PLEASE SAY IT AIN'T SO.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Personally, I consider a day 24 hours. It's the most technical and accurate way of operating. Going by hours, Bacon King was inactive for 3 weeks straight, which I think would make a very compelling case in the court. Even Marokai stated earlier that Bacon King is no longer a Senator.

I'm certainly completely confused at the moment, for sure. If I had to make a decision, I suppose right now I'd defer to BK's explanation but then demand a change in the Senate rules to make it more specific.

I'm really only being argumentative for Wormy's sake.

[tpfkaw]

"The hour of our triumph."

"An hour's work"

"The hour of reckoning"

"Hours and hours"

What?

Those are figures of speech and not anything that would ever appear in a legal text.

Exactly my point.

If the point was that you don't have a clue what the hell you're talking about and you're sticking around just to be a thorn in everyone's side for no reason, then point made.

Well, my understanding of the definition of "day" was that it refers to a period of 24 hours, or 1440 minutes, or 86400 seconds, or 7.94243385x10^14 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

Your understanding of the word day seems to be that it refers to "whatever is most beneficial to the Jesus Christ Party."

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

"The hour of our triumph"

"An hour's work"

"The hour of reckoning"

"Hours and hours"

Troll.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You would be very hard pressed to find any evidence of me being biased when I'm looking at legal issues, Wormy.

[tpfkaw]

Show me one example where you took a position not beneficial to your party.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Consider, Yankee, the arguments I have made. My seat is not vacant. You need to do nothing. If anybody thinks the legal process has for some reason been violated here, then they can sue me and then it'll go to court. Simplest way out here for everyone involved. If I take this to court personally, that would most likely put me existing in a gray area of being-a-Senator-yet-not, which would just make everything confusing.

I know that. I am well aware of the situation you have put yourself in.   I think that if I do decide that I won't maintain my stance, you need to do some evaluating and if you find yourself in such situation that "You have to regain your interest in Atlasia" that maybe it would be best to consider retiring or atleast putting up a Leave of Absence. The Consitution sets up five at-large Senate seats and surely you can understand the very reasonable expectation of the Atlasian public that they have all five on the job.

I am not going to let this go to court and I am pulling my notice from the SoFE thread, but I really wouldn't be surprised if someone else sued and even won. No matter what I do here, I fear I make mistake but I think that it would be best not to drag this out.

Don't put yourself in this situation again, BK. You been in Atlasia long enough to know about things like the 21 days.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I introduced the current text of clause one into the legislation thread. We can decide which way to go in the debate and then change it via amendment.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Show me one example where you took a position not beneficial to your party.

Atlasia v. Sewer Socialist: I got irritated with Sewer Socialist and through the maximum (or near-max) contempt of court punishment on him even though he votes for left-wing candidates and is a member of my party.

Jbrase v. Atlasia: I started out critical of Jbrase's case and in defense of HAEV, which I voted for as a Senator, supported as a citizen, and encouraged the person who founded the board, Antonio, my friend. I then later agreed with Sam Spade after debate in private that it was unconstitutional and then agreed to reinstate the banned members HAEV threw out.

There was also a case concerning the Pacific vs. the Southeast that Ebowed was heading, but I was just about to rule against him with Sam Spade (against Opebo's wishes) that he had no grounds for a case, despite it being my region, despite Ebowed being a friend.

[tpfkaw]

That took you 10 minutes to find.  Finding an irritating individual irritating or acting like a hack and then acting less like a hack to avoid embarrassment after the majority opinion has already been written does not make you not a hack.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That took you 10 minutes to find.  Finding an irritating individual irritating or acting like a hack and then acting less like a hack to avoid embarrassment after the majority opinion has already been written does not make you not a hack.

What does this have to do with the matter at hand?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Worm, shut up and go away.

I'm inclined to accept the 21 calendar days as opposed to x number of hours argument, but I'm no legal scholar, I'm a diplomat.

[Purple State]

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

[Marokai Backbeat]

That took you 10 minutes to find.  Finding an irritating individual irritating or acting like a hack and then acting less like a hack to avoid embarrassment after the majority opinion has already been written does not make you not a hack.

We're talking about legal matters, not me running around and acting like a jerk to someone in my own party for no reason. That's not my style and if that's what you expected, sorry.

I decide against my own party and my own benefit when the facts are clear on legal matters. Your entire presence in this thread (and in Atlasia overall) is to be a disturbance. End of story.

[tpfkaw]

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.

[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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

(and I am aware that this means DWTL was improperly removed)

Please, do not invite him back!

[tpfkaw]

So your party's own ethics rules applies to other parties but not to your own.  That's nice.  When a member of your party breaks both the letter and the spirit of the rule, then it's "flexible."  When a member of right-wing party breaks those same ethics rules, then they have to be implemented immediately.

Whatevs.  You guys are insufferable.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

Why are you a JCP hack, Purple State?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

Why are you a JCP hack, Purple State?

Hey, Marokai, what else is he, a party veteran, supoused to be?

[Marokai Backbeat]

So your party's own ethics rules applies to other parties but not to your own.  That's nice.  When a member of your party breaks both the letter and the spirit of the rule, then it's "flexible."  When a member of right-wing party breaks those same ethics rules, then they have to be implemented immediately.

Whatevs.  You guys are insufferable.

It's unclear and I fully support the Senate clarifying it's rules. But the rule itself is doubly unclear when reinforced by the fact that it is not at all a law. No one thought of it at the time with DWDL because he basically wasn't around at all and that was the starting point of his near disappearance from Atlasia. BK overlooked Senate business and didn't do anything for his own reasons, but he's still around and caught it just at the end, shining light on the fine print. It's regrettable that we f'ed up in the past, but that's how it is.

If the Senate clarifies it's rules, we won't have to deal with this problem ever again. Simple as that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Now if only I could motivate the other four or five annoyingly innactive Senators to mend their ways.

[ilikeverin]

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

[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.

[afleitch]

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

That's been my position. We do not hold to any 'working hours' or periods within a day in which government business is conducted; government business is conducted at all times of the day and night. Therefore we do not operate in 'days' we operate in 24 hour periods or other 'hour blocks' of less than 24hrs to more than 24hrs (such as conducting elections etc)

[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).