Motion to Expel Senators Dwtl and PiT

[minionofmidas]

The Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 states: "The Senate may establish rules for its own proceedings, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of its number, expel a Senator." The rules the senate has established for its own proceedings make no further note of the procedure to be used.
I will try to dig up old precedent cases on the correct proceeding now. Until that time, the vote is not open.

[minionofmidas]

The established precedent seems to be for the thread to set around for a couple of days for people to debate in and the vote then be started or not.

So this is what we'll be doing.
Once I start the vote I will keep it open for up to seven days or until a two-thirds majority has either been achieved or become impossible.

[minionofmidas]

Isn't there also a motion to expel PiT?

Ugh.

The strange ways the human brain works... I was intending this thread to be about both, but reading up on the earlier motion to expel Dwtl, and the earlier motion to expel two Senators where one of the two motions was dropped (after the Senator in question resigned) and also possibly subconcsciously influenced by personal sympathy.

My sincerest apologies. Yes, this thread is about both motions.

[minionofmidas]

I don't think deliberately spoiling a ballot is a crime, or even unethical. The guys found a loophole and went with it.

But was the exploitation of said loophole ethical?

I think so. Heck, waiting to vote until the last moment is kind of gaming the system too.

But it's also Atlasian tradition, and is fully within the spirit of the law. Intentional ballot-spoling as a means of exploiting the non-monotonocity of the system is not.

Or that's the way I see it, at least.

It has happened before, but has certainly never been considered ethical or okay to do.

The last time it happened, the law against it was passed as a result. I'm not sure whether any Senators were implicated back then, but if so they certainly weren't sanctioned.

[minionofmidas]

I should perhaps make my own position clear.

I currently lean towards taking no action at this point, but awaiting the results of criminal proceedings. If a crime has been committed but the court does not impose a ban on holding office, or if there is clear evidence that a crime has been committed but the criminal gets off thanks to a biased southeastern jury, I would very much want to reserve the right to take action at a later point.

I'm still swayable by argument.

[minionofmidas]

The vote is on the motion.

Note: The wording of the motion seems to imply a single vote on both Senators. If people object to that, please point it out ASAP. If there's a consensus to vote separately, I might scrap this vote and start a new one.
It's probably pretty academic though as the two-thirds majority required seems not to be there.

Though if we can pass a motion of censure, we should do that immediately.

There is nothing in the rules or the constitution about motions of censure. There is also no precedent for them as far as I'm aware.

Of course, there's nothing explicitly *banning* censure motions, but...

[minionofmidas]

The motion has failed.