Reposting from lb in case of interest, going back to lurk mode. Godspeed.

>>4739990 (lb I think)

Anons, newfag/exMil fag here. NOT lawfag, but have an idea on the 2/3s Senate thing.

• Under current rules (I think), need 2/3s supermajority of "duly chosen and sworn" senators EXCEPT for Senate rule changes, which only needs 2/3s of "present and voting Senators. So….

• Drop the HAMMER and arrest cabal / criminal / traitor Senators. Then

• Good Senators VOTE (present and voting) to change the rule to expel bad Senators from 2/3s DULY CHOSEN AND SWORN to 2/3s PRESENT AND VOTING. (i.e., re-define supermajority). Bad arrested Senators cut out of the vote to expel them.

• 2/3s of remaining (GOOD) Senators vote to exel the arrested BAD Senators who are present to vote (as they are in GITMO / Prison / etc.

Thoughts?

Sauce: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/1986/how-many-votes-is-a-senate-supermajority-when-there-are-vacancies

>>4740884

Thx. WWG1WGA.

>>4740884

Sorry, typo, should have been

2/3s of remaining (GOOD) Senators vote to expel the arrested BAD Senators who are NOT NOT NOT present to vote (as they are in GITMO / Prison / etc.

>>4740909

Possibly. Not advocating, just trying to find nonlawfag solution to question of how Senate can legally expel bad actor Sentors if so many of them are in jail that can't form 2/3s supermajority required (duly chosen and sworn). Only answer I could find.