The 21st Amendment (Failed)

[windjammer]

AYE

I object. What's the point of this if it's not automatic?

Well, the point is that it would be more or less in our power to bring up the articles of impeachment, which we do now too, of course. In other words, we have no possibility to bring these articles automatically, there will always be a Senator/a person who has to introduce them, hence, I see no point in the word automatically.

I don't see the interest, sorry. At least, an automatic article of impeachment can be introduced by anyone, that's better than letting the senators the only control of that.

Technically no, as just Senators are allowed to post in the Legislative Introduction Thread. If it were you, not even the President.

This is a special case the automatic article of impeachment,
Just to be sure that inactive senators are indeed "prosecuted". The senate failed to expel one of his inactive senators recently (Bacon King), that is a good argument to make sure that this is still "automatic".

Do you imagine if we have had 10 senators inactive for instance?

But how do you present the impeachment automatically? Unless you have a machine to do so, you will always need someone to do it, and just Senators are allowed to post in the Legislative Introduction Thread. You see, there is no way for us to enforce the "automatically" part, so we might just as well scrap it.

Because freedom fighters like Adam Griffin can still post "an automatic impeachment etc etc", they wouldn't be able to do so with your amendment.

[bore]

I agree with Cranberry here, in that I don't see how any interpretation of the rules lets citizens post automatic impeachments in the legislation introduction thread.

[windjammer]

I agree with Cranberry here, in that I don't see how any interpretation of the rules lets citizens post automatic impeachments in the legislation introduction thread.

Well, this is automatic. You're not going to say "Oh my god, Griffin posted in the thread, we will ignore the automatic impeachment."

[Cranberry]

I agree with Cranberry here, in that I don't see how any interpretation of the rules lets citizens post automatic impeachments in the legislation introduction thread.

Well, this is automatic. You're not going to say "Oh my god, Griffin posted in the thread, we will ignore the automatic impeachment."

Griffin is not allowed to post in the thread, so we would have to deal as if he didn't, and yes, it would not count.
Still, even if Griffin posted it, it wouldn't be automatic, as a person had to post it first. You see where this is going?

[windjammer]

I agree with Cranberry here, in that I don't see how any interpretation of the rules lets citizens post automatic impeachments in the legislation introduction thread.

Well, this is automatic. You're not going to say "Oh my god, Griffin posted in the thread, we will ignore the automatic impeachment."

Griffin is not allowed to post in the thread, so we would have to deal as if he didn't, and yes, it would not count.
Still, even if Griffin posted it, it wouldn't be automatic, as a person had to post it first. You see where this is going?

It would count, bgwah opened the impeachment thread after he posted .

[bore]

I agree with Cranberry here, in that I don't see how any interpretation of the rules lets citizens post automatic impeachments in the legislation introduction thread.

Well, this is automatic. You're not going to say "Oh my god, Griffin posted in the thread, we will ignore the automatic impeachment."

True. Theoretically the impeachment should happen without anyone posting anything on the legislation introduction thread. But you would technically also be allowed to prosecute the civilian who posted it in the thread.

[windjammer]

I agree with Cranberry here, in that I don't see how any interpretation of the rules lets citizens post automatic impeachments in the legislation introduction thread.

Well, this is automatic. You're not going to say "Oh my god, Griffin posted in the thread, we will ignore the automatic impeachment."

True. Theoretically the impeachment should happen without anyone posting anything on the legislation introduction thread. But you would technically also be allowed to prosecute the civilian who posted it in the thread.

Prosecute how? No penalty exists for that.

[Cranberry]

I agree with Cranberry here, in that I don't see how any interpretation of the rules lets citizens post automatic impeachments in the legislation introduction thread.

Well, this is automatic. You're not going to say "Oh my god, Griffin posted in the thread, we will ignore the automatic impeachment."

Griffin is not allowed to post in the thread, so we would have to deal as if he didn't, and yes, it would not count.
Still, even if Griffin posted it, it wouldn't be automatic, as a person had to post it first. You see where this is going?

It would count, bgwah opened the impeachment thread after he posted .

Technically, that shouldn't count, and I would guess you would have quite an easy fight at court to appeal the decision, as the articles technically weren't even brought forward in the first place, as someone other than a Senator posted them.

[windjammer]

I agree with Cranberry here, in that I don't see how any interpretation of the rules lets citizens post automatic impeachments in the legislation introduction thread.

Well, this is automatic. You're not going to say "Oh my god, Griffin posted in the thread, we will ignore the automatic impeachment."

Griffin is not allowed to post in the thread, so we would have to deal as if he didn't, and yes, it would not count.
Still, even if Griffin posted it, it wouldn't be automatic, as a person had to post it first. You see where this is going?

It would count, bgwah opened the impeachment thread after he posted .

Technically, that shouldn't count, and I would guess you would have quite an easy fight at court to appeal the decision, as the articles technically weren't even brought forward in the first place, as someone other than a Senator posted them.

Are you saying our great Chief Justice bgwah isn't technically doing his job?

[Lief 🗽]

Nay on the amendment.

[Cranberry]

I agree with Cranberry here, in that I don't see how any interpretation of the rules lets citizens post automatic impeachments in the legislation introduction thread.

Well, this is automatic. You're not going to say "Oh my god, Griffin posted in the thread, we will ignore the automatic impeachment."

Griffin is not allowed to post in the thread, so we would have to deal as if he didn't, and yes, it would not count.
Still, even if Griffin posted it, it wouldn't be automatic, as a person had to post it first. You see where this is going?

It would count, bgwah opened the impeachment thread after he posted .

Technically, that shouldn't count, and I would guess you would have quite an easy fight at court to appeal the decision, as the articles technically weren't even brought forward in the first place, as someone other than a Senator posted them.

Are you saying our great Chief Justice bgwah isn't technically doing his job?

I am saying that he technically should have ignored the articles by Griffin, yes; as he technically was not allowed to post in that thread.

[windjammer]

I agree with Cranberry here, in that I don't see how any interpretation of the rules lets citizens post automatic impeachments in the legislation introduction thread.

Well, this is automatic. You're not going to say "Oh my god, Griffin posted in the thread, we will ignore the automatic impeachment."

Griffin is not allowed to post in the thread, so we would have to deal as if he didn't, and yes, it would not count.
Still, even if Griffin posted it, it wouldn't be automatic, as a person had to post it first. You see where this is going?

It would count, bgwah opened the impeachment thread after he posted .

Technically, that shouldn't count, and I would guess you would have quite an easy fight at court to appeal the decision, as the articles technically weren't even brought forward in the first place, as someone other than a Senator posted them.

Are you saying our great Chief Justice bgwah isn't technically do
doing his job?

I am saying that he technically should have ignored the articles by Griffin, yes; as he technically was not allowed to post in that thread.

This is "automatic". So, no, if he indeed sees that someone hasn't posted for at least 1 week, he can't ignore it.

[Senator Cris]

If I correctly understand the amendment, with it we are emphasizing that only the Senators should present the article of impeachment. I'm right?

[SWE]

Aye

[bore]

Aye

That's a good point windjammer, and it extends more widely.

According to current atlasian law it's against the senate rules, but there is no punishment for, flooding the AFG board with threads which make it impossible for the senate to do it's job. When we do the next criminal code we should probably do something about that.

[Senator Cris]

Aye

I understand both of you. As pointed out by Windjammer, the citizens should be involved in the Senate work, but at the same time, articles of impeachment should be presented by a Senator, because it's the Legislation Introduction Thread, and only Senators should post in that thread (and this is the same discourse on the President).
But I can guarantee that until I will be Senator, I will watch on the activities of Senators and I will present articles of impeachment, if it's necessary.

[TNF]

Aye

[Cranberry]

Lol, I completely forgot that there was a vote going on.

[bore]

By a vote of 5-2 cranberry's amendment has been adopted

Aye: bore, Cris, Cranberry, TNF, SWE

Nay: Windjammer, Lief

Not Voting: Polnut, Yankee, BK

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay ftr

I prefer to keep the automatic part, but I would agree to add some greater degree of order to the process obviously.

And this is hardly the only "machine-oriented" action of the game.

[bore]

Are we ready for a final vote here, or is there anything else to do?

[Senator Cris]

I'm ready.

[Cranberry]

Perfectly fine with me

[windjammer]

I will vote against this amendment. I prefer the automatic part.

[bore]

Senators a final vote is now open on this amendment, please vote aye nay or abstain