PLEASE SAY IT AIN'T SO.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=1478;sa=showPosts;start=0

I am getting tired, but I just checked on a hunch and either BK has been expelled due to innactivity or he is getting very close. I will check again to be sure.

His last Senate vote or debate was October 4th: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=1478;sa=showPosts;start=105

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If votes in the ConCon don't count, then you are right.

1. Where a Senator fails or neglects to post on any matter of Senate business for a period of not less than 21 days, the seat held by that Senator shall be deemed 'vacant'.

2. Clause 1 of this section shall not apply for periods of declared absence by Senators.

His only escape is clause 2.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If votes in the ConCon don't count, then you are right.

1. Where a Senator fails or neglects to post on any matter of Senate business for a period of not less than 21 days, the seat held by that Senator shall be deemed 'vacant'.

2. Clause 1 of this section shall not apply for periods of declared absence by Senators.

His only escape is clause 2.

Another cursory glance suggests that he didn't make any such declaration.

My examinations of both boards back to August yields similar negative results.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So what exactly does this mean?  He's relieved of his duties and his seat vacated?

The seat becomes vacant automatically after 21 straight days of innactivity with no declare "Notice of Absence".

I'm waiting for a response about BK's con-con votes. I PMed Ebowed but just missed him. Right now I am seeing who else is on that could offer an opinion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First one to be booted due to innactivity since DWTL in May 2009.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

     I am guessing the ConCon would not be considered Senate business, seeing as the people voting on it were not necessarily members of the Senate (to my knowledge).

That would be my take on the matter as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't believe the Senate itself voted on the ConCon, so I don't think you could classify BK's actions as Senate business. Which is very, very regrettable. I hope he has a suitable explanation.

First one to be booted due to innactivity since DWTL in May 2009.

Which is how I ended up taking office and starting my legislative legacy here in Atlasia. A moment to be remembered forever.

Damn you DWTL!!!!!!!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Justice Ebowed concurred that the Con-Con votes don't count as Senate activity.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't believe the Senate itself voted on the ConCon, so I don't think you could classify BK's actions as Senate business. Which is very, very regrettable. I hope he has a suitable explanation.

First one to be booted due to innactivity since DWTL in May 2009.

Which is how I ended up taking office and starting my legislative legacy here in Atlasia. A moment to be remembered forever.

Damn you DWTL!!!!!!!

This man caused more suffering to Atlasia than Kyle Mercado.

Ego will always be Atlasia's worst enemy. Why does it matter who's ego it was at any given time?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't believe the Senate itself voted on the ConCon, so I don't think you could classify BK's actions as Senate business. Which is very, very regrettable. I hope he has a suitable explanation.

First one to be booted due to innactivity since DWTL in May 2009.

Which is how I ended up taking office and starting my legislative legacy here in Atlasia. A moment to be remembered forever.

Damn you DWTL!!!!!!!

This man caused more suffering to Atlasia than Kyle Mercado.

Ego will always be Atlasia's worst enemy. Why does it matter who's ego it was at any given time?

Well, the ego is, usually, best displayed at internet games, as we can see.

However, the lack of ego and action can be Atlasia enemy: see Bacon King.

How about begining of the new Senate session with skinning him alive at the floor, Mr. PPT?

How about one of the current Senators that is innactive.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This vote, on October 10, was Senate business, not Con-Con business:

Aye

Yes, it relates to the Con-Con, but it was a vote taken by the Senate.

So Bacon King has until end of day TODAY to some Senate business.

I missed it because it had Con-Con in the title.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The OSPR says 21 days. We are now at 21 days 18 minutes.

I don't see any room for leniency as much as wish there was.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bacon King has done an admirable job in the Senate, and it would be a shame to see him go.

 

Yea.


I will PM all three justices and get their opinions on the matter.

Technically, according to the OSPR BK ceased to be Senator at 7:10 PM.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The text makes no mention of anyone "deeming" the seat vacant. The PPT's job is to notify that a vacany has already occured. The PPT doesn't create the vacancy, he merely informs the SoFE of the situation.


1. Where a Senator fails or neglects to post on any matter of Senate business for a period of not less than 21 days, the seat held by that Senator shall be deemed 'vacant'.

2. Clause 1 of this section shall not apply for periods of declared absence by Senators.

3. The PPT shall give notice to the Senate of such instances as when Clause 1 of this section applies and shall further notify the Secretary of Forum Affairs or regional Governor, as appropriate, of the vacancy

Notice the difference in terms. The PPT does not "deem" anything. The PPT gives notice to the SoFE of what has already occured.

BK ceased to be a Senator exactly 21 days after his post on the tenth. Around 7:13 tonight. The current votes and Senate activity are that of a private citizen, not a sitting Senator.

I am sorry. The law is clear and my job is to follow the OSPR guidelines. I can't brush over the potential illegitimacy of a sitting Senator's authority. I love BK to death and I would look for any way within the law possible to get him out of this, but unless their is a time issue or another missed vote. The situation is as it. I am sorry.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't see why the courts would even need to examine this, as it seems clear cut to me. Bacon King went for 3 straight weeks without posting, and by law, he is no longer a Senator, regardless of what the PPT does.

As much as I think Bacon King should stay in the Senate, we'd be setting a bad precedent by breaking the law in order to keep him in there. If he wants to stay in, he can always run in the special election.

That would I think be a fair compromise. Let the vacancy stand and then have BK run in the special. Its not like he would have a problem winning the special as a JCPer.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In my opinion, the courts should oficially examine the matter. I understand that Bacon King is a well-respected member of the community, but it isn't fair to exempt him from due process. There should be some deliberation. If he is found to have acted in a manner prompt enough to avoid the seat oficially becoming vacant, then so be it. However, I feel that, based on the comments, he is being "let of the hook" due to his stature.

I find your strict interpretation of the rules fascinating! Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about banned members returning with new accounts?

I could see letting rules slide in the debate or allowing an amendment be brought to a vote that wasn't offered or something like that. But this calls into question the legitimacy of BK's Senate votes. And technically any Atlasian could challenge him court because he represents the entire nation as an At-Large Senator.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is getting out of control here.


Every vote BK takes can be called into question untill the Supreme Court rules one way or the other or the vacancy isn't challenged.

I will say again. My comments and post in the SoFE thread are irrelevant up to the point of the vacancy and are only relevent in informing the SoFE so that a special election can occur to fill the vacancy. There is no mention of the PPT or the SoFE/Governor in the first clause of that section. The first mention of both is in clause three and it deals with rectifying the vacancy, ie special election/appointment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ogis, this isnt' a crusade or some mission. This is a delicate situation that requires professionalism and maturity to be fixed. I would ask to avoid any type of personal attacks or stuff in this matter.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ah, this fun controversy is perfect to get me interested in Atlasia again!

I posted last on October 10th. Today is the 31st. I had not posted in the Senate for 20 days; it would have become the 21st day after midnight.

Note Atlasian law's precedent regarding issues of time. If it was to be 21 days as in, EXACTLY 504 hours, it would have said 504 hours.

In the OSPR for example, some sections say something like "72 hours" rather than "three days" while other sections say something like "three days" instead of "72 hours." If these two terms were identical there would be no need for separate terminology.

On that note, I would be happy to let this slide. However, I feel trapped here. And because you guys have thrown out the threat of a court challenge, I can't consult the justices now.

Ogis, this isnt' a crusade or some mission. This is a delicate situation that requires professionalism and maturity to be fixed. I would ask to avoid any type of personal attacks or stuff in this matter.

That's funny, Yankee. I was under the impression that you were a really big fan of shellfish.

What? 

[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.

[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?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[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. 

[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.