SENATE BILL: The On Second Thought, We Do Have Expectations Amendment (STR)

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Aye.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Again, I think I just prefer the Senate to outright impeach those they find problematic, instead of setting up procedure like this that probably won't make much of a difference.

[MaxQue]

Abstain.

It's better than current writing, but it shouldn't include the president or the president since they are elected by the people, not Senate which already has its own rules.

It should include Internal, External and GM, with some special regulations on SoFA which miss an election and judges which miss cases.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Again, I think I just prefer the Senate to outright impeach those they find problematic, instead of setting up procedure like this that probably won't make much of a difference.

The issue that I have with the status quo is that it's too easy for Senators to make excuses for voting against impeachment. Playing the activity hound is a thankless task and insisting on consequences doesn't make you popular. Unfortunately, many Senators prefer to avoid causing offense rather than demanding some accountability from those in office. I see no way around this.

I agree with you on the diagnosis here, but I think it's kind of ridiculous to resign ourselves to never having an impeachment hearing over chronically inactive individuals just because everyone is too much of a wimp to really put their foots down and stand by what they say.

[Napoleon]

Again, I think I just prefer the Senate to outright impeach those they find problematic, instead of setting up procedure like this that probably won't make much of a difference.

The issue that I have with the status quo is that it's too easy for Senators to make excuses for voting against impeachment. Playing the activity hound is a thankless task and insisting on consequences doesn't make you popular. Unfortunately, many Senators prefer to avoid causing offense rather than demanding some accountability from those in office. I see no way around this.

I agree with you on the diagnosis here, but I think it's kind of ridiculous to resign ourselves to never having an impeachment hearing over chronically inactive individuals just because everyone is too much of a wimp to really put their foots down and stand by what they say.

This isn't necessarily meant to kick out Senators that are "sort of" active. This is for those who disappear completely. Those who care about their seat will announce a leave of absence and will be excused. But surely you remember a time when the President was absent and the Vice President openly refused to show up? There's no reason we should be forced to tolerate that.

[Marokai Backbeat]

And I don't see any reason why the Senate couldn't just initiate impeachment procedure against a President that has effectively forfeited his office by disappearing for two weeks, or a Vice President that openly loathed exercising his own powers. But that would involve the Senate being big fat meanie-faces, so instead we have to set up these ridiculous automatic ejection procedures, where Senators get to beat their chests about the inactivity of others without ever having to step on toes.

Why should we keep modifying and streamlining our impeachment process when no one ever has the balls to use it? Why do we even HAVE impeachment at this point?

[MaxQue]

I have to concur with the President, impeachment exists and if some Senators are too focused on their reelection to impeach someone deserving it, they are quite bad Senators.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 54:56 by Ben:

Aye (5): Averroës Nix, Ben, NC Yankee, sbane and Snowstalker
Nay (1): jdb
Abstain (2): Hagrid, and Matt from VT

Didn't Vote (2): Kalwejt, MaxQue (one of these two didn't change predecessor Matt's vote or was just too late in doing so) and Napoleon.

With five votes in the affirmative and only one in the negative, the amendment can be declared passed by the VP.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I see my possible amendment texts as a means for providing an activity standard, without having to resort to putting term limits, or some other measure, both of which have the effect of potentially subjecting the court to potentiall partisan influence, which we should try and avoid.

It doesn't in any way preclude any action in the present contigency or if in a future such instance were we to have a Senate with "a higher concentration of balls" and they sought to be more aggressive.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This amendment should have been ended days ago. I am have tempted to just charge in and do these declarations, you know screw the rules like.

When it does finally get called (probably by myself at this rate), I will offer the second option of the two texts as an amendment here.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Can't we all see the status quo just is not working?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Vote on Amendment 54:56 by Ben:

Aye (5): Averroës Nix, Ben, NC Yankee, sbane and Snowstalker
Nay (1): jdb
Abstain (2): Hagrid, and Matt from VT

Didn't Vote (2): Kalwejt, MaxQue (one of these two didn't change predecessor Matt's vote or was just too late in doing so) and Napoleon.

With five votes in the affirmative and only one in the negative, the amendment can be declared passed by the VP.

The amendment has passed. Debate resumes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If there is no feedback here by tomorrow, I am going to just assume it is hostile and start a vote. We seem to be voting quicker at least for now and we should leverage that where possible.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would prefer to keep judicial reform in a separate Amendment, but if we're going to include it, I think it should be a bit more strict than that and more specific (the deliverer of the opinion could easily just lie and claim one of the Justices agreed or dissented, so the last part of this should require separate posting to verify their involvement):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Also, instead of immediately removing people from their positions, why not just do with the President/Vice President/Senators that manage to violate this Amendment the same way you're proposing we deal with inactive Justices? Just throw them into an immediate impeachment vote. I'd be much more likely to support this during ratification if it was built in that way, instead. I'm sure others would be as well.

[Napoleon]

The amendment is hostile.

[MaxQue]

The amendment is hostile.

We, senators, would like an explanation to guide us during the vote. Why do you oppose and why should we oppose?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: This amendment is now at vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

I plan to offer subsequent amendments if this passes. One will dealing with the issue raised by the President concerning a public post.

[MaxQue]

Aye

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Sbane]

Nay

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye