The returning opposition leader Shaul Mofaz acted rashly on Monday, when he asked the Chairman of the Knesset House Committee MK Yariv Levin (Likud) to convene the committee and discuss declaring the four Kadima MKs currently in limbo as having resigned from the party. Mofaz was probably so enraged with the four would-be defectors all of whom were among his allies and supporters that he did not have a chance to read the relevant clause in the Basic Law: the Knesset. Clause 61A states that such extreme disciplinary measures should be taken only when an MK votes on a Motion of No-Confidence in defiance to the position of the MK's party (either for or against the motion), and receives certain benefits or a new position as a result of said vote. The clause is the result of the "Kalanterism" phenomenon, which, according to the Knesset history department is the "phenomenon of politicians changing political parties in return for tangible benefits." This term was named after the politician, Rahamim Kalanter, who was elected in 1955 to the Jerusalem Local Council as a representative of the National Religious Party. The NRP was a member of the coalition on the Council. After the NRP left the coalition, Rahamim Kalanter remained in the coalition as an independent in exchange for the appointment as deputy mayor in charge of religious affairs and sanitation. Israel has seen several examples of Kalanterism, one of the most famous being the formation of Kadima. However, back in 1990 the Head of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee MK Uriel Lynn (Likud) joined forces with other such excellent MKs as Amnon Rubenstein, David Libai and Moshe Shahal to amend the Basic Law: the Knesset. The amendment to the Basic Law: the Knesset is very specific, stating that MKs who voted against their parties on a No-Confidence Motion and received benefits for it could be sanctioned and that their actions would constitute their resignations from the Knesset. Any MK the Knesset House Committee considers as having been "resigned" would not be allowed to run in the next primaries, could not propose bills or submit parliamentary questions in the current Knesset and could not sit on any committees. Essentially, the only right such an MK would still have would be the right to vote, a right no one can take away from an MK. It is highly unlikely that the Knesset House Committee, which was discussing Mofaz's request on Tuesday, will accept Mofaz's claims and declare the four MKs had resigned due to their actions. This is probably why the head of the committee said on Monday that the discussion is due to be long and arduous.