Jerusalemcar5 v. Atlasia (I think, not sure of the correct title)

[Emsworth]

The Constitution wants to make sure that stunts like the ones Master Jedi pulled aren't done just before a Senator can log in and swear in.

What stunt did the honorable President pro tempore pull? He announced at 4:16 pm two days ago that the vote would last for twenty-four hours more. He closed the vote at 4:16 pm yesterday. I see nothing worthy of being called a "stunt" here.

[TomC]

There is no written rule that says The PPT must wait for an appointed senator to swear himself in and take office. While some may be of the opinion that it would have been polite to do so, I see no rule that says he has to wait.

EDIT: not a ruling on whether or not SoS counted in the number at 4:16, just a reiteration of what Emsworth said about Jcar's stunt accusation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, if a senator refused to swear in then he could be expelled.

Which also requires a 2/3 vote and thus subject to t same dispute if this is being done for partisan reasons.  However, siince when is Senate inaction considered a bad thing?
I certainly don't consider MasterJedi's closing of the vote to be a stunt.  Both Jcar5's and MJ's POV on when a Senator becomes a Senator make sense.  The Senate ahould certainly tighten up the process of appointing a Senator to remove ambiguity.  The easiest way would be for it to add a Section 9 to the OPSR, as when the Senate formally recognizes that it has a member certainly falls under the rules for its proceedings which it can set by Article I Section 3 Clause 1.

Frankly, in absence of some precedent that I am unaware of but might well exist, if I were on the court I would likely rule that the Senate didn't receive formal notice of a new Senator until SoS swore the oath, tho if the Governor had mentioned it in the SPAT (Senate Protest and Analysis Thread) earlier that would have constituted formal notice as well.  Requiring the Senate to keep track of Regional threads violates the guiding principle of Federalism.

[jerusalemcar5]

I guess it depends on your definition of a stunt.  He closed the vote with only 6 votes on three bills almost immediately after Yates left because he could and it would save him from having to deal with someone who'd vote no.  I consider that stunt.  A legal one (for the first two).