|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2010 9:37:26 GMT -6
The Protecting the Honour of the Senate Amendment
Whereas, the Senate is the directly elected upper chamber of government set forth by the Organic Law;
Whereas, the Senate must maintain a level of decency, honour, accountability, and legitimacy;
Whereas, a Senator must also maintain a level of decency, honour, accountability, and legitimacy;
Whereas, the Organic Law lacks any clear mechanism for Senators to deal with members of the Senate who have disgraced the chamber due to mis-, mal-, or non- feasance.
Therefore, the Article IV of the Organic Law shall be amended to include:
Section 12. The Senate may expel any of its members from office with a 2/3 majority vote. The expelled Senator has the right to appeal to the High Cort for a ruling to ensure that the reasons were not politically motivated and are legitimate based on applicable Talossan law.
*REVISED EDITION* As of 25 May 2010 15:23
The Protecting the Honour of the Senate Amendment
Whereas, the Senate is the directly elected upper chamber of government set forth by the Organic Law;
Whereas, the Senate must maintain a level of decency, honour, accountability, and legitimacy;
Whereas, a Senator must also maintain a level of decency, honour, accountability, and legitimacy;
Whereas, the Organic Law lacks any clear mechanism for Senators to deal with members of the Senate who have disgraced the chamber due to mis-, mal-, or non- feasance.
Therefore, the Article IV of the Organic Law shall be amended to include:
Section 12. The Senate may impeach any of its members from the Chamber with a 2/3-majority vote. Following impeachment, a vote must be held within two weeks within the home province to last two weeks with the issue of expulsion by a simple majority of participating voters. If the province votes in the affirmative for expulsion, the Senator will lose his seat immediately at the close of the polls and the outline for a new Senator in Article IV, Section 10 of the Organic Law will be invoked. If the province votes down expulsion, the impeachment charges will be dropped. The former Senator is not barred from running for office in future elections as long as it maintains citizenship.
Revision II 22 June 2010
The Protecting the Honour of the Senate Amendment
Whereas, the Senate is the directly elected upper chamber of government set forth by the Organic Law;
Whereas, the Senate must maintain a level of decency, honour, accountability, and legitimacy;
Whereas, a Senator must also maintain a level of decency, honour, accountability, and legitimacy;
Whereas, the Organic Law lacks any clear mechanism for Senators to deal with members of the Senate who have disgraced the chamber due to mis-, mal-, or non- feasance.
Therefore, the Article IV of the Organic Law shall be amended to include:
Section 12. The Senate may impeach any of its members from the Chamber with a 2/3-majority vote. Following impeachment, a vote must be held within a fortnight within the home province for the duration of a fortnight with the issue of expulsion by a simple majority of participating voters. If the province votes in the affirmative for expulsion, the Senator will lose his seat immediately at the close of the polls and the outline for a new Senator in Article IV, Section 10 of the Organic Law will be invoked. If the province votes down expulsion, the impeachment charges will be dropped. Following a failed expulsion, the accused Senator may not again be tried for the same offense, pursuant to OrgLaw XIX.7. The former Senator is not barred from running for office in future elections as long as the former Senator maintains citizenship.
Any other suggestions? I'd like to get this posted. It would be helpful if you posted your suggestion in the form that can be easily added.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on May 24, 2010 10:30:15 GMT -6
Actually, I would like to see the Ziu come together as one body to vote on something like this. That's just me though...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2010 10:53:44 GMT -6
I don't understand Dreu. Do you mean giving the Cosa the right to expel a member of the Senate?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on May 24, 2010 10:56:41 GMT -6
Oh no no. I meant a two layer vote of some kind. Sort of like the United States: House to impeach, senate to try. Something of that sort. Maybe senate to impeach then Ziu to expel. Not sure. Just an idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2010 11:38:13 GMT -6
Ah I understand. I get what you're saying. I was modeling it after the NYS version as we saw when Monseratte was expelled.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on May 24, 2010 13:28:23 GMT -6
How about letting the Citizens of the Province have the final vote ?
I can see the scenario where the Senator is impeached, found guilty, and re-elected to office the very next month.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2010 15:01:32 GMT -6
I would support a measure if both houses were required to vote for the expulsion.
However, may I suggest the following....
1. To remove a Senator, a resolution must be passed by a provincial government exercising under the freedom of a constitution.
2. After passing a resolution, the matter is presented to the provincial residents through a referendum.
3. If the referendum supports removal, the measure is then forwarded to the Cosa
4. If the Cosa approves, it is then forwarded to the King who signs the final order.
V, let me say that I like your idea and I support what you are trying to do. My only concern is that, if I vote for a Senator in Benito, why should the Senator from Vuode be able to remove that person who is in office courtesy of my vote? The rough system I just sketched allows the people of the province who directly voted for the individual to initiate what amounts to a VOC against their own Senator. The vote by the Cosa ensures that there is some oversight by the rest of the nation and lastly, the assent or veto by the King ensures that there is one final check to protect the rights of the Senator.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on May 24, 2010 17:10:51 GMT -6
this is becoming a bit of a habitual saying...but im with Tim on this one.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on May 24, 2010 18:10:54 GMT -6
this is becoming a bit of a habitual saying...but im with Tim on this one. Me too. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2010 19:41:26 GMT -6
@tim: I appreciate what you're saying. This approach is completely different from SRA I and SRA II. This method is for the Senate to expel members. I have no issue with more stipulation as to what would constitute a legal expulsion. This is actually modeled after both the NYS system and the US federal system where the Senate can expel a member with 2/3 majority. What about making it more clear what would be a cause and then you can hopper your idea as a separate bill. Due to the sensitive nature of Senate reform and expulsion of Senators, I'd like to see different ideas with different bills to increase the chance of it all passing. Capt. Sir Mick Preston: Well, this bill was left open with the idea of double jeopardy. There should be a reason for expulsion and it shouldn't be used again if one is re-elected.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on May 24, 2010 21:30:23 GMT -6
V-
I understand your argument.
I would just like to see the Citizens of the Province be able to have a Voice in the proceedings.
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on May 24, 2010 22:57:38 GMT -6
I would support a measure if both houses were required to vote for the expulsion. However, may I suggest the following.... 1. To remove a Senator, a resolution must be passed by a provincial government exercising under the freedom of a constitution. 2. After passing a resolution, the matter is presented to the provincial residents through a referendum. 3. If the referendum supports removal, the measure is then forwarded to the Cosa 4. If the Cosa approves, it is then forwarded to the King who signs the final order. V, let me say that I like your idea and I support what you are trying to do. My only concern is that, if I vote for a Senator in Benito, why should the Senator from Vuode be able to remove that person who is in office courtesy of my vote? The rough system I just sketched allows the people of the province who directly voted for the individual to initiate what amounts to a VOC against their own Senator. The vote by the Cosa ensures that there is some oversight by the rest of the nation and lastly, the assent or veto by the King ensures that there is one final check to protect the rights of the Senator. Tim, I don't like the Cosa approval, it should stay in the Senate. I think the other 6 Senators would be able to come to a consensus if the violations truly waranted expulsion. But overall, I do like the other ideas of checks and balances, layers, double jeopardy, etc. Provinces should be the originator of the removal process. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2010 6:46:04 GMT -6
Isn't that what SRA I? Recall by the provinces that so many of us voted against? We could always just re-hopper that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2010 14:05:37 GMT -6
SRA I did not include any ratification by the Ziu, V.
I'm not pitching an alternative here, I am simply trying to offer feedback as to my concerns.
If the people of Benito democratically elect a Senator, it should be up to the people of Benito to remove that Senator. Under your bill, if the people of Benito are not being properly represented, they then have to go to every other Senator and try to convince them that they should do something about it.
I like your bill. It puts the Senators in the same boat (more or less) as MCs with regards to how they can be removed. My only criticism is that Senators, perhaps, should not be treated exactly as MCs because Senators are directly elected while MCs are not.
I am trying to offer reasonable criticism in a respectful fashion, if you don't feel that I am doing that properly, I'll stop. I'm just trying to offer the sort of help that the hopper was created for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2010 14:27:57 GMT -6
SRA I did not include any ratification by the Ziu, V. I'm not pitching an alternative here, I am simply trying to offer feedback as to my concerns. If the people of Benito democratically elect a Senator, it should be up to the people of Benito to remove that Senator. Under your bill, if the people of Benito are not being properly represented, they then have to go to every other Senator and try to convince them that they should do something about it. I like your bill. It puts the Senators in the same boat (more or less) as MCs with regards to how they can be removed. My only criticism is that Senators, perhaps, should not be treated exactly as MCs because Senators are directly elected while MCs are not. I am trying to offer reasonable criticism in a respectful fashion, if you don't feel that I am doing that properly, I'll stop. I'm just trying to offer the sort of help that the hopper was created for. Tim, My apologies if my respond came of snide in any way. I appreciate what you're saying and your input. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to do something and make it passable. I believe recall has been an issue before but it failed (ref. SRA I). I'm not particularly a fan of either chamber being able to expel a member of the other chamber. I would love to possibly see something written up with your idea. Perhaps you have something outlined that can be worked on? What if I added a clause that said "The Senate will initiate an impeachment which will then fall unto the people that province in an immediate vote, to be scheduled within one monoth, for expulsion"? I think that would satisfy what you're saying. It would still keep the people in that province involved. Ultimately, this bill is modeled after the US and NYS systems but I'm open. So how does that compromise sound? Best, V |
|
