SB 2018-193: Censure Resolution (Failed)

[Pericles]

If this does pass I'd recommend that the House amend it so that more than a simple majority is needed for censure, Mr R makes a valid point there. Sorry Yankee.

     This is an amendment to the Senate Rules, so it won't go to the House. You would need a new resolution to amend it, in which case it would be no more difficult to edit this one and re-propose it in its entirety. I support adding a motion to censure to the Senate Rules and want to see this passed with that edit made to it, but for now I will be voting nay.

Do you believe two-thirds is a sufficient threshold?

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Seeing how their is only 6 members in the senate a  majority of the senate is effectively 2/3 of the members. Another truly disgusting show of hypocrisy on the part of the Federalist Party on the issue of government ethics and accountability.

[Associate Justice PiT]

If this does pass I'd recommend that the House amend it so that more than a simple majority is needed for censure, Mr R makes a valid point there. Sorry Yankee.

     This is an amendment to the Senate Rules, so it won't go to the House. You would need a new resolution to amend it, in which case it would be no more difficult to edit this one and re-propose it in its entirety. I support adding a motion to censure to the Senate Rules and want to see this passed with that edit made to it, but for now I will be voting nay.

Do you believe two-thirds is a sufficient threshold?

     Yes, I do.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Seeing how their is only 6 members in the senate a  majority of the senate is effectively 2/3 of the members. Another truly disgusting show of hypocrisy on the part of the Federalist Party on the issue of government ethics and accountability.

     Half the Senators + VP is not two-thirds, nor are these criteria the same if there is a vacancy. There is a distinction here.

[Pericles]

I've amended the legislation and reintroduced it so that censure has the exact same requirements as expulsion. While expulsion is graver, both can't be partisan and leaving open the potential for partisan censures was a mistake. I'd also be open however to allowing the Senate to censure members of the executive branch, as this would be useful in situations where they have behaved unethically but it is unclear whether their offenses should result in impeachment. I'm not sure what the rest of the Senate thinks on this though so if it would jeopardize passage I won't add that in(I haven't added it in but if people support the idea I can amend the bill).

[Sestak]

Oh Jesus Christ.

2/3 should be the standard.

Would you be ok if the Federalists censured Pericles 4-3 for sponsoring and supporting an unfunded bill? No, that'd be ridiculous.

Simple majority is far too weak. F**k off with your "Muh Federalists must hate ethics" bs guys. These were legitimate concerns.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Oh Jesus Christ.

2/3 should be the standard.

Would you be ok if the Federalists censured Pericles 4-3 for sponsoring and supporting an unfunded bill? No, that'd be ridiculous.

Simple majority is far too weak. F**k off with your "Muh Federalists must hate ethics" bs guys. These were legitimate concerns.

No the major controversy should be why we didn’t see a peep out of any of the three Fed Senators until Lumine  pushed them today and we still haven’t heard from Haslam. Finally why was no amendment proposed when their was a chance to do so. Senators had more then three days to propose an amendment to do so. Participating in debate is part of being a senator and sadly we have some that aren’t taking that responsibility seriously enough.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If this does pass I'd recommend that the House amend it so that more than a simple majority is needed for censure, Mr R makes a valid point there. Sorry Yankee.

This resolution is a change on the Senate Rules, actually, so it isn't subject to a vote by the House. That's also why Yankee introduced the Motion of No Confidence bill on its own and why it is now part of the House rules.

Ah shoot, then we need to amend it ourselves. It seems like we'd need to introduce a new bill amending it if it passes, or if it fails when it's reintroduced to the new Senate it should be changed to have a higher threshold for censure.

Does anybody even read the Constitution? Article three is literally linked at the very top of the noticeboard for a reason!!!

[Lumine]

(forgot to close this)

The Vice-President breaks the tie, this resolution has failed.