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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Article V Section 1 Clause 6.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is still the open question whether the number of Senators went from 9 to 10 when Speed of Sound was appointed or when swore the oath,  If it is the former, then Jcar5 has a case.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If it may please the court, I would like to file an amicus curiae.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Additional evidence is provided by the circumstances of District Senators.
In the case of a class B Senator elected as a result of a special election, the Constitution provides in the second sentence of Article I Section 4 Clause 7 that "Those elected in special elections to the Senate shall take office as soon as the result of their election has been formally declared."  Since this event is distinct from and prior to the sewaring of the oath required by Aticle V Section 1 Clause 6.  This is additional evidence that under our Constitution persons may hold the office of Senator prior to being sworn and thus count as part of the number.

This however is not sufficient in and of itself to answer the question before this court.  Article I Section 4 Clause 4 states that "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."  However the Constitution is silent as to when that person takes office.  Article I Section 4 Clause 7 spells out when those elected in ordinary elections and special elections take office, but not when those who have been appointed take office.

A reasonable interpretation is that the appointment constitutes a type of special election with but a single vote being cast.  However this leaves open the question of what constitutes a formal declaration.  Clearly under Article I Section 4 Clause 6 of the Constitution it is the perogrative of the Senate to answer this question, but it has failed to so do. In the absence of the Senate providing such regulation the question before this court is: "Is it sufficient that the Governor announce in the thread he has established for Regional business that he has appointed a Senator, or must such an announcement be made in a Senatorial thread ere it be considered 'formally declared' as required by the Constitution?"  Having provided this conundrum for the Justices and parties to consider, I end this brief here as to go further would step beyond the realm of fact and reasonable interpretation to that of opinion.  Such opinion could be shaped by appeals to precedent, but I have no interest in trying to locate those possible precedents, and therefore leave that task to others.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

Which also requires a 2/3 vote and thus subject to t same dispute if this is being done for partisan reasons.  However, siince when is Senate inaction considered a bad thing?
I certainly don't consider MasterJedi's closing of the vote to be a stunt.  Both Jcar5's and MJ's POV on when a Senator becomes a Senator make sense.  The Senate ahould certainly tighten up the process of appointing a Senator to remove ambiguity.  The easiest way would be for it to add a Section 9 to the OPSR, as when the Senate formally recognizes that it has a member certainly falls under the rules for its proceedings which it can set by Article I Section 3 Clause 1.

Frankly, in absence of some precedent that I am unaware of but might well exist, if I were on the court I would likely rule that the Senate didn't receive formal notice of a new Senator until SoS swore the oath, tho if the Governor had mentioned it in the SPAT (Senate Protest and Analysis Thread) earlier that would have constituted formal notice as well.  Requiring the Senate to keep track of Regional threads violates the guiding principle of Federalism.