How would politics of the early republic play out if the Senate could Constitutionally vote to exile one person every year in the Athenian fashion?
EDIT
Emphasis added for clarity.
EDIT
Emphasis added for clarity.
Last edited:
this sounds like something that's unconstitutional and the founding fathers explicitly tried to prevent: it's basically something like an act of attainder in which english parliaments could declare someone guilty of a crime with a simple majority vote. Which is forbidden in two separate parts of the constitution.How would politics of the early republic play out if the Senate could vote to exile one person every year in the Athenian fashion?
Imagine Senator Bilbo (Dixiecrat-MS) being ostracized for most of his political career.this sounds like something that's unconstitutional and the founding fathers explicitly tried to prevent: it's basically something like an act of attainder in which english parliaments could declare someone guilty of a crime with a simple majority vote. Which is forbidden in two separate parts of the constitution.
it would be really interesting though if for whatever reason this is allowed
Wouldn't the majority faction always vote to just exile the most promising political figures of the opposing faction? In many ways, this is what it amounted to in ancient Athens.
Or 75% majority.I would imagine it would have to be unanimous to avoid partisan politics.
I think that is a philosophical argument that pretty much relegates this to ASB without a much different lead up to the Revolution. Good point RousseauX!this sounds like something that's unconstitutional and the founding fathers explicitly tried to prevent: it's basically something like an act of attainder in which english parliaments could declare someone guilty of a crime with a simple majority vote. Which is forbidden in two separate parts of the constitution.