PLEASE SAY IT AIN'T SO.

[Purple State]

My official statement on this whole matter, for what my words are still worth.

[Purple State]

The facts are clear.  1 day = 24 hours.  End of story.  If the law meant "day" as something other than a unit of time, then it would have said something different (i.e. "calendar day").  Otherwise when a unit of time is referred to in a law, it is generally assumed to refer to that unit of time, and not to some colloquialism.

So let me explain to you why you are wrong.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution (both old and new) allows the Senate to form its own rules and regulations and to expel a member by a two-thirds vote.

The Senate does so in the Senate Rules, Regulations, and Procedures (OSPR), which is not a law, but rather an internal Senate document.

From a constitutional standpoint, you are wrong because Article 11, Clause 1 of the OSPR can only be enforced in accordance with the Constitution. So, when Article 11, Clause 1 becomes "active," the Senate must still vote to vacate a senator's seat by a two-thirds vote. The OSPR is simply a guideline, not a rule that can trump the Constitution. When this clause is broken (and I am aware that this means DWTL was improperly removed), the Senate should then be informed and move into a vote on removing the senator in question. That process should actually be spelled out more clearly by the Senate to avoid confusion.

From an internal Senate point of view, you are wrong because the OSPR in Article I, Section 1 asserts that the purpose of these rules "is to provide the Senate with detailed, yet flexible rules for parliamentary procedure." Article 11, Clause 1 of the OSPR says the seat will be vacated after a period of absence or neglect of "not less than 21 days." The wording of that clause, together with the professed purpose of flexibility in Article I means that the Senate and PPT have flexibility in enforcing their own guidelines. Again, the OSPR is not law, as they are not subject to presidential veto. If the Senate decides to shirk its own guidelines, that is up to them.

[Purple State]

So let me explain to you why you are wrong.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution (both old and new) allows the Senate to form its own rules and regulations and to expel a member by a two-thirds vote.

The Senate does so in the Senate Rules, Regulations, and Procedures (OSPR), which is not a law, but rather an internal Senate document.

From a constitutional standpoint, you are wrong because Article 11, Clause 1 of the OSPR can only be enforced in accordance with the Constitution. So, when Article 11, Clause 1 becomes "active," the Senate must still vote to vacate a senator's seat by a two-thirds vote. The OSPR is simply a guideline, not a rule that can trump the Constitution. When this clause is broken (and I am aware that this means DWTL was improperly removed), the Senate should then be informed and move into a vote on removing the senator in question. That process should actually be spelled out more clearly by the Senate to avoid confusion.

From an internal Senate point of view, you are wrong because the OSPR in Article I, Section 1 asserts that the purpose of these rules "is to provide the Senate with detailed, yet flexible rules for parliamentary procedure." Article 11, Clause 1 of the OSPR says the seat will be vacated after a period of absence or neglect of "not less than 21 days." The wording of that clause, together with the professed purpose of flexibility in Article I means that the Senate and PPT have flexibility in enforcing their own guidelines. Again, the OSPR is not law, as they are not subject to presidential veto. If the Senate decides to shirk its own guidelines, that is up to them.

Spent a lot of time looking into the matter.  After reading the senate rules and case law which clearly puts this power in the hands of the Senate, I was all set to weigh in on this only to find that my analysis was already posted.  I believe the above opinion to be correct.

I argued a good court case or two back in the day.

I appreciate the concurrence though. I've certainly lost many a court case (as I'm sure you are aware).

[Purple State]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bolded part deals with the number of votes needed to expell a sitting Senator. Expulsion is not part of the situaiton here. The seat is deemed vacant or it isn't. The OSPR doesn't say expell it says "deem vacant". The different being that the Senate actively moves to remove a Senator for one reason or another and it establishes rules for that. The first clause (as in the English grammar defination) is the only line of the Article 1 of the Consittion that pertains to the present situation and it gives the Senate the full authority to establish rules for its own proceedings. It has in the OSPR. There is nothing in this clause that in anyway contradicts what the OSPR says. Section 11 of the OSPR deals with gameplay issues and there is nothing in this clause or any other of the Constitution that prohibits the Senate from laying out an activity requirement for Senators for gameplay reasons. It only lays out the number of votes required to take a "certain" action to bring about the removal of a Senator.

Sorry, PS, you are wrong. 

By virtue of the Constitution specifically demonstrating how a senator is to be removed from office, it is actually precluding any other means of doing so. Removal of a sitting senator from office is explicitly limited to a two-thirds vote of the Senate. You can't play semantics with a self-governing document to find loopholes around that, otherwise, if one party held a simple majority of the Senate, they could simply pass an amendment to the OSPR "vacating" all non-PartyX seats. Your reasoning is inviting abuse of the OSPR.

Also, you've taken me woefully out of context NCY. I never agreed with the "define what a day means" argument. My argument has always been purely about the Constitution and OSPR, and no, I am not wrong in this case. Extra-constitutional expulsion of a sitting senator is unconstitutional.

[Purple State]

As i stated elsewhere, the Constitution declares precisely how long a senator's term lasts. Nothing, short of other constitutional provisions (such as expulsion) can change that.

The OSPR is not unconstitutional because it cannot be. But its provisions may still not be constitutionally enforceable. I am claiming that the "vacation" clause is not constitutionally enforceable because it would require you to abridge the constitutionally mandated term length of a sitting senator.

Now the Senate does have the power to set rules for procedure, but I'd challenge you any day on reading activity requirements into rules for procedure.