Impeach measure illegal
Day 2,168, 15:39
•
Published in Australia 
•
by
•
by Septimius Maximinus
Sirjames244 was the one to launch the impeachment vote at a certain time, however the Impeach was launched far to early and by a different person making this law illegal and all law abiding senators must vote no.
Proof
(quote start) csanat, you said I could launch impeach, I shall do it on day 2,168 at 20:00
fellow senators, we all have a big decision to make, the future of not just our country but its people are at risk here. (quote end)
http://auserepublik.com/index.php?topic=22139.15
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Fair comment mate but a couple of over-zealous Senators aren't to blame. The Speaker clearly felt pressured to get it off the ground and I feel for him. The one who triggered the in-game vote Senate StanEslah is the one who jumped the gate really. He should have waited for the Speaker's call to proceed.
The timing portion of the law on impeachments has always been subject to hijacking because it's always been a political tool with the exception of the Arolia and GreenImp administrations where it was a clear up-or-down on inactivity and the country needed a government.
The timing portion of the law gives the Senate something to work on. I have always understood it to be:
1. Discussion (48 hours - cut earlier if compelling)
2. Forum Senate vote like all other Bills (mandatory 24 hours)
3. Game mechanics proposal (mandatory 24 hours)
In short, a bare minimum of 48 hours to complete and allowing at the very least +1 hr for the discussion thread to be posted. In the absolute least I can agree 2 and 3 didn't happen and those two are locked-in-step with all other legislative provisions of the Senate chamber.
Sure, the Senate can organise itself as it sees fit. Proviso - when it passes a law or constitution it needs to follow it or not pass it at all.
My 2 cents.
Up until that point it was all being handled according to the rule book. Doubt a senator pre-empting the vote is enough to change the way senate was going to vote. It was a divided topic from the get go.
True, but I am sure there would of been some that abstained and voted no because he SSO was not followed.
12 terms later and you still don't understand Senate, do you Cal? Each term I've served in Senate can't agree on their breakfast order let alone the decision on how to conduct a Bill hearing.
If we're going to have a serious discussion about precedent here let's flop it all out..
In SC's case - that was absolutely despicable. It felt like weeks - more like 2 whole terms of the same lines of crap being recited over and over. There was nothing the Senate didn't know after the second page and we were up to 10+ pages of what? Complete crap is what it was .. and what's worse was the Speaker didn't even pull it up.
Discrate's impeachment hearing wasn't as truncated, but nonetheless it was chaotic. Mine wasn't anywhere near what Senate laid on Dis and yet in both his and mine it was a debate over interpretation of the conduct clause. What this Senate saw the sense in as opposed to Discrate's term was that the "conduct" clause related to Executive function - not personal issues. That was precisely the intent of the original legislation.
Now it seems Australia is going backwards. It took a long time to get legislators in the right frame of mind to legislate on law instead of individual bitching. Unfortunately it's like back to the future (or just plain backwards) where a minority twist the law to their individual ends.
Again this fits into Larni's categorisation of what a Senate does - it organises itself as it sees fit.
Ironically though, that wasn't the intent of that constitutional clause. The ROFLs roll on..
Theolor, even after it has been discussed and explained to you why this impeachment is not illegal, you continue to post about how it is illegal! Not well timed, and could have been done better, but not illegal due to the senate rule "Senate can organize itself as it sees fit."