Twitter reacted with its usual mix of spite and glee, especially when it turned out that Ludlam had made disparaging remarks about similar difficulties faced by former Senator Bob Day. When it subsequently turned out that Waters may have brought attention to her potential citizenship issue via tweets, the schadenfreude was almost too much for some.

Several commentators suggested these constitutional provisions were horribly archaic, especially as we move to the kind of one world parliament Bob Brown thought was a good idea. Others pointed out Ludlam and Waters could both return to parliament within months if — having fixed their respective citizenship issues — their replacements created a casual vacancy by resigning.

However valuable the contribution made by Ludlam and Waters, there are several reasons why both those views are mistaken.

Senators bear equal responsibility for the mountain of legislation and regulation that has emanated from Canberra in recent years. The morass of rules, restrictions and requirements governing every minor aspect of our lives has its genesis in the minds of senators such as Ludlam and Waters.

They expect citizens to respect and follow the rules they develop, however absurd they are at times.

It is only fair that they do too — especially when the rules are so clearly set out in the Constitution.

For example, one can hardly imagine the Greens taking the breach of environmental conditions by a mining company lightly. Or, say, a banker breaching the terms of their Financial Services Licence.

Politicians are rightly held to a higher standard than mining companies or bankers, though both are important. Politicians literally hold the life and liberty of ordinary citizens in their hands. They are entrusted with office by virtue of the democratic will of the population, in accordance with the rules laid down in the Constitution.

There should be consequences for failure to uphold those rules, even if it is limited to removal from parliament. Manipulating the casual vacancy process to circumvent the constitution further undermines the belief in democracy. The Constitution isn't like travel entitlements — it actually matters.

Australians as a rule do not get emotional about our Constitution. It contains no grand statements of principle like the US Constitution. In truth it is a rather pedestrian document setting out the relationship between three branches and two levels of government.

Yet, the depth of regard for the Australian Constitution is clear. Indeed, the importance of the Constitution is one of the motivating factors for Indigenous recognition. Australians have been extraordinarily reluctant to countenance change to the Constitution without clear purpose. Just eight of the 44 referendums that have been held have passed.

The Greens of course are welcome to propose a referendum to change section 44 to allow dual citizens and those "under acknowledgement of allegiance … to a foreign power" as the wording of subsection (i) goes, to take their places in parliament.

Before they do so, they may wish to look at the outrage in the US over potential links between the Trump administration and the Russian government. The issue of allegiance and citizenship isn't archaic — it's a very live one.

No one is suggesting that Waters or Ludlam has any inappropriate connection to Canada or New Zealand. But the Constitution must set a clear baseline: it has to cover every conceivable situation, including those where someone with a clear conflict of interest is elected. Uncertainty or flexibility is highly undesirable in a document that is so difficult to change.

The requirements in section 44 are not particularly onerous or complex. That lead candidates on two Greens senate tickets were not properly vetted by the party is unforgivably careless, to say nothing of the actions of the politicians themselves.

It's worth considering whether, instead of pursuing the ineligible individuals for reimbursement of their salary and entitlements or waiving these costs, future public funding of the offending party could be docked by the amount owing.

Ultimately the Greens will have to make the decision whether to game the system to reinstate Ludlam and Waters or not — though they may see the ethical case for leaving parliament themselves. At a minimum, it would be harder for the Greens to take the moral high ground over politicking if they too manipulate the rules when it suits them.

Simon Cowan is research manager at the Centre for Independent Studies.