PLEASE SAY IT AIN'T SO.

[Junkie]

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.

[Junkie]

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).

Well your record is better than mine, although that would probably improve if someone sued and NCY let me represent him.  In addition to what you posted above, Ernst v. Porce 2006 Atl. S.C. 2nd 4 (2006), is very clear -- the Court has no role in interpretation of Senate rules.  As this is clearly an exercise of the Senate rules, the Court is without jurisdiction.