when Worms tried to impeach Polnut, CJ Ebowed just ignored it to prevent it getting on the floor. That is nice and simple way to solve the problem, but the worry was that the CJ could preven legitimate articles from getting considered as well, in the future.

Last year we amended the Constitution to strengthen the language on the matter regarding CJ empaneling the SEante and it was intended on the flip side that a committee whether standing or temporary would be able to weed out frivolous articles so that we wouldn't have to waste Senator's narrow attention spans on a circus over Nix's "request", for example.

[TNF]

This seems to be an effort towards strengthening the committee system, so I'll be opposing it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Last year we amended the Constitution to strengthen the language on the matter regarding CJ empaneling the SEante and it was intended on the flip side that a committee whether standing or temporary would be able to weed out frivolous articles so that we wouldn't have to waste Senator's narrow attention spans on a circus over Nix's "request", for example.

A simpler solution for denying frivolous requests would be requiring that two or three Senators sign on to articles of impeachment before they may be considered.

Regardless of which way this is addressed, it does have to be addressed somehow.

To do that though, we would have to change the previous clauses in the particular section on impeachments, just something to be considered if an amendment is offered to effect that alternative.

[bore]

What happens if TJ's resolution on abolishing committees which will soon reach the floor (and which I'll be supporting) passes? Requiring more than one senator to sign on seems a better way to do things.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What happens if TJ's resolution on abolishing committees which will soon reach the floor (and which I'll be supporting) passes? Requiring more than one senator to sign on seems a better way to do things.

First off TJ's Resolution has to be changed, because it doesn't actually abolish the committees, as presently structured.

Also his resolution doesn't even remove the process for "non-committee"  investigative hearings, which theoretically could serve this purpose provided the text is just slightly altered to allow that greater flexibility.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has been adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was expecting an amendment to replace the text with the President's proposal?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bottomline, the text as presently written doesn't function as intended.

Either we fix it to make it work, or remove the process entirely. There is no other responsible alternative, I trust that lack of an amendment to bring about the President's alternative indicates approval for my most recent changes and thus this amendment will now pass, correct?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That isn't what the present text of this legislation does, Mr. President.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That isn't what the present text of this legislation does, Mr. President.

I hadn't even realized that your amendment had been adopted. I apologize for the oversight; it's awfully quiet in here.

Of course, whether I am incorrect depends on the rules for impeachment "hearings," which could, in theory, consist of only three members - or even fewer. I continue to believe that requiring that multiple Senators to sign on to impeachment articles guarantees the Senate adequate protection from being overrun with frivolous articles. I don't see any advantage to holding "hearings", which will A) require the Senate to develop another set of rules for the occasion and B) inevitably delay action on impeachment articles while the Senate decides who will be allowed to participate in the hearings.

1) If you check my office thread, my proposal for this would be a three day process for selecting members, followed by a seven day maximum for consideration established in the Constitution, of which the vote is to be part of that time. We could even select the members in advance but only have them meet when an article is introduced.
2) If the issues are established and so forth with a "pre-debate", I think that will keep the actual trial phase more organized and less of a circus and save time there.
3) In terms of the members of these investigative hearings, as you well now I am very much concerned with preserving access of all members and letting their ideas have a fair shot at and I am pleased to hear you coming around to my line of thinking on that. When it comes to impeachment though that is a process that has a very serious and damaging potential and I do have confidence that we can structure the membership selection process to ensure that all legitimate attempts get consideration. As for the wasted time, what is the difference between spending ten days at most on what is really an inquest process or spending twenty or more on a circus, only with the Chief Justice presiding that could also disrupt the Senate considerably and sap already stretched attention spans?

[MaxQue]

I concur with the President. Your proposal allows two members to completely block the process if they happen to be on the right committee, even if there is a 8-2 majority in Senate for Impeachment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I continue to prefer the administration's proposal. It's simpler and it achieves everything that your alternative does, too. I don't see any advantage in arranging hearings separate from the Senate's normal workings.

If anything, my proposal could be made simpler: What would be wrong with allowing each set of impeachment articles seven days of discussion before the Senate, and then putting them to a vote immediately? This process shouldn't require any more than that.

Okay, but if it is so wonderfull, why has no one move to offer the text as an amendment? Which is what I have been trying to goad someone into doing for three days now. I mean the tracker is starting to look like the California delegation from the 1970s/1980's.

I concur with the President. Your proposal allows two members to completely block the process if they happen to be on the right committee, even if there is a 8-2 majority in Senate for Impeachment.

I trust then you will be offering the President's text as an amendment, then?

I love that you have settled on the size and composition process for my own proposal that I haven't even fully hashed out yet, for me.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Actually I just realized that there is a severe problem with the way the President's text is written.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bore]

I'd rather have it as 3 senators being necessary to initiate impeachment, because two is still too easy for troublemaking.

[MaxQue]

Nix, you prefer 2 or 3?

[Napoleon]

Three is fine with me but I don't find this too necessary anyway.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I hadn't been sure about removing the requirement that witnesses testify under oath, but otherwise I see your suggestion as an improvement, Yankee. Thank you for putting it together.

You would have to move the oath requirement then. The way you were writing it previously essentially doubled over the Senate process, and the only way to avoid that is to remove clause 2.

I don't know why no one has offered my proposal as an amendment. Multiple Senators have expressed their preference for something like it. I know that a few of us on the left have been critical of Senate procedure lately, but we can only blame ourselves if our Senators refuse to take an active interest in improving these rules when we have the opportunity to do so.

Maybe it's just a matter of this being vacation season, but in this discussion and in others I'm looking at a Senate in which all but a few members are failing to provide their constituents with active representation. My initial enthusiasm for the de facto two-party system that's emerged over the past month will begin to wane if this is the best that my colleagues in the Labor Party and our counterparts among the Federalists can do. Maybe we need to clear the way for people who actually give a crap.

Well it is pretty bad when you have to spoon feed your opponents to facilitate a debate. That is why full slot utilization was often avoided previously and it is even worse in this circumstance because the activity is lower and thus we are seeing it more then at a time last year or previously that we had filled the whole tree so to speak.

The problem is that you guys have in effect, probably without intending to, created a scapegoat or perhaps a justification for the lack of engagement and interest. It also doesn't help that some have sought to divide the game based on level of intensity and taken to derisively labeling people on the higher end of that spectrum as nuts, while also discouraging engagement on policy matters. It is very easy to see why such is detrimental to a legislative branch especially.

I have long insisted that Senators weigh their ability to commit to the demands of their terms for the full length of their terms and to make the appropriate decisions before getting in. I have done that every time and have been honest with myself every time on the matter. It is easy to blame other things for lack of interest but at the end of the day it rest with each Senator and their ability or willingness to engage in the debate. Contrary to what some have sought to purport, engagement and the amount of fun attainable rise and fall together, not inversely to each other.

[bore]

I'm proposing an amendment then:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Vote to come soon. I hope this evening, but I might have to get off before then. The VP can open it if he is available as early as  two hours from now when the minimum expires.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: A vote is now open on the above amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain