OSPR Amendment (Absent Senators) Resolution

[TomC]

I do question whether it is constitutional. While the constitution gives the Senate a lot of authority to determine its own proceedings, the constitution does define what constitutes a quorum:

"The Senate shall have fulfilled a quorum if a majority of its members are capable of discharging their offices and sworn into office. A quorum of Senators shall have voted on any Resolution, Bill, Impeachment or Constitutional Amendment for it to be considered valid."

I remain unconvinced that being lazy or inactive for two weeks meets the constitutional level of being "[in]capable of discharging their offices."

I understand the frustration of dealing with inactive Senators, but essentially removing a senator temporarily, and changing the bar for a quorum, also means certain districts or regions would be wiothout representation, but that the Senate would proceed with business without the voice of those constituents. It would essentially excuse laziness rather than deal with it by impeachment, contested elections, or removal.

[TomC]

I understand the frustration of dealing with inactive Senators, but essentially removing a senator temporarily, and changing the bar for a quorum, also means certain districts or regions would be wiothout representation, but that the Senate would proceed with business without the voice of those constituents. It would essentially excuse laziness rather than deal with it by impeachment, contested elections, or removal.

I'd also note that by not contributing anything to Senate business, the Senator is hardly giving voice to his constituents, or representing them in anything greater than a nominal fashion.

Their failure to do anything is an unnecessary and, to my mind, unwelcome state that can hinder the Senate's progress and adds to the general feeling of malaise in Atlasia.

Yes, I understand, but it is one thing to have a Senator who is inactive and irresponsible; it is quite another to have laws imposed on you by what should technically be a minority of Senators. To make laws in this nation, a clear majority of regions and districts should weigh in on the matter. The Senate's business is not their own, it is the business of the people (and regions).

Mainly I wanted to let you know I do have questions with the resolution's constitutionality. Have you considered a constitutional amendment to change the formula for "quorum"? I'd be against it personally, but it would cover the bases.

[TomC]

Yes, I understand, but it is one thing to have a Senator who is inactive and irresponsible; it is quite another to have laws imposed on you by what should technically be a minority of Senators. To make laws in this nation, a clear majority of regions and districts should weigh in on the matter. The Senate's business is not their own, it is the business of the people (and regions).

A fair point, but then would you not suggest that a similar form of 'injustice' exists where the Senate proceeds in it's business during the time when Senators are expelled and have not yet been replaced or when Senators are on declared absence - being in both occasions not adding to the quorum.

If someone is declared absent, they are unable to exercise powers, and thus constitutionally not part of the quorum. Would it be better if everyone were always available? Sure, but that's unrealistic.

And a "similar form of injustice"? Sure but I'd say less so since the inactive Senator is being replaced...the Senate isn't simply ignoring the fact that the member is absent w/o leave but is taking action to see to it the citizens do get representation. Yes, I'd rather see someone get expelled after 14 days than simply see the quorum number evaporate. I think the PPT has handled these inactive situations pretty well.

I'd also suggest that Everett's seat should have been filled sooner. The constitution calls for vacancies to be filled within a week by election or gubernatorial replacement. I'd say after a week of not swearing in, it's fair to say the seat is vacant. That's just opinion of course.

[TomC]

I'd also suggest that Everett's seat should have been filled sooner. The constitution calls for vacancies to be filled within a week by election or gubernatorial replacement. I'd say after a week of not swearing in, it's fair to say the seat is vacant. That's just opinion of course.

An interesting point. As an aside, and on that basis, would you be suggesting that the Pacific seat that Jesus appointed Rob to on the 22nd of this month was arguably officially 'vacant' from yesterday until he swore-in today?

Actually now that I look more closely, it's the district seats that call for elections to fill vacancies to take place within a week. With regional seats, it is left up to the governor, it seems. You did inquire of Jesus if Rob knew of the appointment, Jesus didn't seem anxious that Rob hadn't sworn in yet, but I think it would be reasonable that if Rob hadn't sworn in for a considerable period of time, Jesus would be within his rights to appoint someone else to the seat that, due to a senator not swearing in, was technically vacant. So, yes, personally, I think the seat is vacant until someone is sworn in.

But I am suggesting that perhaps the Senate has more authority or leeway to define what a vacancy is than to define what a quorum is, or what constitutes "capable of discharging their duties." This might only solve the issue of elected Senators not swearing in, but it's something.

[TomC]

But I am suggesting that perhaps the Senate has more authority or leeway to define what a vacancy is than to define what a quorum is, or what constitutes "capable of discharging their duties." This might only solve the issue of elected Senators not swearing in, but it's something.

So, if I understand you correctly, are you suggesting that the resolution would be free from constitutional doubt, if 'absent' was changed for 'vacant'?

Well, not quite that simple. Clause 2 would have to be dropped. If it's vacant, it would have to be filled, you couldn't just let the Senator return whenever. So the DoFA would have to hold an election, or the governor appoint and there might need to be some provision that the PPT has to notify the SoFA or the governors when the days have passed and the seat is vacant.

And I'm only one of three, of course, and I can't say exactly how I'd rule on a case. Perhaps others would bring up things I haven't considered. But, yes, I think the constitution is a bit vague on the definition of vacancy. To me, it's quite clear on what a quorum is, both in the text as well as several Court precedents.

And let me ask this: once a bill has been introduced how many days before lack of a quorum kills the bill? Is it reasonable to expect a Senator to visit and post in the Govt board once in that number of days?

At what point does their absence hinder the Senate's power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers enumerated in this section, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the Republic of Atlasia, or in any department or officer thereof. "?

Maybe I shouldn't even be debating this, but as I said, the deterioration of the quorum number without provisions for either censuring or replacing the Senators is a concern. Somebody should be debating it. I'm so bored I'm trying to outlaw tater tots in the SE.