PLEASE SAY IT AIN'T SO.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To my knowledge, a day has always been considered to be 24 hours in Atlasia, not a "calendar day".

Very possible. However, I will say this. If sued, I will not defend the BK/PS/Fritz interpretation in court. So one of them better represent me and make the defense's case, because I certainly won't, not when I am not fully convinced of it myself. 

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

I remember hearing of such a precedent but never the specific case.

[Јas]

As the author of the pertinant section, I will add that I agree with Mssrs. ilikeverin and afleitch as to the interpretation of Atlasian time - are there any examples of this calendar based measure of days in Atlasian law or practice? (I also find issue with the logic that measuring in hours is necessarily a more clear-cut manner of so doing than in days - it seems to me both are open to exactly the same issues of interpretation.)


The section defines vacancy for the purposes of the Senate, and its constitutionality was endorsed in the opinion of then Supreme Court Justice, TCash. (Indeed, he may have been Chief Justice at the time, I can't recall precisely.) The measure received strong cross-party support, has been implemented since and has gone unchallenged.

I would recommend the PPT reinstate his declaration of vacancy and that Bacon King challenge the decision, if he sees fit, in court. At any rate, I don't think anyone doubts he would win re-election to the seat, with the backing of his party, should he chose to do so.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As the author of the pertinant section, I will add that I agree with Mssrs. ilikeverin and afleitch as to the interpretation of Atlasian time - are there any examples of this calendar based measure of days in Atlasian law or practice? (I also find issue with the logic that measuring in hours is necessarily a more clear-cut manner of so doing than in days - it seems to me both are open to exactly the same issues of interpretation.)


The section defines vacancy for the purposes of the Senate, and its constitutionality was endorsed in the opinion of then Supreme Court Justice, TCash. (Indeed, he may have been Chief Justice at the time, I can't recall precisely.) The measure received strong cross-party support, has been implemented since and has gone unchallenged.

I would recommend the PPT reinstate his declaration of vacancy and that Bacon King challenge the decision, if he sees fit, in court. At any rate, I don't think anyone doubts he would win re-election to the seat, with the backing of his party, should he chose to do so.

ILV, Jas, and afleitch on the one side.

BK, PS and Fritz on the other side.

And me right in the middle. Damn, how I do I get myself into these perdicaments.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is critical.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Decision_Text_-_2006_Atl._S.C.2d_4_(Ernest_v._Porce)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thus even PS's assertion that the relevent text isn't in line with the constition is debatable.


This one is really tempting me to change my mind.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Decision_Text_-_2006_Atl._S.C.2d_10_(Jerusalemcar5_v._Senate_of_Atlasia)

Notice how SOS didn't become Senator untill 4:30 and thus he couldn't vote in the veto overide mentioned. Thus there is precendent in terms of member being determined by hours and minutes not days. If it applies to beginnign a term, does it not apply to the ending of a term or the ending of a Senator's service for another reason, say innactivity.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The relevant clause of the OSPR includes the following "...not less then 21 days". The purpose of this was to protect the Senators seat from becoming vacant due to extended absence that is less then 21 days. However 21 days is established as the demarcation line between which an extended absence becomes permenent inactivity. BK is not permently innactive as demonstrated by his current activity; however, there is no other clause that would establish a grace period or in some way account for activity at 21.4. Thus we can only focus on what occured. And yes, it does not specificy that the day is an interval or a calendar day. Numbers by there defination are intervals 2 is 2 higher then 0 unless stated otherwise. We also have something called decimals. There is no decimal in the number 21, its just 21. Were I to use the Fritz/BK/PS logic or continue to use it, 7:13 PM October 10 to 11:59 PM October 31st comes out as ~21.009 not 21. Were I start from Midnight October 11th, that basically ignores 5 hours of innactivity. Again, the OSPR doesn't give such a grace period nor should it. The purpose of the existing clause is to establish a 21 day interval of time during which a Senator would remain a Senator despite being innactive. But once you it 21 (not less than 21 meaning exactly 21) the seat is deemed vacant. The text provides no accounting for 21.01 activity.

I have a precedent above that says the court has no jurisdiction over the OSPR. And by extention no jusrisdiction over the PPT's interpretation and enforcement of it, but that would be quite a stretch. The precedent if adhered to will ensure the validity of the clause in question. After that point, the court can only rule on the interpretation of the intended meaning of "not less than 21 days".

If I am to go to court, I will go court defending this rather then defending what is essentially a neglecting of my duties.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will wait for some feedback on the points I made here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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. 

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I meant you are wrong about the constitutionality of the current OSPR.


There are many ways which a Senator "ceases" to be a Senator. Your continued use of the word "remove" only serves to confuse. Nobody is being removed or would be removed by the OSPR's section 11 clause 1.


Now you are being ridiculous here because you keep confusing yourself with "remove". The OSPR is the governing rules of the body of the Senate and should treat all Senators equally. If you fear it is not, then lets amend the constitution to ensure it is fairly applied. No one is being remove, these cease to be a Senator when they no longer meet the activity requirements just liek a voter ceases to be an "eligible" voter when they haven't posted 15 times in the last 8 weeks. You ironically are making the same case about Senators that Hamilton and Libertas made about voter eligibility requirements. How ironic.

There is no "expulsion" here, and there is not "removal" here. Your continued use of those terms to describe a situation that involves neither is actually inviting misuse of the OSPR. We are dealing with someone ceasing to be a member of the Senate due to innactivity and such the seat becomes vacant just like the seats of Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and Craig Thomas became vacant upon their sad passages. Your use of the term "expulsion" and the term "removal" are creating a false equivalency here. The real RL equalivency is death.

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to establish its operational rules including setting an activity standard, the failing to meet being the equalivent of the death of a senator in RL, and lays out a means to get rid of a Senator who meets that Standard but for some reason has rendered himself unfit for office and thus we have expulsion. You are demanding the misuse of expulsion to remove any incentive for activity among Senators. If a Senator goes innactive, they know, or should know they have 21 days from their last activity. If we go by your interpretation, you would have the deadline but then they would know a 2/3rd's vote is required and as long as their party members circle the wagons, they are safe.

Who would have thought that the President and politican most devoted to reform would end up misinterpreting the Constitution and OSPR to such a degree, for no logical reason, with the unintended consequence of creating and encouraging the incompetence and laziness of the Senate and its members? Certainly not I.

[afleitch]

There is no "expulsion" here, and there is not "removal" here. Your continued use of those terms to describe a situation that involves neither is actually inviting misuse of the OSPR. We are dealing with someone ceasing to be a member of the Senate due to innactivity and such the seat becomes vacant just like the seats of Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and Craig Thomas became vacant upon their sad passages. Your use of the term "expulsion" and the term "removal" are creating a false equivalency here. The real RL equalivency is death.

I agree with you on the interpretation fwiw. An inactive Senator's term essentially 'lapses'; there is no removal - it's a passive not an active dismissal from office. You are also correct in the precedent set with regards voting; the numerous Senates I've been part of have had incidents where voting is dissallowed or barred as the appropriate number of hours (or blocks of 24hrs) have not passed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Since PS made such a damn issue of something that has never occured in Atlasian history, I have introduced an amendment ot Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1 to ensure that Senate Procedures are enforced irrespective of party affiliation.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg2710982#msg2710982

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There is no "expulsion" here, and there is not "removal" here. Your continued use of those terms to describe a situation that involves neither is actually inviting misuse of the OSPR. We are dealing with someone ceasing to be a member of the Senate due to innactivity and such the seat becomes vacant just like the seats of Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and Craig Thomas became vacant upon their sad passages. Your use of the term "expulsion" and the term "removal" are creating a false equivalency here. The real RL equalivency is death.

I agree with you on the interpretation fwiw. An inactive Senator's term essentially 'lapses'; there is no removal - it's a passive not an active dismissal from office. You are also correct in the precedent set with regards voting; the numerous Senates I've been part of have had incidents where voting is dissallowed or barred as the appropriate number of hours (or blocks of 24hrs) have not passed.

Purple State's problem with this is just bewildering. If there were any legitimate concerns that could possibly arise, I would gladly work to fix them, which is why I introduced an equal protection clause amendment to Article 1 of the constitution in regards to Senate procedures.

There is no conflict between any terms of article one and the Section 11 of the OSPR. The Constition does three things that are relevant here.

1. Sets the terms of a Senator, their length etc etc
2. Establishes a procedure to remove an active sitting Senator for incompetence or whatever (Expulsion).
3. Yields the Senate the power to establish its procedures.

There is not anything in the Constitution that prevents the Senate from enacting an activity requirement . Nothing at all.

Not in Section six (Powers prohibited from the Senate)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not here

You must be logged in to read this quote.

PS is correct that it sets the Senate terms, however it doesn't say or prohibit the Senate from setting an activity standard in its official procedures.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

How is activity not part of Senate Procedure. If the Senators are innactive, the Senate does not operate. The Rules of procedure are designed to organize the operation of the Senate in the most efficient way possible. Keeping Senators active is a reasonable component of that.

[Bacon King]

Declaring my seat vacant does expel me from the Senate, unless I'm allowed to be sitting in a vacant seat As it is, unless the Constitution's amended, there has to be a 2/3 vote to remove any Senator even for inactivity.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Declaring my seat vacant does expel me from the Senate, unless I'm allowed to be sitting in a vacant seat As it is, unless the Constitution's amended, there has to be a 2/3 vote to remove any Senator even for inactivity.

Lets say you are dead. Are you still a member of the Senate untill a 2/3rd's vote is held?

[Fritz]

Yankee, why do you keep bringing up death as the real life analogy?  The recent situation is in no way similar to death.  Dead men don't come back to argue that they're not really dead.

Besides that, BK was active elsewhere in the forum during his period of Senate inactivity.  The way I read the amendment you just proposed, he would not have been removed from office by it, as Senate business is not specified.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ok, I won't take a stance in this dispute because, it's appears, we're in a grey zone. I encourage Senators to specify this stuff, so it won't happen in future.

Meanwhile, Bacon appears to be active again... and he better remains active, because otherwise I'll be pissed off

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yankee, why do you keep bringing up death as the real life analogy?  The recent situation is in no way similar to death.  Dead men don't come back to argue that they're not really dead.

Besides that, BK was active elsewhere in the forum during his period of Senate inactivity.  The way I read the amendment you just proposed, he would not have been removed from office by it, as Senate business is not specified.

Hmm, Very true. Probably need to include that then. It is spelled out in the OSPR however and once the procedure is placed in the constitution defining what is meant by "activity" in the OSPR is unquestionably in line with the constitution. Though it would re-open fears of bias in Senate rules, which we can easily deal with. So if left out, it still would have to be Senate activity as defined in the OSPR.   

The reason I bring up death as the RL analogy is because in this game, innactivity is death. If it lasts long enough you are purged from the voter roles as the esteemed former RG is well aware. Thus a Senate standard based on activity is also legitimate to be compared to that RL occurance. Because this is a simulation, nothing has a "sense of being permenent". A person who is innactive and "purged" from the voter rolls, can come back, however, if I am not mistaken, a new registration has been considered in the past to be a "new poster" in eyes of law. Thus if an activity standard is set for the senate and its terms spell out a period or length of time, once that time has been exceeded they are thus innactive according to those terms and thus the Atlasian equivalent of "dead", regardless of the other questions surronding where the activity standard is spelled out. Again we are dealing with the existing rules and the interpretation of them, and I agree they aren't perfect. However, the standards applied to what innactivity of a voter is considered should also apply to an activity standard set by the Senate, regardless of whether they are the same length. Thus it is fair to say that 21 days of innactivity by a Senator would lead to being "considered" innactive under the terms of senate activity standard, the comparison is thus accurate.

Ok, I won't take a stance in this dispute because, it's appears, we're in a grey zone. I encourage Senators to specify this stuff, so it won't happen in future.

Meanwhile, Bacon appears to be active again... and he better remains active, because otherwise I'll be pissed off

Agreed, I am glad he is "back". Kind of good that I did miss that vote on the tenth then.

[Bacon King]

For the record, I do promise that I am not in fact dead.



(gives a whole new meaning to zombie voter, heh)

[big bad fab]

FWIW, if BK hadn't been warned, he wouldn't have voted and taken part in Senate work again.
That's what is important.

Even though it's really a pity his seat hasn't been declared vacant, voters will judge...
(oh, I know, Atlasian polls aren't about activity, in fact... )

NCYankee is really kind to have put this problem BEFORE the deadline.
He can be thanked by BK and his supporters, in fact.
Had he wanted to act as a partisan hack, he'd have waited a bit...
RPPers are lucky to have Senator NC Yank as their leader !

[Fritz]

Yankee thought the deadline had passed, and had to be shown he was wrong.

[Bacon King]

Indeed, my "warning" was NCY saying that my seat was vacant before it actually was. And I don't really think there's a partisan aspect to this all. I'm glad this could work together for everyone amicably.