Apparently you missed...
"the AG should prosecute: Wis. Stat. sec. 946.12--"Any public officer or public employee who does any of the following is guilty of a Class I felony: Intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the officer's or employee's office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law. . ."
as well as the parts of WI law that Yurt posted and you ignored.
No, I didn't miss it. Whether the Attorney General decides to prosecute them for a felony for failing to perform their public duties has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the authority of the Senate to issue arrest orders for its members that fail to appear.
And I haven't ignored any parts of WI law that Yurt posted, Yurt and I simply disagree as to what it means for the Senate to be able to enforce its own rules and the means it may employ to do so. My view is that the Senate has already specified the means it may employ to compel the attendance of absent members through Rule 84 (I believe). I posted it above.
The Senate cannot just willy nilly decide that it wants to do something that it is not authorized to do under its own rules. In order to authorize the Senate to issue orders for arrest to law enforcement, the Senate Rules would have to be amended to allow for that. If the Senate Republicans were smart, they would have proposed a rule change and then issued the orders instead of doing ineffectual stupid shit like fining the Democrats $100 per day and trying to require the Democrats to pick up their pay checks in person.
Actually you are 100% incorrect on this.
OK, Justice Superfreak. Whatever you say.
Except again your cherry picked portion is not relevant to this.
So, the portion of the Wisconsin Constitution that directly addresses the circumstances under which a legislator may be arrested is not relevant to whether legislators may be arrested? OK. That makes a heck of a lot of sense.