SENATE BILL: Amending our Expulsion Process Resolution (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Maxwell

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay 24 hours you know the drill, Maxwell.

[tmthforu94]

Proposing an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rather than allow for their expulsion (which is difficult to accomplish), this simply removes their sponsorship. I think actual change is much more likely to occur with this amendment.

[Maxwell]

I believe I do.

The constitution has a confusing contradiction in terms of impeachment. That contradiction is that you can only impeach Judicial and Executive officials, while the We Do Have Expectations Amendment seems to think we can, even though there is already the process for getting rid of Senators called expulsion. Therefore, I wanted to move it to 7 days for expulsion, and 5 days in case a Senator has more than 5 bills sponsored (because Senators should be held accountable for how many bills they have in store). As for what this was, I was a bit confused, so i just put it as a resolution.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Actually, my next OSPR amendment inserts a process to strip sponsorships into Section 1 of Article 4, a much better place for doing so because that is where the process for the assumption of sponsorships is established. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=98481.msg3907012#msg3907012

If we finish this one quick enough, my plan was to bring that one up next.

And explusion isn't that difficult to accomplish if they meet the standard set out in the rules, all you need is a 2/3rds vote of the Senate and we have never failed to get it when such has occured.

Also the President wanted us to add more approved usages of explusion to the rules.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also we need to change the second reference of 14 days to seven at the bottom of the text.

[Maxwell]

Also we need to change the second reference of 14 days to seven at the bottom of the text.

You got it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And what did the President have in mind?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nothing specific. I PMed him about this but he hasn't responded or posted as of yet unfortunately. He just wanted some more approved usages beyond just the singular activity standard. I figured he would thus like your idea of having one centered around the number of bills a Senator had offered.

[tmthforu94]

Wait, I thought my amendment was accepted as friendly? Either someone is deleting posts or I'm trippin'.

[Maxwell]

Well, the problem is, Yank's explanation is good, and I'm not sure I want to create a double inconsistency. I was originally sure of it as a friendly suggestion, but his point made me wonder.

Guess I'll just leave it as friendly, and if someone objects, so be it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wait, I thought my amendment was accepted as friendly? Either someone is deleting posts or I'm trippin'.

That is my fault for trying to do sh**t in the arly morning which is when I finally got in the tracker.

I was going to call 24 hours on it and that way if we decided to go ahead with it, it would already be done.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, the problem is, Yank's explanation is good, and I'm not sure I want to create a double inconsistency. I was originally sure of it as a friendly suggestion, but his point made me wonder.

It is not a bad idea at all. However My thought woudl be that it would be more suitable in Article 3 of the OSPR then inserted in the middle of the Expulsion procedure. So if I were to object it would only be because of its current placement not because of what it is.

So basically just take this new procedure in Tmth's amendment, create another section of this Resolution that would insert it as say Article 3, Section 1, Clause 7 of the OSPR, with all existing clauses renumbered accordingly.

My proposal for Article 4.1 wouldn't necessarily have to be inconsistent. For instance if a bill is on the floor and a Senator disappears but hasn't been expelled yet, we could strip the sponsorship and thus reassign it. Mine is more aimed at once they are already on the floor whereas his aimed at the queue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, would you be game for moving it to Article 3, man?

[tmthforu94]

So, would you be game for moving it to Article 3, man?

If you're talking to me, then yes. I still don't think a Senator should be expelled any sooner just because they've introduced a couple bills.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well this way they wouldn't have to, because their bills could be removed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also shouldn't there be like a vote or at least a seconding requirement attached to this process?

[Maxwell]

This is friendly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also shouldn't there be like a vote or at least a seconding requirement attached to this process?

It's already in the thing, I am merely amending that part of the text.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I haven't offered any amendments yet.

I was referring to Tmth's process. Since it isn't really explusion at all  but a process to remove bills from the queue belonging to an inactive Senator, it would require it's own standalone procedures regardless of where it was placed in the OSPR.

I am placing a temporary objection on 57:48 while we sort this all out.

I would like to have these matters settled by tomorrow and all amendments offered by then, if possible.

Also, I forgot to bold section two in text I posted.

[Maxwell]

The problem is, I'm not sure what else is really measurable besides the original idea I had. Just saying "If a Senator is unnecessarily holding up legislation", that's kind of unenforceable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Isn't five days of absence taking care of that part though?


I meant the process by which it is motion for and voted on? Where is that to take place for instance?

[tmthforu94]

I would prefer not to tie anything into sponsorships with expulsion in this resolution. Let's just set it to five days and address stripping sponsorships in Article 3.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would prefer not to tie anything into sponsorships with expulsion in this resolution. Let's just set it to five days and address stripping sponsorships in Article 3.

We wouldn't be tying them together, just copying the same process for how it is to be done (Motion Thread, 2/3rds Vote etc).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How does this look process wise (Red Italics at the bottom of the quote box)?

I decided to go ahead and remove the numbers specificied in Clause 3 of Article 12, which I missed in my lists of voting procedures in the Fix the Region's Amendment. Though the reference to thE consitution two lines above would solve any problems post consolidation, we might as well remove the specified numbers now while we are here.

[tmthforu94]

I would prefer not to tie anything into sponsorships with expulsion in this resolution. Let's just set it to five days and address stripping sponsorships in Article 3.

We wouldn't be tying them together, just copying the same process for how it is to be done (Motion Thread, 2/3rds Vote etc).

Sorry, that's what I meant. I'm happy with it, though I think we should consider moving inactivity expulsion minimum to five days, not seven.