Reintroducing the 21st Amendment (Final vote)

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Cris

[Senator Cris]

This text repeals the 19th Amendment and is basically the final text not approved by the Senate, but with the automatic part, that allows to both Senators and citizens to present articles of impeachment. 

For new Senators: the change between this and the 19th Amendment is that the President'll be impeached if he doesn't post for 7 consecutive days in the Atlas Fantasy Election board(s), not in the Government board. This is the only change.

[Talleyrand]

This text repeals the 19th Amendment and is basically the final text not approved by the Senate, but with the automatic part, that allows to both Senators and citizens to present articles of impeachment. 

For new Senators: the change between this and the 19th Amendment is that the President'll be impeached if he doesn't post for 7 consecutive days in the Atlas Fantasy Election board(s), not in the Government board. This is the only change.

This seems sensible to me, especially since we have many officeholders (especially in executive positions) who do most of their government work in the AFE board anyway. I'm on board for now. 

[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.

[TNF]

I support this.

[windjammer]

I have discussed with Cris by PM and here is my amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Surprised I guess?

Well, simply:
Obviously, except Lumine maybe, every officeholder who faced an automatic impeachment trial should have been impeached because all of them stayed blatantly inactive after the failure of this impeachment trial.
However, I realized that a majority of senators will unfortunately never be able to agree on impeaching someone who hasn't posted anything the last week because "MUH REAL LIFE" (the senators indeed forget that LOA exist and that's not an excuse).
The only officeholder who was going to be impeached was Riley (lol), and it wasn't an automatic impeachment.
The other problem is that senators shouldn't be impeached, they should be "expulsed". And the senate has rules for that. And we could easily slightly amend them of course.
What do you think about Cranberry?
If you agree, it would be much appreciated if you could withdraw your amendment. If you disagree, well, I will object.

As you wish.

[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.

[windjammer]

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

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object to Cranberry's 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...

[windjammer]

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.

[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.

[windjammer]

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 .

[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

[windjammer]

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 .

[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

[windjammer]

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

My argument is that the only inactive officeholder who was going to be impeached was Riley, and that was by the classic way. So, that the 19th amendment was useless.

I don't understand why I can't use the example of our dear inactvive officeholder .

[Oakvale]

I'd like to humbly suggest that the Senate consider removing the following part of this amendment -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is a tedious bureaucratic requirement that's just a pain in the ass for the Justices who haven't posted the ruling, and doesn't even mean much. Opebo would regularly post a two word  "I concur". That's the problem with measuring activity or quality in such a mechanical way.

If a Justice isn't doing their job, the Senate retains the power of impeachment. Otherwise I'd request that you free us from this requirement.

[Talleyrand]

Oakvale, I'm open to that, but my issue is that any active Justice should be expected at the very least to post whether they concurred, dissented, or abstained on a decision made by the Court. I don't think that would necessarily prevent us from impeaching a justice even if they were only doing that without doing anything else.

I would be willing to raise the bar to three or four cases instead, just so we didn't have too many unnecessary hearings.

[Lief 🗽]

The current language is just a laughably low hurdle to jump that I would oppose any efforts to remove it. Justices should, at the absolute least, signal whether or not they agree with an opinion.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The current language is just a laughably low hurdle to jump that I would oppose any efforts to remove it. Justices should, at the absolute least, signal whether or not they agree with an opinion.

I do agree with Justice Oakvale that we need to make sure that the hurdles are there for a legitimate reason. But the lack of expectation is how we ended up with a Justice who would disappear for months on end, so all public officials are held to a 'reasonable' standard.

But equally I agree that if a Justice agrees with the reasoning used in a decision, I don't see why they need to spout a tome of repetition. 'I concur' is the same as a Senator not saying anything during debate and just voting 'aye' or 'nay' ... although 'I concur' is 7 letters to 'aye' or 'nay''s 3.

[Oakvale]

The problem is that it's an irrelevant requirement. Forcing people to post "I concur" doesn't tell you anything about their level of participation or "activity".

The value that I've always seen in that clause is that it establishes a clear, written minimum expectation for the Justices and makes it a bit more difficult for Senators to waffle on clearly justified votes in favor of impeachment for fear of upsetting someone. Of course, this was entirely ineffective during Torie's first impeachment hearing...

Yes, but there could clearly be a case where a very active and engaged judge overlooks posting "I concur!" twice and are thus automatically forced to go through a tedious impeachment process that just wastes everyone's time.

[bore]

The more I think about it the more inclined I am to view this whole section of the constitution as unnecessary. In a game like this there can be no such thing as automatic impeachment. Someone has to manually check an officeholders history before then deciding to place the articles in front of the senate. This can be seen clearly by the fact that there must have been tens of officeholders since that was introduced who did not reach the minimum activity but remained in post.

[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.

[windjammer]

Cranberry's amendment has been adopted.