Jerusalemcar5 v. Atlasia (I think, not sure of the correct title)

[jerusalemcar5]

The Supreme Court has been allowed to slack off lately so here goes:

I hereby am suing the government of Atlasia for illegally instating the Atlasian-Bahrain Free Trade Bill and move for the bill to be declared invalid.  I believe it is a violation of Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution which states "Upon reconsidering the Bill, if the Senate shall approve the legislation by two-thirds of its number, it shall become Law."  Since 6 is not 2/3 of 10, the bill did not in fact override the veto and is therefore invalid.

I precipitate arguments that at the time there were only nine senators since Yates had resigned.  According to Article 1, Section 4, Clause 4, "If a vacancy shall occur in a Class A Senate seat, then the Governor of that Region shall appoint a person to fill the remainder of that term."  Now the Constitution does not specifically state when such a person will take office, but Article 1, Section 4, Clause 7 states, "Those elected in special elections to the Senate shall take office as soon as the result of their election has been formally declared." I believe this implies that Speed of Sound took office immediately after Governor DanielX declared him Senator at 3:08 PM on June 15th.  At 4:16 PM on June 15th Senator Master Jedi declared the Atlasian-Bahrain Free Trade Bill law. 

I believe that Master Jedi illegally delcared it law when it had only 6 votes to override instead of the required 2/3 which was 7.

I thank the Court for its time.

[jerusalemcar5]

Senators take office when they swear themselves in. That much is established. Dismiss this.

Oh well.

Unfortunately, I could not find where it was stated that one must swear in  in order to be a valid senator.  If you provide a link, I'd be quite appreciative.

[jerusalemcar5]

In response to all of this I am saying that Speed of Sound was a non-voting senator upon his appointment, but still a senator, so I am continuing with my case.

[jerusalemcar5]

Like Ernest says, there remains a case to be heard because the constitution only says that in order to excercise one's powers, not become the officer itself, one needs to swear in.  The Constitution implies that an appointed or elected person immediately becomes senator at the date and time stated,.

[jerusalemcar5]

The question before this court rests upon the issue of when does a person become a Senator and thus a part of "its number".

The Constitution itself lends credence to the proposition that a Senator need not be sworn to be counted as part of its number.  The first sentence of Article I Section 3 Clause 2 reads, "The Senate shall have fulfilled a quorum if a majority of its members are capable of discharging their offices and sworn into office."  This clearly implies that membership in the Senate can be held prior to the required swearing of the oath.

I read this the other way. That to  constitute a quorum, a majority of senators must be sworn in; implying that you must be sworn in to be counted as a voting senator. It implies if only four senators have sworn themselves in, you could not have a quorum, but if eight senators have sworn themselves in, you could achieve a quorum. I realize we aren't talking about a quorum here, but what constitutes a 2/3rds majority. However, it seems being sworn in is a part of figuring out the "number" of the Senate, doesn't it?

I has the same interpretation as Ernest.  Please not that wording of the sentence. It uses members before it mentions swearing in.  That implies one is a member regardless of being sworn in.  It is also saying that in order to be a member of the quorum one must be sworn in, but does not say that you are not a member and therefore part of the "number" if you aren't sworn in.

[jerusalemcar5]

The Senate wouldn't be held hostage.  They could easily make a quorum and discuss and vote on any bills.  The only issues would be that you would need 7 votes (as you almost always do need) instead of 6.  That isn't holding the Senate hostage at all. 

The main reason they aren't holding it hostage at all, though, is that if they didn't support it they could swear in, not swear in, abstain, vote no, whatever.  All of those have the same results-failure to reach 2/3.  It is not very difficult to wait for a person to be appointed and swear in and I believe the Constitution does not make someone wait to be sworn in to count.  The Constitution wants to make sure that stunts like the ones Master Jedi pulled aren't done just before a Senator can log in and swear in.

Also, if a senator refused to swear in then he could be expelled.

[jerusalemcar5]

I guess it depends on your definition of a stunt.  He closed the vote with only 6 votes on three bills almost immediately after Yates left because he could and it would save him from having to deal with someone who'd vote no.  I consider that stunt.  A legal one (for the first two).