Article IV, § 15 thru 21 of the Oregon State Constitution

In this post, I will look at Sections 15 thru 21 of the Oregon State Constitution.
Section 15 allows that by a two thirds vote, a member can be expelled.  I can't find any info on members being expelled from the state legislature, but here is an article from the Atlantic about members of Congress being expelled.
Section 16 allows that the legislature can have someone jailed for a maximum of 24 hours for disrupting the assembly.


Section 17 seems to be just a motherhood and apple pie statement.
Section 18 starts a series of sections on how the legislature is to function.  Bills, except for bills which raise revenue can be introduced in either branch.  However, if you are going to raise revenue (that is taxes) the bill has to be introduced in the House and then it proceeds to the Senate.
Section 19 defines that bills have to be read in each house 3 times.  If there is a high level of agreement about the bill, a two thirds vote will allow it to be voted on without reading.
Section 20 seems to require that each bill be fairly specifically about one subject.  Ideally, this should prevent such negotiation as slipping in a rule change on property right over a bill regarding criminal prosecutions.  I haven't really looked at the bills on the legislature's website to see how closely this is followed, but I will do so at some future date.
Section 21 is a guideline.  Ideally, the laws of the land are written in a way such that most citizens could read through something and grasp what is going on with it.  However, this section is probably deemed to try and eliminate pedantic styles of writing as well as an overly reliance on technical language.  Unfortunately, since most of the laws are written by lawyers, they end up being written in a lawyerly fashion and often words have deeper and richer meanings than that used in ordinary language.  As such, "plain language" is not the result.  Further, I want to say that in my experience in Quality Assurance and in developing and improving manufacturing processes, I have found that you start by putting down a simple rule.  Then you start asking the people who do the work questions (auditing, if you like) and you very quickly find that the "simple rule" actually has all kinds of exceptions, special cases and ambiguities that once you write it into a procedure, it either fails to work as intended or you have to abandon "plain language" and add the technical details that end up being the real value add in a process.