I'd be happy to participate in further judicial review as called for appropriately.
In general, where I sit is what I wrote in my previous review. That being that I feel "G" in the constitution is a guarentee of monthly elections, not a guarentee of 30 days of term.
Pretty simple in my eyes really, even though I see all sides of the argument. Those of you who have known me from the beginning undoubtedly know that I am not afraid to debate the smallest details of any constitutional issue, and have done so with great zeal in other matters.
In this case I go back to intent of the constitution (similar to the US Supreme Court referencing Federalist Papers and such), our demonstrated behavior in the past, and the consequences (bad in my opinion) of interpreting the article in the opposite manner. So I am opposed to changing the article itself.
As always though, if someone wants to promote a law or standard that further clarifies the issue to their satisfaction, then I am all in favor of it.
To donsig's concern with fair trials. I didn't ignore the issue in my assessment, but failed to properly elaborate on it. I believe the timelines posted in the change were adaquate protection for the accused. Had they been much shorter, I would have opposed on those grounds. In this case though I think a impeachment would take less time than the abandonment timeline.
I still feel that impeachment/trial is the better way to formally handle the situation. Such a resolution might also encourage the parties to either resign or serve out their terms, but as noted before, the Standard itself remains constitutional in my humble, but apparently in this case, tie-breaking, opinion.
Bill
in PDX...we're regaining our happiness...