A filibuster is a tactic used in the U.S. Senate to delay or block a vote on a measure by preventing debate on it from ending.[1] The Senate's rules place few restrictions on debate; in general, if no other senator is speaking, a senator who seeks recognition is entitled to speak for as long as they wish.[2] Only when debate concludes can the measure be put to a vote. Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate allows the Senate to vote to limit debate by invoking cloture on the pending question. In most cases, however, this requires a majority of three-fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn,[3] so a minority of senators can block a measure, even if it has the support of a simple majority.
Originally, the Senate's rules did not provide for a procedure for the Senate to vote to end debate on a question so that it could be voted on.[4] The minority could therefore extend debate on a bill indefinitely by holding the floor of the Senate, preventing the bill from coming to a vote. Throughout the 19th century, senators attempted to introduce the hour rule and the previous question (both of which are used in the United States House of Representatives to limit debate), but these attempts were unsuccessful.[5] Finally, in 1917, at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, in response to a filibuster of the Armed Ship Bill, the Senate adopted a rule allowing for cloture of a debate.[6] Initially, this required a majority of two-thirds of senators present and voting. Between 1949 and 1959, the threshold for cloture was two-thirds of senators duly chosen and sworn.[7] In 1975, this threshold was reduced to three-fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn (60 votes if there is no more than one vacancy).[8]
Even once cloture has been invoked, in most cases debate can continue for a further 30 hours, and most bills are subject to two or three filibusters before the Senate can vote on passage of it (first on a motion to proceed to the consideration of the bill, then potentially on a substitute amendment to the bill, and finally on the bill itself).[9] Even bills supported by 60 or more senators (as well as nominations) may therefore be delayed by a filibuster. A filibuster can also be conducted through the use of other dilatory measures, such as proposing dilatory amendments.
In the 1970s, following the filibuster of several civil rights bills, the Senate adopted a "two-track" system, which was intended in part as a progressive reform to prevent filibusters from completely blocking Senate business. Since then, however, a measure could be delayed simply by a senator placing a hold on it; in this case, the leadership will generally not attempt to advance the measure unless cloture is invoked on it (usually by a 60-vote majority).[10] For example, as a courtesy to senators who have holds on a bill, senators generally suggest the absence of a quorum after they finish their speeches, which has the effect of preventing the presiding officer from putting the pending question to the Senate even though no senator seeks recognition.[11] Thus, in practice, most bills cannot pass the Senate without the support of at least 60 senators.
In 2013, the Senate overturned a ruling of the chair to set a precedent that only a simple majority is needed to invoke cloture on nominations other than those to the Supreme Court of the United States. In 2017, the Senate overturned a ruling of the chair to set a precedent that this also applies to nominations to the Supreme Court.[12] These changes were made by using the nuclear option, which allows the Senate to override its Standing Rules (such as the 60-vote cloture threshold) by a simple majority, even though under the regular order, a two-thirds majority of senators present and voting would be needed to invoke cloture on a resolution amending the Standing Rules.[13] Since then, nominations can be confirmed without the support of 60 senators.
Moreover, a number of rulemaking statutes have been enacted to limit the scope of the filibuster by imposing an automatic time limit on Senate debate of certain questions.[9] These include the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (which created the budget reconciliation process), the Congressional Review Act and the War Powers Resolution. Since debate on these measures ends without cloture being invoked, they are not subject to the 60-vote threshold.
History
Constitutional design
Only a small number of supermajority requirements were explicitly included in the original U.S. Constitution, including conviction on impeachment (two-thirds of senators present),[14] agreeing to a resolution of advice and consent to ratification of a treaty (two-thirds of senators present),[15] expelling a member of Congress (two-thirds of members voting in the house in question),[16] overriding presidential vetoes (two-thirds of members voting of both houses),[17] and proposing constitutional amendments (two-thirds of members voting of both houses),[18] Through negative textual implication, the Constitution also gives a simple majority the power to set procedural rules:[19] "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."[16]
In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton described super-majority requirements as being one of the main problems with the previous Articles of Confederation, and identified several evils which would result from such a requirement:
- "To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. ... The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.”[20]
Early use of the filibuster
In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules that did not provide for a cloture mechanism, which opened the door to filibusters. Indeed, a filibuster took place at the very first session of the Senate. On September 22, 1789, Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the “design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.”[21]
During most of the pre-Civil War period, the filibuster was seldom used, as northern senators desired to maintain southern support over fears of disunion/secession and made compromises over slavery in order to avoid confrontation with new states admitted to the Union in pairs to preserve the sectional balance in the Senate,[22] most notably in the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
One of the early notable filibusters occurred in 1837 when a group of Whig senators filibustered to prevent allies of the Democratic President Andrew Jackson from expunging a resolution of censure against him.[23][24] In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter a new national bank. After Whig Senator Henry Clay tried to end the debate via a majority vote, Democratic Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter." Other senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.[25]
Although between 1789 and 1806 the Senate's rules provided for a motion for the previous question, this motion was itself debatable, so it could not be used as an effective cloture mechanism.[26] Rather, it was used by the Senate to reverse its decision to consider a bill (much like today's motion to indefinitely postpone). Starting in 1811, the House of Representatives set a series of precedents to make the previous question a way of limiting debate,[4] and throughout the 19th century, some senators unsuccessfully attempted to introduce this version of the previous question into the Senate rules.[5]
The emergence of cloture (1917–1969)
In 1917, during World War I, at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson,[27] the Senate adopted a rule by a vote of 76–3 to permit an end to debate on a measure in the form of cloture.[28] This took place after a group of 12 anti-war senators managed to kill a bill that would have allowed Wilson to arm merchant vessels in the face of unrestricted German submarine warfare.[29] At any time, a senator could present a cloture motion signed by 16 senators while a measure was pending. One hour after the Senate convened on the second calendar day of session following the filing of the cloture motion, the business then pending would be set aside, and the presiding officer would put to the Senate the question, "Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" If two-thirds of senators present and voting voted in favor of cloture, the measure would be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business; no dilatory motions or amendments would be allowed; all amendments must have been submitted prior to the cloture vote, and each senator would be limited to 1 hour of debate (which must be germane to the clotured measure).[30]
Despite the new supermajority requirement, however, political scientist David Mayhew has argued that in practice, it was unclear whether a filibuster could be sustained against majority opposition.[31] The first cloture vote occurred in 1919 to end debate on the Treaty of Versailles, leading to the treaty's rejection against the wishes of the cloture rule's first champion, President Wilson.[32] During the 1930s, Senator Huey Long of Louisiana used the filibuster to promote his populist policies. He recited Shakespeare and read out recipes for "pot-likkers" during his filibusters, which occupied 15 hours of debate.[27]
In 1946, five Democrats, senators John H. Overton (LA), Richard B. Russell (GA), Millard E. Tydings (MD), Clyde R. Hoey (NC), and Kenneth McKellar (TN), blocked a vote on a bill (S. 101)[33] proposed by Democrat Dennis Chávez of New Mexico that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practice Committee (FEPC) to prevent discrimination in the workplace. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chávez was forced to remove the bill from consideration after a failed cloture vote, even though he had enough votes to pass the bill.
In 1949, in response to filibusters of motions to amend the Journal and motions to proceed to the consideration of bills, the cloture rule was amended to allow cloture to be filed on 'any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business'.[34]
In 1949, the Senate made invoking cloture more difficult by requiring two-thirds of senators duly chosen and sworn to vote in favor of a cloture motion.[35] Moreover, future proposals to change the Senate rules were themselves specifically exempted from being subject to cloture.[36] In 1953, Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon set a record by filibustering for 22 hours and 26 minutes while protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation. Then-Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina broke this record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes,[37] during which he read laws from different states and recited George Washington's farewell address in its entirety,[38] although the bill ultimately passed.
In 1959, anticipating more civil rights legislation, the Senate under the leadership of Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson restored the cloture threshold to two-thirds of senators present and voting.[35] Although the 1949 rule had eliminated cloture on rules changes themselves, the resolution was not successfully filibustered, and on January 5, 1959, the resolution was adopted by a 72–22 vote with the support of three top Democrats and three of the four top Republicans.[39]
The presiding officer, Vice President Richard Nixon, stated his opinion that the Senate "has a constitutional right at the beginning of each new Congress to determine rules it desires to follow".[39] However, since this was a response to a parliamentary inquiry, rather than a ruling on a point of order, it is not binding precedent, and the prevailing view is that the Senate's rules continue from one Congress to another.[19] The 1959 change also eliminated the 1949 exemption for rules changes, allowing cloture to once again be invoked on future changes.[36]
One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when Southern Democrats attempted to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by filibustering for 75 hours, including a 14-hour-and-13-minute address by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. The filibuster failed when the Senate successfully invoked cloture for only the second time since 1927.[40]
From 1917 to 1970, the Senate took a cloture vote nearly once a year (on average); during this time, there were a total of 49 cloture votes.[41]
The two-track system, 60-vote rule and rise of the routine filibuster (1970 onward)
After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate put a "two-track system" into place in 1972 under the leadership of Democratic Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Democratic Majority Whip Robert Byrd. Before this system was introduced, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. Tracking allows the majority leader—with unanimous consent or the agreement of the minority leader—to have more than one main motion pending on the floor as unfinished business. Under the two-track system, the Senate can have two or more pieces of legislation or nominations pending on the floor simultaneously by designating specific periods during the day when each one will be considered.[42][43]
 | Graphs are temporarily unavailable due to technical issues. |
The notable side effect of this change was that by no longer bringing Senate business to a complete halt, filibusters on particular motions became politically easier for the minority to sustain.[45][46][47] As a result, the number of filibusters began increasing rapidly, eventually leading to the modern era in which an effective supermajority requirement exists to pass legislation, with no practical requirement that the minority party actually hold the floor or extend debate.
In 1975, the Senate revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn could limit debate, except for changing Senate rules which still requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to invoke cloture.[48][49]
However, by returning to an absolute number of all senators, rather than a proportion of those present and voting, the change also made any filibusters easier to sustain on the floor by a small number of senators from the minority party without requiring the presence of their minority colleagues. This further reduced the majority's leverage to force an issue through extended debate.
In 1977, the Senate set a series of precedents holding that if cloture has been invoked on a measure, the presiding officer must take the initiative in ruling nongermane amendments out of order.[50]
Another tactic, which used points of order to delay legislation because they were not counted as part of the limited time allowed for debate, was rendered ineffective by a rule change in 1979.[51][52][53]
At first, the only effect of cloture on the time available for debate was to limit each senator to one hour of debate.[30] In 1979, the Senate imposed a 100-hour limit on the total time available for consideration of a clotured measure.[54] In 1986, this was reduced to 30 hours.[55]
As the filibuster has evolved from a rare practice that required holding the floor for extended periods into a routine 60-vote supermajority requirement, Senate leaders have increasingly used cloture motions as a regular tool to manage the flow of business, often even in the absence of a threatened filibuster. Thus, the presence or absence of cloture attempts is not necessarily a reliable indicator of the presence or absence of a threatened filibuster. Because filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.[56]
Abolition for nominations: since 2005
In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Majority Leader Bill Frist proposed having the presiding officer, Vice President Dick Cheney, rule that a filibuster on judicial nominees was unconstitutional, as it was inconsistent with the President's power to name judges with the advice and consent of a simple majority of senators.[57][58] Senator Trent Lott, the junior senator from Mississippi, used the word "nuclear" to describe the plan, and so it became known as the "nuclear option," and the term thereafter came to refer to the general process of changing cloture requirements via the establishment of a new Senate precedent (by simple majority vote, as opposed to formally amending the Senate rule by two-thirds vote).[59] However, a group of 14 senators—seven Democrats and seven Republicans, collectively dubbed the "Gang of 14"—reached an agreement to temporarily defuse the conflict.[60][61][62]
From April to June 2010, under Democratic control, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration held a series of monthly public hearings on the history and use of the filibuster in the Senate.[63]
During the 113th Congress, two packages of amendments were adopted on January 25, 2013, one temporary for that Congress and one permanent.[64][65] Firstly, during the 113th Congress, debate on motions to proceed to bills would be limited to 4 hours, and the minority would be guaranteed the opportunity to offer amendments. Postcloture debate time on district judge nominations was limited to 2 hours, and postcloture debate time on executive nominations (other than those at Level I of the Executive Schedule) was limited to 8 hours. Permanent changes to the Standing Rules of the Senate provided for a simplified cloture procedure for bipartisan motions to proceed and for compound motions to go to conference.[66]
Despite these modest changes, 60 votes were still required to overcome a filibuster, and the "silent filibuster"—in which a senator can delay a bill even if they leave the floor—remained in place.[67]
On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option, voting 48–52 to overrule a decision of the chair and eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court. All Republicans and three Democrats voted in favor of sustaining the decision of the chair.[68] The Democrats' stated motivation was what they saw as an expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, especially with respect to nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit[69][70] and out of frustration with filibusters of executive branch nominees for agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[69]
On April 6, 2017, Senate Republicans eliminated the sole exception to the 2013 change by invoking the nuclear option to extend the 2013 precedent to include Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote was 48–52 against sustaining the decision of the chair on a point of order raised by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.[71][72] 61 Senators from both parties later wrote a letter to Senate leadership, urging them to preserve the filibuster for legislation.[73][74][75]
In 2019, the Senate voted 49–51 to overturn a ruling of the chair to set a precedent that postcloture debate on nominations, other than those to the Supreme Court of the United States, to the United States courts of appeals and to positions at Level I of the Executive Schedule, is two hours.[12] All Republicans except Senators Susan Collins and Mike Lee voted against sustaining the decision of the chair.[76]
In January 2021, following a shift to a 50-50 Democratic majority supported by Vice President Harris's tie-breaking vote, the legislative filibuster became a sticking point for the adoption of a new organizing resolution when Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, threatened to filibuster the organizing resolution until it should include language maintaining a 60-vote threshold to invoke cloture.[77] As a result of this delay, committee memberships were held over from the 116th Congress, leaving some committees without a chair, some committees chaired by Republicans, and new Senators without committee assignments. After a stalemate that lasted a week, McConnell received assurances from two Democratic senators that they would continue to support the 60-vote threshold. Because of those assurances, on January 25, 2021, McConnell abandoned his threat of a filibuster.[78][79]
Exceptions
A number of laws limit the time for debate on certain bills, effectively exempting those bills from the 60-vote requirement,[80] and allow the Senate to pass those bills by simple majority vote. As a result, many major legislative actions in recent decades have been adopted through one of these methods, especially reconciliation.
Budget reconciliation
Budget reconciliation is a procedure created in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process. In brief, the annual budget process begins with adoption of a budget resolution (passed by simple majority in each house, not signed by President, does not carry force of law) that sets overall funding levels for the government. The Senate may then consider a budget reconciliation bill, not subject to filibuster, that reconciles funding amounts in any annual appropriations bills with the amounts specified in the budget resolution.
However, under the Byrd rule no non-budgetary "extraneous matter" may be considered in a reconciliation bill. The presiding officer, relying always on the opinion of the Senate parliamentarian, determines whether an item is extraneous, and a 60-vote majority is required to include such material in a reconciliation bill.
During periods of single-party control in Congress and the Presidency, reconciliation has increasingly been used to enact major parts of a party's legislative agenda by avoiding the 60-vote rule. Notable examples of such successful use include:
- Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103–66 (1993)
- The Clinton budget bill, passed the Senate 51–50. Raised income taxes on those making over $115,000, among other tax increases.
- Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), Pub. L. 107–16 (text) (PDF) (2001)
- First set of Bush tax cuts, passed the Senate 58–33.
- Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, Pub. L. 108–27 (text) (PDF) (2003)
- Accelerated and extended Bush tax cuts, passed the Senate 51–50.
- Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–171 (text) (PDF) (2006)
- Slowed growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending and changed student loan formulas, passed the Senate 51–50.
- Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (TIPRA), Pub. L. 109–222 (text) (PDF) (2006)
- Extended lower rates on capital gains and relief from the alternative minimum tax, passed the Senate 54–44.
- Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111–152 (text) (PDF) (2010)
- Second portion of Obamacare, passed the Senate 56–43. This law made budget-related amendments to the main Obamacare law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which had previously passed with 60 votes. It also included significant student loan changes.
- Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (2017)
- Trump tax cuts, passed the Senate 51–48.
- American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (2021)
- COVID-19 relief, passed the Senate 50–49
- Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (2022)
- Climate change funding, Medicare prescription drug price negotiations, and creation of a corporate minimum tax, passed the Senate 51–50.
Trade promotion authority
Beginning in 1975 with the Trade Act of 1974, and later through the Trade Act of 2002 and the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Congress has from time to time provided so-called "fast track" authority for the President to negotiate international trade agreements. After the President submits an agreement, Congress can then approve or deny the agreement, but cannot amend it nor filibuster. On the House and Senate floors, each body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours,[81] thus the Senate can act by simple majority vote once the time for debate has expired.
Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, enacted in 1995, allows Congress to review and repeal administrative regulations adopted by the Executive Branch within 60 legislative days. This procedure will most typically be used successfully shortly after a party change in the presidency. It was used once in 2001 to repeal an ergonomics rule promulgated under Bill Clinton, was not used in 2009, and was used 14 times in 2017 to repeal various regulations adopted in the final year of the Barack Obama presidency.
The Act provides that a rule disapproved by Congress "may not be reissued in substantially the same form" until Congress expressly authorizes it.[82] However, CRA disapproval resolutions require only 51 votes while a new authorization for the rule would require 60 votes. Thus, the CRA effectively functions as a "one-way ratchet" against the subject matter of the rule in question being re-promulgated, such as by the administration of a future President of the opposing party.
National Emergencies Act
The National Emergencies Act, enacted in 1976, formalizes the emergency powers of the President. The law requires that when a joint resolution to terminate an emergency has been introduced, it must be considered on the floor within a specified number of days. The time limitation overrides the normal 60-vote requirement to close debate, and thereby permits a joint resolution to be passed by a simple majority of both the House and Senate.
As originally designed, such joint resolutions were not subject to presidential veto. Following the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chadha (1983) which ruled that the legislative veto was unconstitutional, Congress revised the law in 1985 to make the joint resolutions subject to presidential veto.
War Powers Resolution
The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973 over Richard Nixon's veto, generally requires the President to withdraw troops committed overseas within 60 days, which the President may extend once for 30 additional days, unless Congress has declared war, otherwise authorized the use of force, or is unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.[83] Both the House and Senate must vote on any joint resolution authorizing forces,[84] or requiring that forces be removed,[85] within a specified time period, thus establishing a simple-majority threshold in the Senate.
Confirmations
On November 21, 2013, the Senate, using the "nuclear option," created a binding precedent to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except those to the Supreme Court.[68] The Democrats' stated motivation was what they saw as an expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, especially with respect to nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,[69][70] and out of frustration with filibusters of executive branch nominees for agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[69] On April 6, 2017, the exception for Supreme Court appointments was also eliminated.[71][72]
Institutional effects
 | This section needs additional citations for verification. (June 2017) |
The modern-era filibuster—and the effective 60-vote supermajority requirement it has led to—has had significant policy and political effects on all three branches of the federal government.
Congress
The supermajority rule has made it very difficult, often impossible, for Congress to pass any but the most non-controversial legislation in recent decades. The number of bills passed by the Senate has cratered: in the 85th Congress in 1957–59, over 25% of all bills introduced in the Senate were eventually passed into law; by 2005, that number had fallen to 12.5%, and by 2010, only 2.8% of introduced bills became law—a 90% decline from 50 years prior.[86]
During times of unified party control, majorities have attempted (with varying levels of success) to enact their major policy priorities through the budget reconciliation process, resulting in legislation constrained by more narrow, budgetary rules (e.g., any legislation that includes provisions on social security may be filibustered, so the Senate cannot address it). Meanwhile, public approval for Congress as an institution has fallen to its lowest levels ever, with large segments of the public seeing the institution as ineffective.[87]
Shifting majorities of both parties—and their supporters—have often been frustrated as major policy priorities articulated in political campaigns are unable to obtain passage following an election. Despite the Democratic Party holding a substantial majority in the 111th Congress, the "public option" provision in the Affordable Care Act was removed because one Senator—Joe Lieberman of Connecticut—threatened to filibuster the bill if it remained.
Presidency
Presidents of both parties have increasingly filled the policymaking vacuum with expanded use of executive power, including executive orders in areas that had traditionally been handled through legislation. For example, Barack Obama effected major changes in immigration policy by issuing work permits to some undocumented workers,[88] while Donald Trump issued several significant executive orders after taking office in 2017, along with undoing many of Obama's initiatives.[89] As a result, policy in these areas is increasingly determined by executive preference, and is more easily changed after elections, rather than through more permanent legislative policy.
Judiciary
The Supreme Court's caseload has declined significantly, with various commenters suggesting that the decline in major legislation has been a major cause.[90] Meanwhile, more policy issues are resolved judicially without action by Congress—despite the existence of potential simple majority support in the Senate—on topics such as the legalization of same-sex marriage.[91]
Impact on major presidential policy initiatives
The implied threat of a filibuster—and the resulting 60-vote requirement in the modern era—have had major impacts on the ability of recent Presidents to enact their top legislative priorities into law. The effects of the 60-vote requirement are most apparent in periods where the President and both Houses of Congress are controlled by the same political party, typically in the first two years of a presidential term.
Bill Clinton
In 1993–94, President Bill Clinton enjoyed Democratic majorities in both chambers of the 103rd Congress, including a 57–43 advantage in the Senate. Yet the Clinton health care plan of 1993, formulated by a task force led by First Lady Hillary Clinton, was unable to pass in part due to the filibuster. As early as April 1993, a memo to the task force noted that "While the substance is obviously controversial, there is apparently great disquiet in the Capitol over whether we understand the interactivity between reconciliation and health, procedurally, and in terms of timing and counting votes for both measures..."[92]
George W. Bush
In 2001, President George W. Bush was unable to obtain sufficient Democratic support for his tax cut proposals. As a result, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were each passed using reconciliation, which required that the tax cuts expire within the 10-year budget window to avoid violating the Byrd rule in the Senate. The status of the tax cuts would remain unresolved until the late 2012 "fiscal cliff," with a portion of the cuts being made permanent by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Barack Obama.
Barack Obama
In 2009–10, President Barack Obama briefly enjoyed an effective 60-vote Democratic majority (including independents) in the Senate during the 111th Congress. During that time period, the Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as "Obamacare," on December 24, 2009 by a vote of 60-39 (after invoking cloture by the same 60-39 margin). However, Obama's proposal to create a public health insurance option was removed from the health care legislation because it could not command 60-vote support.
House Democrats did not approve of all aspects of the Senate bill, but after 60-vote Senate control was permanently lost in February 2010 due to the election of Scott Brown to fill the seat of the late Ted Kennedy, House Democrats decided to pass the Senate bill intact and it became law. Several House-desired modifications to the Senate bill—those sufficient to pass scrutiny under the Byrd rule—were then made under reconciliation via the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which was enacted days later following a 56–43 vote in the Senate.
The near-60-vote Senate majority that Democrats held throughout the 111th Congress was also critical to passage of other major Obama initiatives, including the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (passed 60–38, three Republicans voting yes),[93] and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (passed 60–39, three Republicans voting yes, one Democrat voting no).[94] However, the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would have created a cap-and-trade system and established a national renewable electricity standard to combat climate change, never received a Senate floor vote with Majority Leader Harry Reid saying, "It's easy to count to 60."[95]
In protest of the extraordinary powers granted to the Executive in the Patriot Act, Senator Rand Paul staged a 13-hour filibuster, during the Senate confirmation hearings for CIA director John Brennan in March, 2013. He demanded a written confirmation that the executive would not engage in extrajudicial killings of American citizens on US soil. Attorney General Holder wrote a letter, which secretary Carney read at a press conference, indicating president Obama's support, "The president has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil."[96][97]
Donald Trump
In 2017, President Donald Trump and the 115th Congress pursued a strategy to use an FY17 reconciliation bill to repeal the ACA, followed by an FY18 reconciliation bill to pass tax reform. A budget reconciliation strategy was pursued since nearly all Democrats were expected to oppose these policies, making a filibuster threat insurmountable due to the 60-vote requirement.
An FY17 budget resolution that included reconciliation instructions for health care reform was passed by the Senate by a 51–48 vote on January 12, 2017,[98] and by the House on a 227–198 vote the following day.[99] The House later passed the American Health Care Act of 2017 as the FY17 budget reconciliation bill by a vote of 217–213 on May 4, 2017. In July, the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that certain provisions of the House bill must be stricken (as "extraneous" non-budgetary matter) under the Byrd rule before proceeding under reconciliation.[100] The Parliamentarian later ruled that an FY17 reconciliation bill must be adopted by the end of FY17, establishing a September 30 deadline.[101] Senate Republicans were unable to obtain 51 votes for any health care reconciliation bill before the deadline, and the FY17 budget resolution expired.
An FY18 budget resolution that included reconciliation instructions for tax reform was passed by the Senate by a 51–49 vote on October 19, 2017,[102] and by the House on a 216–212 vote on October 26, 2017.[103] It permitted raising the deficit by $1.5 trillion over ten years and opening drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the latter to help secure the eventual vote of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski who voted against FY17 health care reconciliation legislation. The Senate later passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (unofficial title) as the FY18 reconciliation bill by a 51–48 vote on December 20, 2017,[104] with final passage by the House on a 224–201 vote later that day.[105] Due to the budget resolution's cap of $1.5 trillion in additional deficits over 10 years, plus Byrd rule limits on adding deficits beyond 10 years, the corporate tax cut provisions were made permanent while many of the individual tax cuts expire after 2025.
President Trump repeatedly called on Senate Republicans to abolish or reform the filibuster throughout 2017 and 2018.[106][107]
Joe Biden
The 117th United States Congress began with Republican control of the Senate on January 3, 2021. Two days later, Georgia Senators Jon Ossoff (D) and Raphael Warnock (D) were elected in runoff elections, resulting in a 50–50 tie. Democrats became the majority party when Ossoff, Warnock, and Alex Padilla (D-CA) were sworn in on January 20. Vice President Kamala Harris had been sworn in a few hours earlier. However, reorganization of the Senate and Democratic control of committees (hence confirmation of Biden Administration nominees) and hearings on legislation were delayed until February 3. The agreement meant that committee votes that ended in ties would go to the full Senate. Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) promised not to vote to end the filibuster.[108]
U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema explained her opposition in June 2021, claiming that ending the filibuster would lead to "repeated radical reversals in federal policy, cementing uncertainty, deepening divisions, and further eroding Americans’ confidence in our government."[109] President Biden expressed support for reforming or abolishing the filibuster after Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell blocked the Freedom to Vote Act along party lines on October 20, 2021.[110][111]
On January 20, 2022, the Senate voted against overturning a ruling of the chair to block all motions, points of order and amendments to a voting rights bill, which would have allowed a talking filibuster on the bill without any hindrances. Every Republican senator voted against this use of the nuclear option along with Senators Manchin and Sinema.[112]
Proposals for reform
In addition to elimination (either wholly or for certain matters), several procedural alternatives have been proposed to modify or reform the filibuster rule.
Talking filibuster
Some reformers argue that the filibuster should be returned to its origins, in which senators were required to hold the floor and speak at length to delay a bill. Since obstruction would be more visible, the reform might benefit major bills that the minority "is willing to block covertly but not overtly".[113] For example, a 2012 proposal by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) would require that if between 51 and 59 senators support a cloture motion, debate would continue only until there is no opposing Senator speaking. At that point, another cloture vote would be triggered with only a simple majority to pass.[114]
Gradually lowering the 60-vote threshold
In 2013, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) advocated for steadily reducing the cloture threshold each time a cloture vote fails. The number of votes required would be reduced by three on each vote (e.g., from 60 to 57, 54, 51) until a simple majority was required. Harkin envisioned that this rule would still allow the minority to bring visibility to and slow down a bill, and since the whole process would take eight days the majority would have incentive to compromise with the minority. The Senate defeated the idea by voice vote in 2013.[115]
Minority bill of rights
As an alternative to blocking the majority's agenda, some proposals have focused instead on granting the minority the right to have its own agenda considered on the floor. For example, in 2004 then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) proposed a "minority bill of rights" for the House of Representatives that would have guaranteed the minority the right to offer its own alternatives to bills under consideration.[116] The House Republican majority did not endorse her proposal, and Pelosi in turn did not grant those rights when Democrats took control of the House in 2007.[117]
Process for limiting or eliminating the filibuster
According to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change could itself be filibustered, requiring two-thirds of senators who are present and voting to end debate. (This differs from the usual requirement for three-fifths of sworn senators.)[118]
Nuclear option
Despite the two-thirds requirement described above, any senator may attempt to nullify a Senate rule by raising a point of order that is contrary to the existing rules and precedents. An appeal in connection with a nondebatable question is itself nondebatable, so there is no need for a supermajority cloture vote.
Procedure to invoke the nuclear option
This happened in 2013, when Harry Reid of the Democratic Party raised a point of order that "the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote". The presiding officer overruled the point of order, and Reid appealed the ruling. Mitch McConnell of the Republican Party raised a parliamentary inquiry on how many votes were required to appeal the chair's ruling in that instance. The presiding officer replied, "A majority of those Senators voting, a quorum being present, is required." Reid's appeal was sustained by a 48–52 vote, and the presiding officer then ruled that the Senate had established a precedent that cloture on nominations other than those for the Supreme Court requires only a simple majority.[118][119]
Procedurally, the events described went as follows:[120]
Mr. REID. I raise a point of order that the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the rules, the point of order is not sustained.
Mr. REID. I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.
(48–52 vote on upholding ruling of the chair)
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The decision of the Chair is not sustained.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. *** Under the precedent set by the Senate today, November 21, 2013, the threshold for cloture on nominations, not including those to the Supreme Court of the United States, is now a majority. That is the ruling of the Chair.[121]
A new precedent was thus established allowing for cloture to be invoked by a simple majority on executive nominations, excluding those to the Supreme Court of the United States.
On April 6, 2017, that precedent was further changed by McConnell and the Republican majority, in a 48–52 vote against sustaining the decision of the chair, to include Supreme Court nominations.[122][72][123][124]
Other forms of filibuster
While talking out a measure is the most common form of filibuster in the Senate, other means of delaying and killing legislation are available. Because the Senate routinely conducts business by unanimous consent, one member can create at least some delay by objecting to the request. In some cases, such as considering a bill or resolution on the day it is introduced or brought from the House, the delay can be as long as a day.[125] However, because this is a legislative day, not a calendar day, the majority can mitigate it by briefly adjourning.[126]
In many cases, an objection to a request for unanimous consent will compel a vote. While forcing a single vote may not be an effective delaying tool, the cumulative effect of several votes, which take at least 15 minutes apiece, can be substantial. In addition to objecting to routine requests, senators can force votes through motions to adjourn and through quorum calls.
Quorum calls are meant to establish the presence or absence of a constitutional quorum, but senators routinely use them to waste time while waiting for the next speaker to come to the floor or for leaders to negotiate off the floor. In those cases, a senator asks for unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call.
If another senator objects, the clerk must continue to call the roll of senators, just as they would with a vote. If a call shows no quorum, the minority can force another vote by moving to request or compel the attendance of absent senators. Finally, senators can force votes by moving to adjourn, or by raising specious points of order and appealing the ruling of the chair.
The most effective methods of delay are those that force the majority to invoke cloture multiple times on the same measure. The most common example is to filibuster the motion to proceed to a bill, then filibuster the bill itself. This forces the majority to go through the entire cloture process twice in a row. If, as is common, the majority seeks to pass a substitute amendment to the bill, a further cloture procedure is needed for the amendment.
The Senate was previously particularly vulnerable to serial cloture votes when it and the House have passed different versions of the same bill and want to go to conference (i.e., appoint a conference committee of both chambers to merge the bills). Normally, the majority asks for unanimous consent to:
- Insist on its amendment(s), or disagree with the House's amendments
- Request, or agree to a request for, a conference
- Authorize the presiding officer to appoint conferees
If the minority objects, those motions are debatable (and therefore subject to a filibuster).[125] Additionally, after the first two motions are agreed to, but before the third is, senators can offer an unlimited number of motions to instruct conferees, which are themselves debatable, amendable, and divisible.[127] As a result, a determined minority could previously cause a great deal of delay before a conference. However, in 2013, the Senate amended its rules to allow these three motions to be made together as a compound motion and to provide an expedited cloture procedure on this compound motion. Therefore, this is no longer a viable filibuster tactic.[66]
Longest solo filibusters
Below is a table of the ten longest single-person filibusters to take place in the United States Senate since 1900.
| Senator | Party | Date (began) | Measure | Hours & minutes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Strom Thurmond (S.C.) | Democrat | August 28, 1957 | Civil Rights Act of 1957 (filibuster) | 24:18 | |
| 2 | Alfonse D'Amato (N.Y.) | Republican | October 17, 1986 | Defense Authorization Act (1987), amendment | 23:30 | |
| 3 | Wayne Morse (Ore.) | Independent | April 24, 1953 | Submerged Lands Act (1953) | 22:26 | |
| 4 | Ted Cruz (Tex.) | Republican | September 24, 2013 | Continuing Appropriations Act (2014) (filibuster) | 21:18 | |
| 5 | Robert M. La Follette, Sr. (Wisc.) | Republican | May 29, 1908 | Aldrich–Vreeland Act (1908) | 18:23 | |
| 6 | William Proxmire (Wisc.) | Democrat | September 28, 1981 | Debt ceiling increase (1981) | 16:12 | |
| 7 | Huey Long (La.) | Democrat | June 12, 1935 | National Industrial Recovery Act (1933), amendment | 15:30 | |
| 8 | Jeff Merkley (Ore.) | Democrat | April 4, 2017 | Supreme Court confirmation of Neil Gorsuch (filibuster) | 15:28 | |
| 9 | Alfonse D'Amato | Republican | October 5, 1992 | Revenue Act (1992), amendment | 15:14 | |
| 10 | Chris Murphy (Conn.) | Democrat | June 15, 2016 | Nominally H.R. 2578; supporting gun control measures (filibuster) | 14:50 | |
See also
- Blue slip
- Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a 1939 film in which a filibuster is a major plot element
- Senate hold
- Senatorial courtesy
- Reconciliation (United States Congress)
- Parks and Recreation (season 6), where Leslie Knope filibusters a council vote in episode 6.
Alfonse D'Amato's filibuster, at C-SPAN
References
- Fisher, Theresa. "10 Longest Filibusters in Senate History". Van Winkle's. Retrieved November 20, 2015.
Further reading
- Adam Jentleson (2021). Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy. Liveright. ISBN 978-1631497773.
- Richard A. Arenberg; Robert B. Dove (2014). Defending the Filibuster, Revised and Updated Edition: The Soul of the Senate. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0253016270.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate
The Export–Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) is the official export credit agency (ECA) of the United States federal government.[1][2] Operating as a wholly owned federal government corporation,[1] the bank "assists in financing and facilitating U.S. exports of goods and services",[1] particularly when private sector lenders are unable or unwilling to provide financing. Its current chairman and president, Reta Jo Lewis, was confirmed by the Senate on February 9, 2022.[3]
The Export-Import Bank was established in 1934 as the Export-Import Bank of Washington by an executive order of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Its stated goal was "to aid in financing and to facilitate exports and imports and the exchange of commodities between the United States and other Nations or the agencies or nationals thereof." The bank's first transaction was a $3.8 million loan to Cuba in 1935 for the purchase of U.S. silver ingots. In 1945, it was made an independent agency within the executive branch by Congress.
Under federal law, the EXIM must be reauthorized by Congress every four to five years.[4] Following a brief lapse in Congressional authorization on July 1, 2015,[5][6] which prevented the bank from engaging in new business,[7] it was reauthorized through September 2019 via the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of December 2015.[8] In December 2019, President Donald Trump signed the Export-Import Bank Extension into law as part of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, which authorized the bank until December 31, 2026.[9]
Over its lifetime, the Export-Import Bank has helped finance several historic projects including the Pan-American Highway, the Burma Road, and post-WWII reconstruction. While supporters argue that the bank allows small and medium-sized business to participate in the global market, critics allege that it shows favoritism to large corporations and special interests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export%E2%80%93Import_Bank_of_the_United_States
The Library of Congress (LOC) is a research library in Washington, D.C., that serves as the library of the U.S. Congress and the de facto national library of the United States.[3] Founded in 1800, the library is the United States's oldest federal cultural institution.[4] The Library is housed in three elaborate buildings on Capitol Hill. It also maintains a conservation center in Culpeper, Virginia.[5] The library's functions are overseen by the Librarian of Congress, and its buildings are maintained by the Architect of the Capitol. The Library of Congress is one of the largest libraries in the world.[3][6] Its collections contain approximately 173 million items, and it has more than 3,000 employees. Its "collections are universal, not limited by subject, format, or national boundary, and include research materials from all parts of the world and in more than 470 languages."[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Congress
The United States Government Manual is the official handbook of the federal government, published annually by the Office of the Federal Register and printed and distributed by the United States Government Publishing Office.[1] The first edition was issued in 1935; before the 1973/74 edition it was known as the United States Government Organization Manual.
The Manual provides comprehensive information on the agencies of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. It also includes information on quasi-official agencies; international organizations in which the United States participates; and boards, commissions, and committees. Appendices include a list of agency acronyms and a cumulative list of agencies terminated, transferred, or changed in name since 1933.
A typical federal agency description includes:
- A brief history of the agency, including its legislative or executive authority.
- A description of its programs and activities.
- A list of officials heading major operating units.
- A summary statement of the agency's purpose and role in the Federal Government.
- Information, addresses, websites and phone numbers to help users locate detailed information on consumer activities, contracts and grants, employment, publications, and other matters of public interest.
Since 2011 the Manual has been freely offered online, in a continuously updated edition.[2] The annual printed edition of the Manual was discontinued in 2015.[3]
GovInfo offers freely downloadable PDF copies of the U.S. Government Manual for 1995-96 and all subsequent editions to the present, and ASCII text copies from 1995-96 to 2009-2010.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Government_Manual
The Ford House Office Building is one of the five office buildings containing U.S. House of Representatives staff in Washington, D.C., on Capitol Hill.
The Ford House Office Building is the only House Office Building that is not connected underground to either one of the other office buildings or to the Capitol itself, and the only House Office Building that does not contain offices of members of Congress. Instead, it primarily houses committee staff and other offices, including the Architect of the Capitol, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_House_Office_Building
The Old Senate Chamber is a room in the United States Capitol that was the legislative chamber of the United States Senate from 1810 to 1859 and served as the Supreme Court chamber from 1860 until 1935. It was designed in Neoclassical style and is elaborately decorated.[1] In 1976 as part of the United States Bicentennial celebrations, it was restored to the appearance of when it served the Senate in the 1850s; it is preserved as a museum and for the Senate's use.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Senate_Chamber
The Old Supreme Court Chamber is the room on the ground floor of the North Wing of the United States Capitol. From 1800 to 1806, the room was the lower half of the first United States Senate chamber, and from 1810 to 1860, the courtroom for the Supreme Court of the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Supreme_Court_Chamber
The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), established by the U.S. House of Representatives in March 2008, is a nonpartisan, independent entity charged with reviewing allegations of misconduct against members of the House of Representatives and their staff and, when appropriate, referring matters to the United States House Committee on Ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Congressional_Ethics
The Capitol Power Plant is a fossil-fuel burning power plant which provides steam and chilled water for the United States Capitol, the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress and 19 other buildings in the Capitol Complex. Located at 25 E St SE in southeast Washington, D.C., it is the only coal-burning power plant in the District of Columbia, though it mostly uses natural gas.[1][2] The plant has been serving the Capitol since 1910, and is under the administration of the Architect of the Capitol (see 2 U.S.C. § 2162). Though it was originally built to supply the Capitol complex with electricity as well, the plant has not produced electricity for the Capitol since 1952.[1] Electricity generation is now handled by the same power grid and local electrical utility (Pepco) that serves the rest of metropolitan Washington.[3]
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the facility released 118,851 tons of carbon dioxide in 2007.[4] In 2009, it switched to using natural gas, unless coal was needed for backup capacity. In 2013, it was announced that the Capitol Power Plant would add a Cogeneration Plant to the CPP that will use natural gas in a combustion turbine in order to efficiently generate both electricity and heat for steam, thus further reducing emissions. A 7.5 megawatt cogeneration facility was completed at the CPP in 2018.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Power_Plant
The United States Copyright Office (USCO), a part of the Library of Congress, is a United States government body that maintains records of copyright registration, including a copyright catalog. It is used by copyright title researchers who are attempting to clear a chain of title for copyrighted works.
The head of the Copyright Office is the Register of Copyrights. The office is headed by Shira Perlmutter, since October 26, 2020,[1]and currently serves as the official Register.
The Copyright Office is located on the fourth floor of the James Madison Memorial Building of the Library of Congress, at 101 Independence Avenue SE, in Washington, DC.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Office
The Law Library of Congress is the law library of the United States Congress. The Law Library of Congress holds the single most comprehensive and authoritative collection of domestic, foreign, and international legal materials in the world. Established in 1832, its collections are currently housed in the James Madison Memorial Building of the Library of Congress. Law staff rely on and utilize 2.9 million volumes of primary legal sources, 102.18 million microforms, 99,000 reels of microfilm, 3.18 million pieces of microfiche, and 15,600 tangible electronic resources (CD-ROMs and other disks),[1] making it is the largest law library in the world.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Library_of_Congress
The House Recording Studio provides radio and television recording services to Members, Committees, and Officers of the United States House of Representatives. The purpose of the Recording Studio is to provide a convenient way for Members to convey information to their constituents, the media, and the general public.
The Studio was established by the authority of 2 U.S.C. § 123b and consists of two radio studios, and two television studios, and tape duplication facilities. The services provided include basic recording services, live or recorded satellite transmissions, telephone recordings, preparation of teleprompter scripts, transcription of recorded material, post-production services, and television makeup. Recording Studio staff also provide program production and technical assistance. Each time a Member uses the Recording Studio, the Member’s official account is charged for the services provided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_Studio_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
The Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives prepares and publishes the United States Code, which is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. The Office was created in 1974 when the provisions of Title II, sec. 205, of H.Res. 988, 93rd United States Congress, were enacted by Pub. L. 93–554, 88 Stat. 1777.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Law_Revision_Counsel
The United States House of Representatives Library (the House Library) is the library of the United States House of Representatives. The House Library is a division of the Legislative Resource Center, which is part of Office of the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives.[2] The Library is located in the Cannon House Office Building.
The House Library is a legislative, law, and general reference library serving House Members and staff as well as the public. The House Library has been the official repository of the House of Representatives and the Office of the Clerk since 1792.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_Library
A United States Senate page (Senate page or simply page) is a high-school age teen serving the United States Senate in Washington, D.C. Pages are nominated by senators, usually from their home state, and perform a variety of tasks, such as delivering messages and legislative documents on the Senate floor and the various Capitol Hill offices.[1] Pages are provided housing and attend a special page school at the Daniel Webster Senate Page Residence. Senate pages were first appointed in 1829. Originally limited to boys only, the Senate page program was expanded in 1971 to include girls. There are 30 pages at each Senate session, with 16 appointed by the majority party and 14 by the minority. Pages are assigned to serve senators of the sponsoring senator's party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_of_the_United_States_Senate
The sergeant at arms and doorkeeper of the United States Senate (originally known as the doorkeeper of the Senate[1] from April 7, 1789 – 1798) is the protocol officer, executive officer, and highest-ranking federal law enforcement officer of the Senate of the United States.[2] The office of the sergeant at arms of the Senate currently has just short of 1,000 full time staff.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_Senate
The United States Senate Library is the official library of the United States Senate.[1] While the Library informally began in 1792, it was officially established in 1871 and today holds an estimated 220,000 volumes.[1][2]
The United States Senate Librarian manages the Senate Library, which is under the supervision of the Office of the Secretary of the United States Senate. Meghan Dunn has been the Senate Librarian since 2022.[2] The Library is located in the Russell Senate Office Building in SR-B15, and its website and catalog are restricted to Senate staff.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Library
The United States Capitol Guide Service[1] is a guide service charged by the United States Congress to "provide guided tours of the interior of the United States Capitol Building for the education and enlightenment of the general public, without charge for such tours."[2] It exists under 2 U.S.C. § 2166. The Service's operations are part of the United States Capitol Visitor Center operations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_Guide_Service
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is a legislative branch government agency that provides auditing, evaluative, and investigative services for the United States Congress.[2] It is the supreme audit institution of the federal government of the United States. It identifies its core "mission values" as: accountability, integrity, and reliability.[3] It is also known as the "congressional watchdog".[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office
The postmaster of the United States House of Representatives was an employee of the United States Congress from 1834 to 1992.
Before the creation of the office of postmaster, mail duties were handled by workers in the office of the doorkeeper, who were paid additional compensation. The postmaster was made into a distinct and permanent House of Representatives employee in 1832, and in 1834, William J. McCormick, a doorkeeper's office employee, was named as the first House postmaster. Four years later, the postmaster was also given responsibility for the Capitol post office. The office of postmaster was abolished in 1992; House mail handling procedures were reassigned to other officers and private entities.
A total of twenty-one postmasters served in the House. One postmaster, William S. King, served as a U.S. representative after his service as postmaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmaster_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
The United States Capitol crypt is the large circular room filled with forty neoclassical Doric columns directly beneath the United States Capitol rotunda. It was built originally to support the rotunda as well as offer an entrance to Washington's Tomb. It currently serves as a museum and a repository for thirteen statues of the National Statuary Hall Collection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_crypt
The Daniel Webster Senate Page Residence, also known as Webster Hall, is the residence for United States Senate Pages.[1] The building is a former funeral home and underwent an $8 million refurbishment in 1995, converting it to its current state.[2] It is located near the Hart Senate Office Building, giving pages the ability to walk to and from work. Pages are required to live in the building during the school year.[3] The building has 24/7 protection by the United States Capitol Police both indoors and on foot around the building.[4] The United States Senate Page School is located in the basement of the building.[5] The residential portion of Webster Hall is staffed by adult employees of the United States Senate Page Program, while the school is staffed by employees of the United States Senate Page School. Pages are supervised by proctors, generally graduate students, who are employed by the United States Senate Page Program. $780 per month is deducted from a page's paycheck to fund room and board.[5] In addition to the proctors, there is a Program Director and a Administrative Aide. There are two living quarters with one being designated for female students and the other for male students. There are laundry and kitchen facilities in the building. Along with the 24/7 protection by the United States Capitol Police, visitors are required to sign in and all individuals must present some form of identification. During Summer sessions Pages may request arrangements for alternative housing. [6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Webster_Senate_Page_Residence
Capitol Hill, in addition to being a metonym for the United States Congress, is the largest historic residential neighborhood in Washington, D.C., stretching easterly in front of the United States Capitol along wide avenues. It is one of the oldest residential neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., and, with roughly 35,000 people in just under 2 square miles (5 km2), it is also one of the most densely populated.[1]
As a geographic feature, Capitol Hill rises near the center of the District of Columbia and extends eastward. Pierre (Peter) Charles L'Enfant, as he began to develop his plan for the new federal capital city in 1791, chose to locate the "Congress House" (the Capitol building) on the crest of the hill at a site that he characterized as a "pedestal waiting for a monument." The Capitol building has been the home of the Congress of the United States and the workplace of many residents of the Capitol Hill neighborhood since 1800.
The Capitol Hill neighborhood today straddles two quadrants of the city, Southeast and Northeast. A large portion of the neighborhood is now designated as the Capitol Hill Historic District.
The name Capitol Hill is often used to refer to both the historic district and to the larger neighborhood around it. To the east of Capitol Hill lies the Anacostia River, to the north is the H Street corridor, to the south are the Southeast/Southwest Freeway and the Washington Navy Yard, and to the west are the National Mall and the city's central business district.
The Capitol building is surrounded by the Capitol Hill Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Capitol Hill Historic District was expanded in 2015 to the north to include the blocks bordered by 2nd Street, F Street, 4th Street, and just south of H Street, NE, collectively known as the Swampoodle Addition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill
Blue slip or blue-slipping refers to two distinct legislative procedures in the United States Congress.
In the House of Representatives, it is the rejection slip given to tax and spending bills sent to it by the Senate that did not originate in the House, according to the House's interpretation of the Origination Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
In the Senate, it is the slip on which the senators from the state of residence of a federal judicial nominee give an opinion on the nominee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip
In the United States Senate, the nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the Senate to override a standing rule by a simple majority, avoiding the two-thirds supermajority normally required to invoke cloture on a resolution to amend Senate rules.
The nuclear option can be invoked by a senator raising a point of order that contravenes a standing rule. The presiding officer would then overrule the point of order based on Senate rules and precedents; this ruling would then be appealed and overturned by a simple majority vote (or a tie vote), establishing a new precedent. The nuclear option is made possible by the principle in Senate procedure that appeals from rulings of the chair on points of order relating to nondebatable questions are themselves nondebatable.[1] Since cloture is a nondebatable question, the appeal is decided without debate. This obviates the usual requirement for a two-thirds majority to invoke cloture on a resolution amending the standing rules.
The nuclear option was invoked in November 2013, when a Senate Democratic majority led by Harry Reid used the procedure to eliminate the 60-vote rule for judicial nominations, other than nominations to the Supreme Court.[2] In April 2017, the nuclear option was invoked again, this time by a Senate Republican majority led by Mitch McConnell to also eliminate the 60-vote rule for Supreme Court nominations and thereby end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.[3][4][5] The use of the nuclear option on legislation to abolish the 60-vote threshold and overcome a filibuster has been proposed, but not enacted.
The term "nuclear option" is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
This is a bibliography of U.S. congressional memoirs by former and current U.S. representatives.[1][2] The United States House of Representatives is one of the two houses of the United States Congress, the bicameral legislature which also includes the Senate.
The composition and powers of the House are established in Article One of the Constitution. The major power of the House is to pass federal legislation that affects the entire country, although its bills must also be passed by the Senate and further agreed to by the President before becoming law (unless both the House and Senate re-pass the legislation with a two-thirds majority in each chamber). Each state receives representation in the House in proportion to its population but is entitled to at least one representative. The total number of voting representatives is fixed by law at 435.[3] Each representative serves for a two-year term. The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, traditionally the leader of the majority party, is the presiding officer of the chamber, elected by the members of the House.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._representative_bibliography_(congressional_memoirs)
Congress Hall, located in Philadelphia at the intersection of Chestnut and 6th Streets, served as the seat of the United States Congress from December 6, 1790, to May 14, 1800.[2][3] During Congress Hall's duration as the capitol of the United States, the country admitted three new states, Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee; ratified the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution; and oversaw the presidential inaugurations of both George Washington (his second) and John Adams.
Congress Hall was restored in the 20th century to its original appearance in 1796. The building is now managed by the National Park Service within the Independence National Historical Park and is open for public tours. Congress Hall is conjoined with Independence Hall, which is adjacent to the east.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_Hall
Deliberation is a process of thoughtfully weighing options, usually prior to voting. Deliberation emphasizes the use of logic and reason as opposed to power-struggle, creativity, or dialogue. Group decisions are generally made after deliberation through a vote or consensus of those involved.
In legal settings a jury famously uses deliberation because it is given specific options, like guilty or not guilty, along with information and arguments to evaluate. In "deliberative democracy", the aim is for both elected officials and the general public to use deliberation rather than power-struggle as the basis for their vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberation
Parliamentary procedure is the accepted rules, ethics, and customs governing meetings of an assembly or organization. Its object is to allow orderly deliberation upon questions of interest to the organization and thus to arrive at the sense or the will of the majority of the assembly upon these questions.[1] Self-governing organizations follow parliamentary procedure to debate and reach group decisions, usually by vote, with the least possible friction.
In the United Kingdom, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and other English-speaking countries, parliamentary procedure is often called chairmanship, chairing, the law of meetings, procedure at meetings, the conduct of meetings, or the standing orders. In the United States, it is referred to as parliamentary law, parliamentary practice, legislative procedure, rules of order, or Robert's rules of order.[2]
Rules of order consist of rules written by the body itself (often referred to as bylaws), usually supplemented by a published parliamentary authority adopted by the body. Typically, national, state or provincial and other full-scale legislative assemblies have extensive internally written rules of order, whereas non-legislative bodies write and adopt a limited set of specific rules as the need arises.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_procedure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_Decision
Informed Delivery is a feature offered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) whereby consumers can digitally preview incoming mail and manage packages scheduled to arrive soon.
Consumers that sign up for Informed Delivery can digitally preview their mail and manage packages scheduled to arrive soon via email notification, online dashboard, or mobile app. Users also have the ability to interact with digital content provided by business mailers (e.g., special offers, related links) directly from Informed Delivery.
Exterior images are only provided for letter-size mailpieces that are processed through USPS automated equipment. Some mailpieces (e.g., catalogues, magazines, larger envelopes) are not imaged by USPS automated equipment and will not appear in Informed Delivery notifications. Users can also receive USPS Tracking updates for incoming packages, provide delivery instructions, manage notifications, and schedule redelivery directly from Informed Delivery. The feature also allows consumers to indicate if specific items in the Informed Delivery notifications are not received.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_Delivery
A guild (/ɡɪld/ GILD) is an association of artisans and merchants who oversee the practice of their craft/trade in a particular territory. The earliest types of guild formed as organizations of tradespeople belonging to a professional association. They sometimes depended on grants of letters patent from a monarch or other ruler to enforce the flow of trade to their self-employed members, and to retain ownership of tools and the supply of materials, but most were regulated by the local government. Guild members found guilty of cheating the public would be fined or banned from the guild. A lasting legacy of traditional guilds are the guildhalls constructed and used as guild meeting-places.
Typically the key "privilege" was that only guild members were allowed to sell their goods or practice their skill within the city. There might be controls on minimum or maximum prices, hours of trading, numbers of apprentices, and many other things. Critics argued that these rules reduced free competition, but defenders maintained that they protected professional standards.[1]
An important result of the guild framework was the emergence of universities at Bologna (established in 1088), Oxford (at least since 1096) and Paris (c. 1150); they originated as guilds of students (as at Bologna) or of masters (as at Paris).[2]
_van_het_Amsterdamse_lakenbereidersgilde_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild
| Old Brick Capitol | |
|---|---|
| Part of American Civil War prison camps | |
 The former Old Brick Capitol building serving as a prison during the American Civil War, 1861-1865 | |
| Type | United States Capitol (1815–1819) Union Prison Camp (1861–1865) |
| Site information | |
| Owner | U.S. federal government |
| Controlled by | Union Army |
| Open to the public | No |
| Site history | |
| Built | 1815 |
| In use | 1815–1819 1861–1867 |
| Materials | brick |
| Demolished | 1929 |
| Battles/wars | American Civil War |
| Garrison information | |
| Occupants | Union soldiers, Confederate prisoners of war, political prisoners, spies, Union officers convicted of insubordination, and local D.C. prostitutes |
The Old Brick Capitol in Washington, D.C., served as the temporary Capitol of the United States from 1815 to 1819. The building was a private school, a boarding house, and, during the American Civil War, a prison known as the Old Capitol Prison. It was demolished in 1929, and its site is now occupied by the U.S. Supreme Court building.
Site history
The site, as with most of Capitol Hill, was part of Jenkins Hill and was acquired from the Carroll family to accommodate the U.S. Capitol. Located at 1st and A streets NE in Washington, D.C., on the eastern slope of Capitol Hill, the site's first building was a red brick tavern and hostel called Stelle's Hotel, built around 1800. It was part of a neighborhood of rooming houses catering to the U.S. Congress.
Temporary U.S. Capitol, 1815–1819
In August 1814, during the War of 1812, the British burned the nearby United States Capitol building. The Congress, forced to meet in temporary quarters, pulled down the hostel at 1st and A streets, and built a temporary brick capitol building in the Federal style, laying the cornerstone on July 4, 1815.[1] Congress then occupied the brick capitol from December 8, 1815, until 1819, while the original U.S. Capitol Building was rebuilt.[2] The first inauguration of President James Monroe took place at the brick capitol on March 4, 1817.
The building was actually financed by Washington real-estate investors, who had heard rumors that some members of Congress were considering relocation of the national capital in the aftermath of the burning. The investors wanted to prevent their land values from decreasing by keeping the government in Washington.
Old Brick Capitol, 1819–1861
The building acquired the title "Old Brick Capitol" in 1819 when Congress and the Supreme Court returned to the restored U.S. Capitol Building. Until the time of the Civil War, the building was used as a private school, then as a boarding house. South Carolina Senator and former Vice President of the United States John C. Calhoun, who had been a leading member of the Fourteenth Congress when it met in the Old Brick Capitol, died in the boarding house in 1850.
Old Capitol Prison, 1861–1867
With the start of the Civil War in 1861, the Union repurchased the building to use as a prison for captured Confederates, as well as political prisoners, spies, Union officers convicted of insubordination, and local prostitutes. Famous inmates of the prison included Rose Greenhow, Belle Boyd, John Mosby, and Henry Wirz, who was hanged in the yard of the prison.
Many people arrested following the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln were also held here. These included Dr. Samuel Mudd, Mary Surratt, Louis Weichmann, and John T. Ford, owner of Ford's Theater, where Lincoln was shot. The adjoining row of houses, Duff Green's Row, was also used as part of the prison.
Post-War use and demolition
The government sold the Old Capitol Prison in 1867 to George T. Brown, then sergeant-at-arms of the U.S. Senate, who modified the building into three rowhouses collectively known as "Trumbull's Row." In the 20th century, they were used as the headquarters of the National Woman's Party. In 1929, the site was acquired by eminent domain and the brick building was razed to clear the site for the U.S. Supreme Court Building.
See also
References
- Goode, p. 329
External links
Sources
- James M. Goode, Capital Losses: A Cultural History of Washington's Destroyed Buildings, Washington: Smithsonian Institution (2003).
- Harold H. Burton and Thomas E. Waggaman, "The Story of the Place: Where First and A Streets Formerly Met at What Is Now the Site of the Supreme Court Building, Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C., vol. 51/52 (1951/1952).
- Former national capitol buildings in the United States
- American Civil War prison camps
- Washington, D.C., in the American Civil War
- Defunct prisons in Washington, D.C.
- Federal architecture in Washington, D.C.
- Demolished buildings and structures in Washington, D.C.
- Buildings and structures demolished in 1929
- 1815 establishments in Washington, D.C.
- 1929 disestablishments in Washington, D.C.
| Old Brick Capitol | |
|---|---|
| Part of American Civil War prison camps | |
The former Old Brick Capitol building serving as a prison during the American Civil War, 1861-1865 |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Brick_Capitol
The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress (Bioguide) is a biographical dictionary of all present and former members of the United States Congress and its predecessor, the Continental Congress. Also included are Delegates from territories and the District of Columbia and Resident Commissioners from the Philippines and Puerto Rico.
The online edition has a guide to the research collections of institutions where member's papers, letters, correspondence, and other items are archived, as well as an extended bibliography of published works concerning the member (a shorter bibliography is included with the member's biography).[1] These additional resources, when available, can be accessed via links at the left side of the member's page on the website.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographical_Directory_of_the_United_States_Congress
Budget reconciliation is a special parliamentary procedure of the United States Congress set up to expedite the passage of certain budgetary legislation in the United States Senate. The procedure overrides the filibuster rules in the Senate, which may otherwise require a 60-vote supermajority for passage by the Senate. Bills described as reconciliation bills can pass the Senate by a simple majority of 51 votes or 50 votes plus the Vice President's as the tie-breaker. The reconciliation procedure also applies to the House of Representatives, but it has minor significance there, as the rules of the House of Representatives do not have a de facto supermajority requirement.[1] Due to greater polarization, gridlock, and filibustering in the Senate in recent years, budget reconciliation has come to play an important role in how the United States Congress legislates.[2]
Budget reconciliation bills can deal with spending, revenue, and the federal debt limit, and the Senate can pass one bill per year affecting each subject. Congress can thus pass a maximum of three reconciliation bills per year, though in practice it has often passed a single reconciliation bill affecting both spending and revenue.[3] Policy changes that are extraneous to the budget are limited by the "Byrd Rule", which also prohibits reconciliation bills from increasing the federal deficit after a ten-year period or making changes to Social Security.
In April 2021, the Senate Parliamentarian—an in-house rules expert—determined that the Senate can pass two budget reconciliation bills in 2021: one focused on fiscal year 2021 and one focused on fiscal year 2022. In addition, the Senate can pass additional budget reconciliation bills by describing them as a revised budget resolution that contains budget reconciliation instructions.[4] However, the Parliamentarian later clarified that the “auto-discharge” rule that allows a budget resolution to bypass a Budget Committee vote and be brought directly to the Senate floor does not apply to a revised budget resolution.[5] As a result of this ruling, a revised budget resolution would need to be approved by a majority vote of the Budget Committee before proceeding to the Senate floor, or deadlocked with a tied vote and then brought to the Senate floor via a motion to discharge. In a 50-50 Senate where committees are evenly divided between parties, this has the functional effect of requiring at least one member of the minority party on the Budget Committee to be present in order to provide a quorum for a vote. Considering the inherently partisan nature of reconciliation legislation, it is highly unlikely that a member of the minority party will cooperate with the majority by providing a quorum on the Committee, thus practically limiting the majority of a 50-50 tied Senate to one reconciliation bill per fiscal year.
The reconciliation process was created by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and was first used in 1980. Bills passed using the reconciliation process include the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)
In the United States Congress, an appropriations bill is legislation to appropriate[1] federal funds to specific federal government departments, agencies and programs. The money provides funding for operations, personnel, equipment and activities.[2] Regular appropriations bills are passed annually, with the funding they provide covering one fiscal year. The fiscal year is the accounting period of the federal government, which runs from October 1 to September 30 of the following year.[3] Appropriations bills are under the jurisdiction of the United States House Committee on Appropriations and the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations.[2] Both Committees have twelve matching subcommittees, each tasked with working on one of the twelve annual regular appropriations bills.
There are three types of appropriations bills: regular appropriations bills, continuing resolutions, and supplemental appropriations bills.[2] Regular appropriations bills are the twelve standard bills that cover the funding for the federal government for one fiscal year and that are supposed to be enacted into law by October 1. If Congress has not enacted the regular appropriations bills by the time, it may pass a continuing resolution, which generally continues the pre-existing appropriations at the same levels as the previous fiscal year (or with minor modifications) for a set amount of time.[2] If Congress fails to pass an appropriation bill or a continuing resolution, or if the President vetoes a passed bill, it may result in a government shutdown. The third type of appropriations bills are supplemental appropriations bills, which add additional funding above and beyond what was originally appropriated at the beginning of the fiscal year. Supplemental appropriations bills can be used for things like disaster relief.
Appropriations bills are one part of a larger United States budget and spending process. They are preceded in that process by the president's budget proposal, congressional budget resolutions, and the 302(b) allocation. Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution states that "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law..." This is what gives Congress the power to make these appropriations. The President, however, still has the power to veto appropriations bills.[2] However, the President does not have line-item veto authority so that he must either sign the entire bill into law or veto it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriations_bill_(United_States)
An Act of Congress is a statute enacted by the United States Congress. Acts may apply only to individual entities (called private laws), or to the general public (public laws). For a bill to become an act, the text must pass through both houses with a majority, then be either signed into law by the president of the United States, be left unsigned for ten days (excluding Sundays) while Congress remains in session, or, if vetoed by the president, receive a congressional override from 2⁄3 of both houses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress
Cloture (UK: US: /ˈkloʊtʃər/,[1][2] also UK: /ˈkloʊtjʊər/),[3] closure[4] or, informally, a guillotine,[4] is a motion or process in parliamentary procedure aimed at bringing debate to a quick end. The cloture procedure originated in the French National Assembly, from which the name is taken. Clôture is French for "the act of terminating something". It was introduced into the Parliament of the United Kingdom by William Ewart Gladstone to overcome the obstructionism of the Irish Parliamentary Party and was made permanent in 1887. It was subsequently adopted by the United States Senate and other legislatures. The name cloture remains in the United States;[3] in Commonwealth countries it is usually closure[3] or, informally, guillotine; in the United Kingdom closure and guillotine are distinct motions.[5][6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_the_rules_in_the_United_States_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanimous_consent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-making
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which a claim made by an authority on some topic is used as evidence to support one's own claim.[1][2][3] Some assert that arguments from authority can be valid or fallacious, depending on circumstances such as whether the putative authority's expertise is relevant to the claim at hand, whether the authority is reliable, and whether there is widespread agreement among authorities on the claim,[2][4][5] whereas others claim that appeals to authority are always fallacious.[6][7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeasible_reasoning
A silence procedure or tacit consent[1] or tacit acceptance procedure[2] (French: procédure d'approbation tacite; Latin: qui tacet consentire videtur, "he who is silent is taken to agree", "silence implies/means consent") is a way of formally adopting texts, often, but not exclusively in international political context.
A textbook on diplomacy describes the silence procedure thus:
... a proposal with strong support is deemed to have been agreed unless any member raises an objection to it before a precise deadline: silence signifies assent – or, at least, acquiescence. This procedure relies on a member in a minority fearing that raising an objection will expose it to the charge of obstructiveness and, thereby, the perils of isolation. Silence procedure is employed by NATO, the OSCE, in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union (EU) and, no doubt, in numerous other international bodies.[3]
In the context of international organisations, the subject of the procedure is often a joint statement or a procedural document, a formal vote on which with the members meeting in person is deemed unnecessary. Indeed, it is often impractical to try to stage a meeting between representatives of all member states either due to the limited importance of the text to be agreed upon or due to time constraints in the case of a joint declaration prompted by recent events. Organisations making extensive use of the procedure are, among others, the European Union, NATO and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
A draft version of the text is circulated among participants who have a last opportunity to propose changes or amendments to the text. If no amendments are proposed (if no one 'breaks the silence') before the deadline of the procedure, the text is considered adopted by all participants. Often this procedure is the last step in adopting the text, after the basic premises of the text have been agreed upon in previous negotiations. 'Breaking the silence' is only a last resort in case a participant still has fundamental problems with parts of the text and is therefore the exception rather than the rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_procedure
Consent occurs when one person voluntarily agrees to the proposal or desires of another.[1] It is a term of common speech, with specific definitions as used in such fields as the law, medicine, research, and sexual relationships. Consent as understood in specific contexts may differ from its everyday meaning. For example, a person with a mental disorder, a low mental age, or under the legal age of sexual consent may willingly engage in a sexual act that still fails to meet the legal threshold for consent as defined by applicable law.
United Nations agencies and initiatives in sex education programs believe that teaching the topic of consent as part of a comprehensive sexuality education is beneficial.[2] Types of consent include implied consent, express consent, informed consent and unanimous consent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent
Implied consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather implicitly granted by a person's actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation (or in some cases, by a person's silence or inaction). For example, if a person is unconscious as a result of injuries sustained during a traffic collision, medical treatment may be provided to that person, despite the unconscious person being unable to expressly grant consent for that treatment.
The term is most commonly[citation needed] encountered in the context of United States drunk driving laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent
A tacit assumption or implicit assumption is an assumption that underlies a logical argument, course of action, decision, or judgment that is not explicitly voiced nor necessarily understood by the decision maker or judge. These assumptions may be made based on personal life experiences, and are not consciously apparent in the decision making environment. These assumptions can be the source of apparent paradoxes, misunderstandings and resistance to change in human organizational behavior.
See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_assumption
Physicians in the United States Congress have been a small minority of the members of Congress, with fluctuating numbers over the years. The number of physicians serving and running for Congress has risen over the last 50 years from 5 in 1960, down to a nadir of 2 in 1990, to a maximum of 21 in 2013 and a decrease to 14 in 2017. Possible explanations for this development have been increasing health care spending, increased health care reform debate in the United States, leading up to the Healthcare Reform Act.
In public opinion research by the American Medical Association (AMA) from 2013, voters rated "understanding of the problems facing our healthcare industry, including the bureaucratic red tape that is strangling health care providers and driving up the cost of health care for most Americans" as the most convincing statement of a physician candidate for Congress. Physicians in Congress have received large campaign contributions from health care trade associations and from peers through physician associations such as the AMA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_in_the_United_States_Congress
In the United States, a continuing resolution (often abbreviated to CR) is a type of appropriations legislation. An appropriations bill is a bill that appropriates (gives to, sets aside for) money to specific federal government departments, agencies, and programs. The money provides funding for operations, personnel, equipment, and activities.[1] Regular appropriations bills are passed annually, with the funding they provide covering one fiscal year. The fiscal year is the accounting period of the federal government, which runs from October 1 to September 30 of the following year.[2] When Congress and the president fail to agree on and pass one or more of the regular appropriations bills, a continuing resolution can be passed instead. A continuing resolution continues the pre-existing appropriations at the same levels as the previous fiscal year (or with minor modifications) for a set amount of time.[1] Continuing resolutions typically provide funding at a rate or formula based on the previous year's funding.[3] The funding extends until a specific date or regular appropriations bills are passed, whichever comes first. There can be some changes to some of the accounts in a continuing resolution. The continuing resolution takes the form of a joint resolution, and may provide bridging funding for existing federal programs at current, reduced, or expanded levels.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_resolution
| This article is part of a series on the |
| United States Senate |
|---|
 |
| History of the United States Senate |
| Members |
|
|
| Politics and procedure |
| Places |
The United States Senate observes a number of traditions, some formal and some informal. Some of the current and former traditions are described below:
New senators
Maiden speeches
From the Senate's earliest days, the new members have observed a ritual of remaining silent during floor debates for a period of time. Depending on the era and the Senator, this has ranged from several months to several years. Today, this obsolescent Senate tradition survives only in part—the special attention given to a member's first major address, or maiden speech.
Jefferson Bible
Beginning in 1904 and continuing every other year until the 1950s, new members of Congress were given a copy of the Jefferson Bible, an edited version of the Bible by Thomas Jefferson that excluded what he felt were statements about the supernatural. Until the practice first stopped, copies were provided by the Government Printing Office. A private organization, the Libertarian Press, revived the practice in 1997.[1]
Daily rituals
The procedural activities of the Senate are guided by the Standing Rules of the Senate. Tradition states that each day is begun with the Chaplain's Daily Prayer, which can be given by the Senate chaplain, or a representative of any faith. Following the prayer, the Senate recites the Pledge of Allegiance.
Departing senators
At the end of a session of Congress it is traditional for Senators to read speeches into the Congressional Record praising the efforts of colleagues who will not be returning for the next session.
If a Senator dies in office, it is traditional for the Senate to adjourn for a day and for U.S. flags to be flown at half-staff. A black cloth and a vase filled with white roses are placed over the deceased Senator's desk, and a large contingent of Senators often travel to the home state of the departed senator to pay their respects.
Washington's Farewell Address
The Senate holds an annual reading of President George Washington's Farewell Address. This tradition, originally designed to be a morale-boosting gesture during the darkest hours of the American Civil War, began on February 22, 1862.
Senate chamber
A number of items located around the Senate chamber are steeped in tradition.
Senate desks
In 1819 new desks were ordered for the senators to replace the original set which was destroyed in the British attack on Washington in the War of 1812. The Daniel Webster desk[2] has the oldest design as it lacks a 19th-century modification to add extra storage space to the top. When Daniel Webster acquired this seat, he pronounced that if his predecessor could organize himself to work with the reduced desk space, so could he. Every subsequent senator who has sat at that desk has also declined to have it improved. In keeping with a 1974 Senate resolution, this desk is assigned to the senior Senator from Webster's birth state, New Hampshire.[3] Jeanne Shaheen has been the occupant of this desk since 2011.
Etching
In the early twentieth century, a tradition of senators engraving their own name on the bottom of the desk drawers emerged.
Candy desk
In 1965, California senator George Murphy began a tradition of keeping a desk near the back of the chamber stocked with candy. This continues today.[4]
Senate gavel
The Senate uses three gavels, each of them have an hourglass shape with no handle. The first gavel, which had been used since at least 1789, cracked during the 1954 Senate session when then Vice President Richard Nixon (acting as President of the Senate) used it during a heated debate. Prior to this, an attempt to further prevent damage to the old gavel was done by adding silver plates to both ends. A replacement gavel made of ivory was presented to the Senate by the Republic of India and first used on November 17, 1954. In response to widespread awareness of elephant poaching and illegal ivory trades, a white marble gavel has been in use since at least 2021.[citation needed]
All three gavels are kept in a mahogany box that is carried to the senate floor by a page; at the adjournment of a senate session the gavels are taken to the Sergeant at Arms' office for safekeeping.[5]
Bean soup
According to custom, bean soup is available on the Senate dining room menu every day. This tradition, which dates back to the early twentieth century, is variously attributed to a request by Senator Fred Dubois of Idaho, or, in another version of the story, to Senator Knute Nelson of Minnesota. The Dubois includes mashed potatoes and yields five gallons of soup.[6]
There are two Senate soup recipes:
The Famous Senate Restaurant Bean Soup Recipe
2 pounds [900 g] dried navy beans
four US quarts [3.8 L] hot water
1+1⁄2 pounds [680 g] smoked ham hocks
1 onion, chopped
2 tablespoons butter
salt and pepper to taste
Wash the navy beans and run hot water through them until they are slightly whitened. Place beans into pot with hot water. Add ham hocks and simmer approximately three hours in a covered pot, stirring occasionally. Remove ham hocks and set aside to cool. Dice meat and return to soup. Lightly brown the onion in butter. Add to soup. Before serving, bring to a boil and season with salt and pepper. Serves 8.[6]
Bean Soup Recipe (for 5 gallons [19 L])
3 pounds [1.4 kg] dried navy beans
2 pounds [900 g] of ham and a ham bone
1 quart [0.95 L] mashed potatoes
5 onions, chopped
2 stalks of celery, chopped
four cloves garlic, chopped
half a bunch of parsley, chopped
Clean the beans, then cook them dry. Add ham, bone and water and bring to a boil. Add potatoes and mix thoroughly. Add chopped vegetables and bring to a boil. Simmer for one hour before serving.[6]
Seersucker Thursday
Seersucker Thursday is an annual tradition in which Senators wear clothing made of seersucker on National Seersucker Day. This light, cotton-based material is traditional in the Southern United States.
The tradition was started by Republican Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi in 1996 who wanted to "bring a little Southern charm to the Capitol" to remind the Senate of how Senators dressed before the advent of air conditioning in the 1950s. The practice was temporarily suspended in 2012 amid congressional gridlock, but began again in 2014.
While this tradition is an annual event, it is not uncommon to see congressional staffers don seersucker suits on Thursdays throughout the year.
Federal appointee customs
As a body, the Senate tends to afford great deference to any member's objection regarding a nominee to a federal office having geographical ties to that member's state, especially when the objecting member has the same party affiliation as the president. Objections from members of the party in opposition to the president generally are not afforded the same weight. However, the blue slip policy of the Judiciary Committee allows even members of the president's opposition party to block nominees to positions as federal district and appellate court judges, U.S. attorneys, and federal marshals.
Another custom relating to the Senate's power "to advise and consent" is that when a nominee for federal office is a current or former U.S. senator, the nomination generally proceeds towards a vote without first being referred to the relevant committee. Additionally, senators will tend to vote their approval of the nominee, even when the nominee is of the other party, although they are not bound by the custom to do so. Only in exceedingly rare instances has the Senate referred such nominations to committee or rejected the nominee.
References
- "Official recipe, Senate Bean Soup". United States Senate. Retrieved March 26, 2014.
External links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditions_of_the_United_States_Senate
Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Under Article One, Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate.[1]: 73 Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states from abusing their powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.[1] Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. Oversight also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; which is specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.
Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight
Censure is a formal, public, group condemnation of an individual, often a group member, whose actions run counter to the group's acceptable standards for individual behavior.[1] In the United States, governmental censure is done when a body's members wish to publicly reprimand the president of the United States, a member of Congress, a judge or a cabinet member. It is a formal statement of disapproval.[2] It relies on the target's sense of shame or their constituents' subsequent disapproval, without which it has little practical effect when done on members of Congress and no practical effect when done on the president.[3][4][5]
The United States Constitution specifically grants impeachment and conviction powers, respectively, to the House of Representatives and Senate. It also grants both congressional bodies the power to expel their own members, though it does not mention censure. Each body adopts rules allowing censure,[6][7] which is "stronger than a simple rebuke, but not as strong as expulsion." In general, each house of Congress is responsible for invoking censure against its own members; censure against other government officials is not common. Because censure is not specifically mentioned as the accepted form of reprimand, many censure actions against members of Congress may be listed officially as rebuke, condemnation, or denouncement.[1]
Members of Congress who have been censured are required to give up any committee chairs they hold. Like a reprimand, a censure does not remove a member from their office so they retain their title, stature, and power to vote. There are also no legal consequences that come with a reprimand or censure. The main difference is that a reprimand is "considered a slap on the wrist and can be given in private and even in a letter," while a censure is "a form of public shaming in which the politician must stand before their peers to listen to the censure resolution."[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure_in_the_United_States
A concurrent resolution is a resolution (a legislative measure) adopted by both houses of a bicameral legislature that lacks the force of law (is non-binding) and does not require the approval of the chief executive (president). Concurrent resolutions are typically adopted to regulate the internal affairs of the legislature that adopted them, or for other purposes, if authority of law is not necessary (such as in the cases of awards or recognitions).[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_resolution
In the United States Congress, a joint resolution is a legislative measure that requires passage by the Senate and the House of Representatives and is presented to the President for their approval or disapproval. Generally, there is no legal difference between a joint resolution and a bill. Both must be passed, in exactly the same form, by both chambers of Congress, and signed by the President (or, re-passed in override of a presidential veto; or, remain unsigned for ten days while Congress is in session) to become a law. Only joint resolutions may be used to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, and these do not require the approval of the President.[1] Laws enacted by joint resolutions are not distinguished from laws enacted by bills, except that they are designated as resolutions as opposed to Acts of Congress (see for example War Powers Resolution).
While either a bill or joint resolution can be used to create a law, the two generally have different purposes. Bills are generally used to add, repeal, or amend laws codified in the United States Code or Statutes at Large, and provide policy and program authorizations. Regular annual appropriations are enacted through bills. Conversely, joint resolutions generally are vehicles for purposes such as the following:[2]
- Authorizing small appropriations
- For continuing resolutions, which extend appropriation levels adopted in a prior fiscal year, when one or more of the annual appropriations acts have been temporarily delayed from becoming law on time
- Creating temporary commissions or other ad hoc bodies (e.g., the 9/11 Commission)
- Creating temporary exceptions to existing law, such as joint resolutions providing a day for counting electoral votes or providing for a Saxbe fix reducing the pay of an office so that a member of Congress may avoid the Ineligibility Clause
- Declaring war
- Terminating national emergency declarations[3]
- Amending the Constitution of the United States
- Annexing sovereign nation-states
See also
- Bill (law)
- Concurrent resolution
- Procedures of the United States Congress
- Resolution (law)
- Simple resolution
- United States Congress#Bills and resolutions
References
- "50 US Code Chapter 34". Cornell University. Retrieved 2019-01-11.
External links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_resolution
In law, a resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion. For long or important motions, though, it is often better to have them written out so that discussion is easier or so that it can be distributed outside the body after its adoption. An alternate term for a resolution is a resolve.
Resolutions are commonly used in corporations and houses of legislature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_(law)
Main motion
| Class | Main motion |
|---|---|
| Requires second? | Yes |
| Debatable? | Yes |
| May be reconsidered? | Yes |
| Amendable? | Yes |
| Vote required | Majority |
A main motion is a motion that brings business before the assembly.[12] Main motions are made while no other motion is pending. Any of the subsidiary, incidental and privileged motions may be made while the main motion is pending, and in many cases these motions, if passed, will affect the assembly's consideration of the main motion.
When greater formality is desired, the main motion may be made in the form of a resolution, which is always submitted in writing.[25] A preamble containing several paragraphs explaining background information or justification for the proposed action is often included, but is not required.[26]
Normally, this is a motion that introduces a substantive question as a new subject, in which case it is also called an original main motion.[27] Otherwise, it is an incidental main motion, examples of which are the motions to adopt recommendations of a committee, to ratify action previously taken without a quorum, to rescind an action previously taken, or to adjourn or recess while no main motion is pending.[28] Unlike original main motions, incidental main motions cannot have an objection to the consideration of the question applied to them.
Subsidiary motion
A subsidiary motion is a type of motion by which a deliberative assembly deals directly with a main motion prior to (or instead of) voting on the main motion itself.[12] Each subsidiary motion ranks higher than the main motion and lower than the privileged motions, and also yields to applicable incidental motions. Some of the subsidiary motions may also be applied to certain other subsidiary motions, incidental motions and privileged motions.
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised recognizes seven subsidiary motions. Ranked lowest to highest in order of precedence, they are the motions to:[29]
- Postpone indefinitely—to end consideration of the main motion for the balance of that session, without a direct vote on the main motion.
- Amend—to change the main motion. (May also be applied to certain other motions).
- Commit or Refer—to send the main motion and any pending subsidiary motions to a committee for consideration.
- Postpone to a certain time (or Postpone Definitely, or Postpone) -- to delay consideration of the main motion and any pending subsidiary motions.
- Limit or extend limits of debate—to change limitations on number or length of speeches from those previously adopted.
- Previous Question—to close debate, preclude any further amendments and vote immediately. (May apply to any motion or pending series of motions.)
- Lay on the Table—to suspend consideration of the main motion and any pending subsidiary motions to allow for immediate consideration of more urgent business.
The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure differs as follows:
- The motion to Postpone Indefinitely is omitted. The motion to Table (or Postpone Temporarily) is used instead.[30]
- The motion for the Previous Question is instead called the motion to Close Debate.[31]
Privileged motion
A privileged motion is a motion that is granted precedence over ordinary business because it concerns matters of great importance or urgency. Such motions are not debatable, although in case of questions of privilege, the chair may feel the need to elicit relevant facts from members.
According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, the privileged motions are, in order of precedence:[32]
- Fix the time to which to adjourn, if another question is pending.
- Adjourn, but not if qualified or if adjournment would dissolve the assembly.
- Take a recess, if another question is pending.
- Raise a question of privilege
- Call for orders of the day
The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure omits Fix the time to which to adjourn, instead providing that the motion to adjourn may be amended with regard to the time to which to adjourn. This book also omits Call for orders of the day, on the grounds that any member may raise a point of order if the scheduled order of business is not being followed.[33]
Incidental motion
An incidental motion is a motion that relates in varying ways to the main motion and other parliamentary motions.
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised lists the following incidental motions: appeal the decision of the chair, consideration by paragraph or seriatim, division of a question, division of the assembly, motions relating to nominations, motions relating to methods of voting and the polls, objection to the consideration of a question, point of order, request to be excused from a duty, suspend the rules, and the requests and inquiries (parliamentary inquiry, request for information, request for permission to withdraw or modify a motion, request to read papers, and request for any other privilege). Most incidental motions are undebatable.[14]
Unlike the privileged and subsidiary motions, incidental motions have no order of precedence among themselves. They take precedence over any pending question out of which they arise.[34] Some incidental motions are only legitimately incidental at certain times or under certain conditions. For instance, the objection to the consideration of a question can only be raised before there has been any debate.[35]
Motions that bring a question again before the assembly
Motions that bring a question again before the assembly are types of motions that are used to consider again a question that was previously disposed of.
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised groups four motions under the classification name of "Motions that bring a question again before the assembly", because by their adoption or by their introduction, they serve the function described by the name of the class:[15] Take from the table, Rescind or amend something previously adopted, Discharge a committee, and Reconsider. Except for the motion to Reconsider, these motions are main motions and can only be made when no business is pending.
The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure classifies five "bring back" motions under the classification of main motions but lists them under the title of "Restorative Main Motions":[36] Amend a previous action, Ratify, Reconsider, Rescind, and Resume Consideration. This book treats the motion to rescind and the motion to amend something previously adopted as two distinct motion forms under the "Restorative Main Motions" title. Also, the motion to discharge a committee is not used in this book because it allows a motion previously referred to committee to be withdrawn from the committee by the assembly. The motion to ratify is also included in this group.[28]
Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure uses the term, "restoratory", for a group of six motions that restored or brought a question back before the assembly:[37] Expunge, Ratify, Rescind, Reconsider, Reconsider and Enter, and Take from the table. These "restoratory" motions are quasi-main motions that restore the status quo of a question; that is, they bring a question back to its original status—as it was prior to the last vote on it.[38]
Rules on use
Generally only one motion can be considered at a time. There is a precedence, or ranking of the motions, when multiple motions are made.[39] Each type of motion exists for a specific purpose. However, motions have been used beyond their stated purpose. Motions should not be made for dilatory or improper uses.
Strategic use of motions
Motions can accomplish results beyond their stated and obvious purpose. An example in Robert's Rules of Order is using the motion to postpone indefinitely in order to enable members who have exhausted their right of debate on the main question an opportunity to speak further and to test the strength of opposition to the question, since straw polls are not in order.[40][41] Another example of strategic use of motions is moving to reconsider in order to "clinch" a decision on the primary motion and prevent its reconsideration later, since a failed motion to reconsider cannot be reconsidered without unanimous consent.[42] Since it is not possible to amend an amendment to an amendment, a member desiring to prevent amendments to his proposed language can do so by including it in a secondary amendment.[43]
Another parliamentary maneuver, which has been used in the United States Senate, is the so-called "nuclear option" in which a majority sidesteps the two-thirds vote requirement to suspend the rules by raising a point of order in favor of their favored interpretation of the rules, followed by an appeal in which the interpretation is then imposed by a majority vote.[44][45]
Dilatory tactics and motions
Dilatory tactics or motions are those tactics used to delay or obstruct business, annoy the deliberative assembly, or, in legislative procedure, to delay consideration of a subject. Unlike using motions for strategic purposes, using them for dilatory purposes is not allowed. Reasonableness is often used as a criterion in deciding whether a motion is dilatory. Some types of motions are suitable only for specific circumstances, and their use is otherwise absurd and dilatory.
For instance, a motion to refer (commit) a resolution to a committee is dilatory if its object would be defeated by the delay in taking action.[46] A motion to appeal the ruling of the chair is dilatory if there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions about the ruling.[47] Likewise, a motion for a division of the assembly is dilatory if the results of the voice vote are already clear to any reasonable person.[48] The repetitive use of privileged motions can also be dilatory, such as repeatedly moving to adjourn when it has been voted down and nothing indicates that the assembly wants to end the meeting.[49]
A presiding officer has a duty to protect the assembly from the abuse of parliamentary processes for dilatory purposes.[50] The chair can rule the motions out of order or refuse to recognize the member, but the maker of the motion should be given the benefit of the doubt.[50]
In legislative bodies, dilatory motions can take the form of demanding quorum calls and votes at every opportunity. Another dilatory tactic is for members to not answer when their name is called during the quorum roll call. The problem of dilatory tactics in such bodies dates back to the beginnings of parliamentary procedure in England and the United States. Jefferson's Manual, for instance, only requires the Speaker to direct a bill to be read upon the desire of any member "if the request is really for information and not for delay."[51] In the US Senate, there are no formal rules against dilatory tactics except under cloture.[52] Between 1831 and 1900, dilatory votes to adjourn composed more than 10 percent of all Senate votes, and successfully delayed recognition of Louisiana's Reconstruction government until 1868.[53] According to Sarah Binder, in the 46th United States Congress, motions to adjourn consumed 23 percent of all floor votes.[54] Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed famously took countermeasures against dilatory tactics, such as ruling dilatory motions out of order, and was sustained by the house. Some legislatures impose quotas on dilatory motions. For instance, the Nova Scotia House of Assembly imposes a maximum of one motion to hoist, one motion to refer to a committee, and one reasoned amendment per reading.[55] The Rules of the U.S. Congress as revised in 1911 declare that no dilatory motion shall be entertained by the Speaker.
The term "dilatory motion" does not always refer to an ill-intentioned motion. In Canada, "dilatory" motions refer to those "designed to dispose of the original question before the House either for the time being or permanently," and includes, for instance, motions to proceed to the orders of the day; postpone definitely; adjourn; and so on.[24] Jeremy Bentham held that such types of dilatory motions are useful, stating, "Precipitation may arise from two causes: from ignorance, when a judgment is formed without the collection of all the information required—from passion, when there is not the necessary calm for considering the question in all its aspects."[56]
Renewal of motions
Renewal of a motion is the act of bringing up again a motion that has already been disposed of by the deliberative assembly. Generally, the assembly cannot be asked to decide the same question, or substantially the same question, as one it has already decided upon in the same session.
The underlying principle behind the non-renewal of a motion dates back to at least April 2, 1607, when the House of Commons adopted a rule "That a question being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgement of the House".[57] Over the past 400 years, various rules have evolved by precedent to allow and manage renewal of motions under specific circumstances.
Renewal of motions is closely tied to the parliamentary concept of "session". Sessions in ordinary societies usually consist of one meeting, but legislative sessions can continue for months or years. A motion that has been rejected (voted down) in one session, cannot be easily brought up again in that session, but can be renewed in following sessions as a new motion. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised provides exceptions to non-renewal through the motions to Reconsider, Rescind, or Amend Something Previously Adopted.
In the British House of Commons, a motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be renewed again in that same session.[58] Such substantive motions can be renewed in succeeding sessions as new motions. Reversals of earlier decisions can be done by Repeal of a Standing Order, Annulment, or Rescission. The repeal of a standing order is normally made as part of an order creating a new standard order. An annulment is used to declare proceedings to be null and void because of some form of irregularity in procedure. Renewals in the form of a rescission of a resolution made in earlier sessions is not prohibited by the practice of the House of Commons, but is seldom done. Technically it is regarded as a new question: the form being to read the previous resolution of the House and to move that it be rescinded. This power of rescission has been used sparingly and then only in the case of substantive motions. The reasons why open rescission is so rare is that the House instinctively realizes that parliamentary government requires the majority to abide by a decision regularly come to, however unexpected, and that it is unfair to resort to methods, whether direct or indirect, to reverse such a decision. Essentially this is a safeguard for the rights of the minority.[59]
See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(parliamentary_procedure)#Main_motion
In United States parliamentary procedure , recognition, or assignment of the floor, is the exclusive right to be heard at that time by a member of a deliberative assembly. With a few exceptions, a member must be recognized by the chairperson before engaging in debate or making a motion.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_(parliamentary_procedure)
Night Court is an American television sitcom that aired on NBC from January 4, 1984, to May 31, 1992. The series is set in the night shift of a Manhattan Criminal Court presided over by a young, unorthodox judge, Harold "Harry" T. Stone (portrayed by Harry Anderson). The series was created by comedy writer Reinhold Weege, who had previously worked on Barney Miller in the 1970s and early 1980s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Court
Arts and entertainment
Film and television
- Identity (1987 film), an Iranian film
- Identity (2003 film), an American slasher film
- Identity (game show), an American game show
- Identity (TV series), a British police procedural drama television series
- "Identity" (Arrow), a 2013 episode
- "Identity" (Burn Notice), a 2007 episode
- "Identity" (Charlie Jade), a 2005 episode
- "Identity" (Legend of the Seeker), a 2008 episode
- "Identity" (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episode), 2005
- "Identity" (NCIS: Los Angeles), a 2009 pilot episode
Music
Albums
- Identity (3T album), 2004
- Identity (BoA album), 2010
- Identity (Far East Movement album), 2016
- Identity (Robert Pierre album), 2008
- Identity (Raghav album), 2008
- Identity (Victon EP), 2017
- Identity (Zee album), 1984
Songs
- "Identity" (Sakanaction song), 2010
- "Identity" (X-Ray Spex song), 1978
- "Identity", a 1983 song by Bucks Fizz, B-side to "London Town"
Other uses in music
- Identity (music), in post-tonal music theory
- Identity (tuning), an odd member below and including a limit
Publications
- Identity, a defunct quarterly Australian magazine published by the Aboriginal Publications Foundation (1971–1982)
- Identity (novel), by Milan Kundera, 1998
Business
- Accounting identity, calculation that must be true regardless of its variables
- Brand identity, the expression of a brand
- Corporate identity, the manner a corporation presents itself to the public
Philosophy and social science
- Identity (philosophy), the relation each thing bears only to itself
- Law of identity, that each thing is identical with itself
- Personal identity, the numerical identity of a person over time
- Identity (social science), qualities etc that characterize a person or group
Science
- Digital identity, information used by computer systems to represent an external agent
- Identity (object-oriented programming), the property of objects that distinguishes them from other objects
- Identity (mathematics), an equality that holds regardless of the values of its variables
- Identity element, an element of the set which leaves unchanged every element when the operation is applied
- Identity function, a function that leaves its argument unchanged
- Identity matrix, with ones on the main diagonal, zeros elsewhere
Other uses
- Identity document, or ID
See also
- All pages with titles beginning with Identity
- All pages with titles containing Identity
- Biometrics
- Collective identity
- Cultural diversity
- Cultural identity
- Entity (disambiguation)
- ID (disambiguation)
- Identification (disambiguation)
- Identifier, a name that identifies a unique object or class of objects
- Identity politics
- National identity
- Outline of self
- Personal data
- Personal identity (disambiguation)
- Secret identity (disambiguation)
- The Bourne Identity (disambiguation)
If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity
An identity document (also called ID or colloquially as papers) is any document that may be used to prove a person's identity. If issued in a small, standard credit card size form, it is usually called an identity card (IC, ID card, citizen card),[a] or passport card.[b] Some countries issue formal identity documents, as national identification cards that may be compulsory or non-compulsory, while others may require identity verification using regional identification or informal documents. When the identity document incorporates a person's photograph, it may be called photo ID.[1]
In the absence of a formal identity document, a driver's license may be accepted in many countries for identity verification. Some countries do not accept driver's licenses for identification, often because in those countries they do not expire as documents and can be old or easily forged. Most countries accept passports as a form of identification. Some countries require all people to have an identity document available at all times. Many countries require all foreigners to have a passport or occasionally a national identity card from their home country available at any time if they do not have a residence permit in the country.
The identity document is used to connect a person to information about the person, often in a database. The connection between the identity document and database is based on personal information present on the document, such as the bearer's full name, age, birth date, address, an identification number, card number, gender, citizenship and more. A unique national identification number is the most secure way, but some countries lack such numbers or don't show them on identity documents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_document
A version of the passport considered to be the earliest identity document inscribed into law was introduced by King Henry V of England with the Safe Conducts Act 1414.[2]
For the next 500 years up to the onset of the First World War, most people did not have or need an identity document.
Photographic identification appeared in 1876[3] but it did not become widely used until the early 20th century when photographs became part of passports and other ID documents, all of which came to be referred to as "photo IDs" in the late 20th century. Both Australia and Great Britain, for example, introduced the requirement for a photographic passport in 1915 after the so-called Lody spy scandal.[4]
The shape and size of identity cards were standardized in 1985 by ISO/IEC 7810. Some modern identity documents are smart cards that include a difficult-to-forge embedded integrated circuit standardized in 1988 by ISO/IEC 7816. New technologies allow identity cards to contain biometric information, such as a photograph, face; hand, or iris measurements; or fingerprints. Many countries issue electronic identity cards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_document
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_document
| Passport Card | |
|---|---|
| Type | Passport card; optional convenient addition/replacement for existing bearers of an Irish passport booklet for extra charge of €35 |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_passport#Passport_Card
| Passport Card | |
|---|---|
| Type | Passport card; optional convenient addition/replacement for existing bearers of an Irish passport booklet for extra charge of €35 |
| Issued by | Ireland |
| Purpose | Proof of identity |
| Valid in | All EU & EFTA states[33][34] United Kingdom European microstates[35][36][37][38] Albania[39] Bosnia and Herzegovina[40] Faroe Islands[41][42] French overseas territories[43] Georgia[44] Kosovo[45] Moldova[46] Montenegro[47] Northern Cyprus[48] Montserrat (max. 14 days in transit to a third country) |
| Eligibility | Irish citizens[4] |
| Expiration | 5 years or until expiry date of passport booklet (whichever comes first) |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_passport#Passport_Card
A passport is an official travel document issued by a government that contains a person's identity. A person with a passport can travel to and from foreign countries more easily and access consular assistance. A passport certifies the personal identity and nationality of its holder.[1] It is typical for passports to contain the full name, photograph, place and date of birth, signature, and the expiration date of the passport. While passports are typically issued by national governments, certain subnational governments[a] are authorised to issue passports to citizens residing within their borders.
Many nations issue (or plan to issue) biometric passports that contain an embedded microchip, making them machine-readable and difficult to counterfeit.[2] As of January 2019, there were over 150 jurisdictions issuing e-passports.[3] Previously issued non-biometric machine-readable passports usually remain valid until their respective expiration dates.
.jpg)
A passport holder is normally entitled to enter the country that issued the passport, though some people entitled to a passport may not be full citizens with right of abode (e.g. American nationals or British nationals). A passport does not of itself create any rights in the country being visited or obligate the issuing country in any way, such as providing consular assistance. Some passports attest to the bearer having a status as a diplomat or other official, entitled to rights and privileges such as immunity from arrest or prosecution.[2]
Arabic papyrus with an exit permit, dated January 24, 722 AD, pointing to the regulation of travel activities. From Hermopolis Magna, Egypt
First Japanese passport, issued in 1866
Italian passport, issued in 1872
Chinese passport from the Qing Dynasty, 24th Year of the Guangxu Reign, 1898
World War Two Spanish official passport issued in late 1944 and used during the last 6 months of the war by an official being sent to Berlin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport
Irish Free State passport cover as issued 1927 (holder's name removed)
... and its associated 'Request' page.
Passport from 1950
Passport from 1978
Two shilling passport revenue stamp, 1939.
Prior to Irish independence, British passports were used
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_passport#Passport_Card
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the_European_Economic_Area
A passport stamp is an inked impression in a passport typically made by rubber stamp upon entering or exiting a territory.
Passport stamps may occasionally take the form of sticker stamps, such as entry stamps from Japan and South Korea. Depending on nationality, a visitor may not receive a stamp at all (unless specifically requested), such as an EU or EFTA citizen travelling to an EU or EFTA country, Albania,[1] or North Macedonia.[2] Most countries issue exit stamps in addition to entry stamps. A few countries issue only entry stamps, including Canada, El Salvador, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Australia, Hong Kong, Israel, Macau and Singapore do not stamp passports upon entry nor exit. These countries or regions issue landing slips instead, with the exception of Australia who do not issue any form of physical evidence of entry. Argentina and Singapore send digital entry receipts containing conditions of entry via email. Visas may also take the form of passport stamps.
Because there is no national authority, Antarctica does not have a passport stamp. However, the various bases there may provide souvenir ones on request.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_stamp
Former Exit and Entry Stamp in the year 1996 in an Indonesian passport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_stamp
Limitation may refer to:
- Limitation Act, a list of legislation in Malaysia and the United Kingdom
- A statute of limitations
- Limitations (novel), a 2006 novel by Scott Turow
- A disclaimer for research done in an experiment or study
See also
If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation
The Limitation Act 1623 (21 Jas 1 c 16), sometimes called the Statute of Limitations 1623, was an Act of the Parliament of England.
The whole Act was repealed by section 1(1) of, and Group 5 of Part I of Schedule 1 to, the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1986.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_Act_1623
Limitation Act is a stock short title used for legislation in Malaysia and the United Kingdom which relates to limitation of actions.
The Bill for an Act with this short title may have been known as a Limitation Bill during its passage through Parliament.
Limitation Acts may be a generic name which refers to all statutes with this short title or which relate to limitation of actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_Act
List
Malaysia
- The Limitation Act 1953
United Kingdom
- The Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Act 1945 (8 & 9 Geo.6 c. 16)
- The Limitation Act 1623 (21 Jac.1 c. 16)
- The Limitation Act 1939 (2 & 3 Geo.6 c. 21)
- The Law Reform (Limitation of Acts, etc.) Act 1954 (2 & 3 Eliz.2 c. 36)
- The Limitation Act 1963 (c. 47)
- The Limitation Act 1975 (c. 54)
England and Wales
- The Limitation Amendment Act 1980 (c. 24)
- The Limitation Act 1980 (c. 58) (one repeal, with saving, extends to Northern Ireland)
- The Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 (c. 16)
Scotland
- The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 52)
- The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 45)
Northern Ireland
Limitation Order
A number of Orders in Council with this title, and variations of it, have been passed. The change in nomenclature is due to the demise of the Parliament of Northern Ireland and the imposition of direct rule. These orders are considered to be primary legislation.
- The Limitation Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (S.I. 1982/339 (N.I. 7))
- The Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/754 (N.I. 5))
- The Limitation (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/1629 (N.I. 17)
- The Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1339 (N.I. 11))
See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_Act
Category:Statutes of limitations
Pages in category "Statutes of limitations"
The following 23 pages are in this category, out of 23 total. This list may not reflect recent changes.
C
- Caillot v. Deetken
- Caldwell v. J. H. Findorff & Son, Inc.
- City of Gotha and Federal Republic of Germany v. Sotheby's and Cobert Finance S.A.
- Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods
- Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity
M
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Statutes_of_limitations
A statute of limitations, known in civil law systems as a prescriptive period, is a law passed by a legislative body to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated.[1][2] In most jurisdictions, such periods exist for both criminal law and civil law such as contract law and property law, though often under different names and with varying details.
When the time which is specified in a statute of limitations runs out, a claim might no longer be filed or, if it is filed, it may be subject to dismissal if the defense against that claim is raised that the claim is time-barred as having been filed after the statutory limitations period.[3]
When a statute of limitations expires in a criminal case, the courts no longer have jurisdiction. Most common crimes that have statutes of limitations are distinguished from particularly serious crimes because the latter claims may be brought at any time.
In civil law systems, such provisions are typically part of their civil and criminal codes. The cause of action dictates the statute of limitations, which can be reduced or extended in order to ensure a full and fair trial.[4] The intention of these laws is to facilitate resolution within a "reasonable" period of time.[5] What amount of time is considered "reasonable" varies from country to country.[6] In the United States, it may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and state to state. Internationally, the statute of limitations may vary from one civil or criminal action to another. Some countries have no statute of limitations whatsoever.
Analysis of a statute of limitations also requires the examination of any associated statute of repose, tolling provisions, and exclusions.
Applications
Common law legal systems can include a statute specifying the length of time within which a claimant or prosecutor must file a case. In some civil jurisdictions (e.g., California),[2] a case cannot begin after the period specified, and courts have no jurisdiction over cases filed after the statute of limitations has expired. In some other jurisdictions (e.g., New South Wales, Australia), a claim can be filed which may prove to have been brought outside the limitations period, but the court will retain jurisdiction in order to determine that issue, and the onus is on the defendant to plead it as part of their defence, or else the claim will not be statute barred.
Once they are filed, cases do not need to be resolved within the period specified in the statute of limitations.
Purpose
The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment:[7]
- A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.
- By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim.
- Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.
In Classical Athens, a five-year statute of limitations was established for almost all cases, exceptions being such as the prosecution of non-constitutional laws (which had no limitation). Demosthenes wrote that these statutes of limitations were adopted to control "sycophants" (professional accusers).[8]
The limitation period generally begins when the plaintiff's cause of action accrues, meaning the date upon which the plaintiff is first able to maintain the cause of action in court, or when the plaintiff first becomes aware of a previous injury (for example, occupational lung diseases such as asbestosis).
Statute of repose
A statute of repose limits the time within which an action may be brought based upon when a particular event occurred (such as the completion of construction of a building or the date of purchase of manufactured goods), and does not permit extensions. A statute of limitations is similar to a statute of repose, but may be extended for a variety of reasons (such as the minority of the victim).
For example, most U.S. jurisdictions have passed statutes of repose for construction defects.[9][10][11][12] If a person receives an electric shock due to a wiring defect that resulted from the builder's negligence during construction of a building, the builder is potentially liable for damages if the suit is brought within the time period defined by the statute, normally starting with the date that construction is substantially completed. After the statutory time period has passed, without regard to the nature or degree of the builder's negligence or misconduct, the statute of repose presents an absolute defense to the claim.
Statutes of repose are sometimes controversial; manufacturers contend that they are necessary to avoid unfair litigation and encourage consumers to maintain their property. Alternatively, consumer advocates argue that they reduce incentives to manufacture durable products and disproportionately affect the poor, because manufacturers will have less incentive to ensure low-cost or "bargain" products are manufactured to exacting safety standards.
Tolling and the discovery rule
 | The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (August 2015) |
Many jurisdictions toll or suspend the limitation period in exceptional circumstances such as if the aggrieved person (plaintiff, appellant or petitioner) was a minor, or has filed a bankruptcy proceeding. In those instances, the running of limitations is tolled or paused, until the condition ends. Equitable tolling may also be applied if an individual may intimidate a moving party into not reporting or has been promised a suspended period.
The statute of limitations may begin when the harmful event, such as fraud or injury, occurs or it may begin when the harmful event is discovered. The U.S. Supreme Court has described the "standard rule" of when the time begins as "when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action." The rule has existed since the 1830s.[13] A "discovery rule" applies in other cases (including medical malpractice), or a similar effect may be applied by tolling.
According to U.S. district judge Sean J. McLaughlin, the discovery rule does not apply to mass media such as newspapers and the Internet; the statute of limitations begins to run at the date of publication.[14] In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Gabelli v. SEC that the discovery rule does not apply to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's investment-advisor-fraud lawsuits since one of the purposes of the agency is to root out fraud.[15]
In private civil matters, the limitation period may generally be shortened or lengthened by agreement of the parties. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the parties to a contract for sale of goods may reduce the limitation period to one year but not extend it.
Limitation periods that are known as laches may apply in situations of equity; a judge will not issue an injunction if the requesting party waited too long to ask for it. Such periods are subject to broad judicial discretion.
For US military cases, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) states that all charges except those facing court-martial on a capital charge have a five-year statute of limitations. If the charges are dropped in all UCMJ proceedings except those headed for general court-martial, they may be reinstated for six months after which the statute of limitations has run out.
Prescription
![[icon]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2015) |
In civil law countries, almost all lawsuits must be brought within a legally-determined period at the end of which the right of action is extinguished. This is known as liberative or extinctive prescription. Under Italian[16] and Romanian law,[17] criminal trials must be ended within a time limit.
In criminal cases, the public prosecutor must lay charges within a time limit which varies by jurisdiction and varies based on the nature of the charge, whose directives vary from country to country. Over the last decade of the 20th century, many United States jurisdictions significantly lengthened the statute of limitations for sex offenses, particularly against children, as a response to research and popular belief that a variety of causes can delay the recognition and reporting of crimes of this nature.[citation needed]
Common triggers for suspending the prescription include a defendant's fugitive status or the commission of a new crime. In some jurisdictions, a criminal may be convicted in absentia.[18] Prescription should not be confused with the need to prosecute within "a reasonable delay" as obligated by the European Court of Human Rights.[19]
Laws by region
International crimes
Under international law, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are usually not subject to the statute of limitations as codified in a number of multilateral treaties.[20] States ratifying the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity agree to disallow limitations claims for these crimes. In Article 29 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes "shall not be subject to any statute of limitations".
Australia
In Australia, there are no statutes of limitation in criminal proceedings if the maximum penalty that can be imposed for an offence committed by an individual includes imprisonment for more than 6 months. For civil matters, the statutes of limitation are prescribed by each state or territory jurisdiction.[21]
Victoria
The Limitations Act of 1958 allows 12 years for victims of child abuse to make a claim, with age 37 the latest at which a claim can be made. The police submitted evidence[22][failed verification] to a commission, the Victorian Inquiry into Church and Institutional Child Abuse (in existence since 2012) indicating that it takes an average of 24 years for a victims of child sexual abuse to go to the police.[23] According to Attorney General Robert Clark, the government will remove statutes of limitations on criminal child abuse; victims of violent crime should be given additional time, as adults, to deal with the legal system.[24] Offenders of minors and the disabled have used the statute of limitations to avoid detection and prosecution, moving from state to state and country to country; an example which was presented to the Victorian Inquiry was the Christian Brothers.[25]
An argument for abolishing statutes of limitations for civil claims by minors and people under guardianship is ensuring that abuse of vulnerable people would be acknowledged by lawyers, police, organisations and governments, with enforceable penalties for organisations which have turned a blind eye in the past. Support groups such as SNAP Australia,[26] Care Leavers Australia Network[27] and Broken Rites have submitted evidence to the Victoria inquiry,[28] and the Law Institute of Victoria[29] has advocated changes to the statute of limitations.
Western Australia
The Criminal Procedure Act 2004 outlines the statute of limitations, stating that a simple offence (an offence which can only be brought to a magistrate's court, and cannot include more than 12 months' imprisonment as the maximum penalty) shall have a statute of limitations of 12 months. However, all crimes (offences which can be brought to a district court or the supreme court) have no statute of limitations. Furthermore, a person may be charged with a simple offence after 12 months' if the person consents to such a charge being laid, or if that offence has a different statute of limitations as provided by law.[30]
Canada
Summary conviction offences have a limitation period of 12 months.[31]
Indictable (serious) offences such as fraud, serious theft, murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, sexual assault, arson, bribery, perjury, do not have a limitation period. A defendant can be charged at any future date.[32] In sexual abuse cases in particular, men and women have been charged and convicted up to five decades after the abuse had been committed.[33][34][35]
Civil law limitations vary by province.[36] In Ontario, this is governed by the Limitations Act, 2002.[37]
Finland
In Finland, the authority of a prosecuting official to bring charges for a crime expires after a set period of time has passed since the act. This period is 20, 10, 5, or 2, years depending on the seriousness of the offence. Offences punishable with life imprisonment, such as murder and treason, do not expire. Sexual offences committed against minors do not expire before the victim reaches 23 or 28 years of age, depending on the nature of the offence.[citation needed]
Germany
In Germany, the statute of limitations on crimes varies by type of crime, with the highest statute of limitation being 30 years for voluntary manslaughter (Totschlag). Murder, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression have no statute of limitations.
In Germany, the crime of murder used to have a 20 year statute of limitations. In 1969, the statute of limitations for murder was extended from twenty to 30 years. The limitations were abolished altogether in 1979, in order to prevent Nazi criminals from avoiding criminal liability.
For most other criminal offences, the statute of limitations is set by Section 78(3) of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) as follows:
- 30 years for offences which are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment for life;
- 20 years for offences which are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of over 10 years but not by imprisonment for life;
- 10 years for offences which are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of over 5 years but no more than 10 years;
- 5 years for offences which are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of over 1 year but no more than 5 years;
- 3 years for all other offences.[38]
In the civil code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch), the regular statute of limitations is three years (plus the time until the end of the calendar year); however, different terms between two and thirty years may apply in specific situations. For example, the term is only two years for claims for alleged defects of purchased goods, but 30 years for claims resulting from a court judgement (such as awarded damages).
India
The statute of limitations in India is defined by the Limitations Act, 1963.[39]
The statute of limitations for criminal offences is governed by Sec. 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ireland
New Zealand
The statutes of limitations in New Zealand are defined by section 25 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. For offences committed by body corporates, the statutes of limitation are determined as if they were a natural person. The limits are as follows:[40]
- 6 months for offences which are punishable by a maximum of 3 months imprisonment or a $7,500 fine.
- 12 months for offences which are punishable by a maximum of 6 months imprisonment or a $20,000 fine.
- 5 years for offences which are punishable by a maximum of 3 years imprisonment, although this can be extended with the consent of the Solicitor-General.
- No limit for offences which are punishable by more than 3 years imprisonment.
Norway
The statute of limitations on murder was abolished by a change in law on 1 July 2014, causing any murders committed after 1 July 1989 to have no statute of limitations. This led to the national police force implementing a new investigation group for old cases called the "Cold Case" group. The law was also changed to let cases involving domestic violence, forced marriage, human trafficking and genital mutilation to count from the day the defendant turns 18 years old. Cases where the statute of limitations has already passed can not be extended due to the constitution preventing it.[41]
Philippines
In the Philippines, the Revised Penal Code has different limitation periods, based on the penalty of the crime:[42]
- Reclusión perpetua or reclusión temporal (imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 40 years): 20 years
- Other afflictive penalties (imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years): 15 years
- Correctional penalties: 10 years, except:
- Arresto mayor (imprisonment of 1 month and 1 day to 6 months): 5 years
- Libel and other similar offenses: 1 year
- Oral defamation and slander: 6 months
- Light penalties (imprisonment of 1 day to 30 days): 2 months
Other special laws have their own limitation periods. For crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the limitation period won't run if the offender is outside the Philippines, while for those punished under other laws, it does. Municipal ordinances have a limitation period of 2 months.
South Korea
In July 2015, the National Assembly abolished a 25-year limit on first degree murder; it had previously been extended from 15 to 25 years in December 2007.[43]
Turkey
Turkish Code of Obligations sets the general limitation period to ten years, which applies where the law does not provide a specific limitation period.[44]
There is no statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors, however, under both the Turkish Penal Code (article 99) and Turkish Civil Code (Law No. 2827).[45]
United Kingdom
Unlike many countries, the United Kingdom has no statute of limitations for criminal offences above summary offences (offences tried exclusively in the magistrates’ court).[46] In these cases, criminal proceedings must be brought within six months according to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. To obtain a conviction in "some road traffic offences" (i.e., speeding) the driver must be notified, within 14 days of the offence, of the intention to prosecute them according to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.[47]
For civil claims, the statute of limitations varies depending on the type of claim. For example, a claim (debt) from a simple contract can no longer be pursued after six years.
United States
In the United States, statutes of limitations may apply in criminal procedures and civil lawsuits.[48][49] Statutes of limitations vary significantly among U.S. jurisdictions.
A government agency is permitted by the Congress to create under federal regulations its own statute of limitations.[50]
Retroactive extensions
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Stogner v. California (by a 5–4 majority) that California's retroactive extension of the criminal statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law.[51]
Civil statutes
A civil statute of limitations applies to a non-criminal legal action, including a tort or contract case. If the statute of limitations expires before a lawsuit is filed, the defendant may raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense to seek dismissal of the charge. The exact time period depends on both the state and the type of claim (contract claim, personal injury, fraud etc.). Most fall in the range of one to ten years, with two to three years being most common.
Criminal statutes
A criminal statute of limitations defines a time period during which charges must be initiated for a criminal offense.[52] If a charge is filed after the statute of limitations expires, the defendant may obtain dismissal of the charge.
Initiation of charges
The statute of limitations in a criminal case only runs until a criminal charge is filed and a warrant issued, even if the defendant is a fugitive.[53] When the identity of a defendant is not known, some jurisdictions provide mechanisms to initiate charges and thus stop the statute of limitations from running. For example, some states allow an indictment of a John Doe defendant based upon a DNA profile derived from evidence obtained through a criminal investigation.[54] Although rare, a grand jury can issue an indictment in absentia for high-profile crimes to get around an upcoming statute of limitations deadline. One example is the skyjacking of Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 305 by D. B. Cooper in 1971. The identity of D. B. Cooper remains unknown to this day, and he was indicted under the name "John Doe, aka Dan Cooper."[55]
Heinous crimes
Crimes which are widely considered heinous have no statute of limitations. Although there is usually no statute of limitations for murder (particularly first-degree murder), judges have been known to dismiss murder charges in cold cases if they feel that the delay violates the defendant's right to a speedy trial.[56] For example, waiting many years for an alibi witness to die before commencing a murder trial would be unconstitutional.[citation needed]
Military law
Under the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), desertion has no statute of limitations.[57]
Maritime Injury Law
Under 46 U.S. Code § 30106, "Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action for damages for personal injury or death arising out of a maritime tort must be brought within 3 years after the cause of action arose." There are some exceptions to this, primarily with regard to Jones Act cases filed against the government, in which case the statute of limitations can be less than 2 years.[58]
State laws
| State | Misdemeanor | Felony | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | 1 year[59] |
|
A bill was proposed to abolish the statute of limitations for most sex offenses, but it was not submitted for a vote in the state senate. Efforts continue to pass legislation to extend the limitations period for the prosecution of sex offenses.[60] |
| Michigan | 6 years |
|
Statute of limitation tolls if defendant is not a resident and did not usually and publicly reside in the state. See MCL 767.24 |
| North Carolina | 2 years | No limits | No statute of limitations for "malicious misdemeanors", per NCGS §15-1 |
| Utah |
|
| |
| Wyoming | None | No limits | No statute of limitations |
Exceptions
U.S. jurisdictions recognize exceptions to statutes of limitation that may allow for the prosecution of a crime or civil lawsuit even after the statute of limitations would otherwise have expired. Some states stop the clock for a suspect who is not residing within the state or is purposely hiding. Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina have no statutes of limitation for felonies, while Wyoming includes misdemeanors as well. However, the right to speedy trial may derail any prosecution after many years have passed.[63]
Fraud on the court
When an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to impair the court's impartial performance of its legal task, the act (known as fraud upon the court) is not subject to a statute of limitation: "This concept that the inherent power of federal courts to vacate a fraudulently obtained judgment—even years after the judgment was entered—has long been recognized by the Supreme Court."[64] Fraud on the court can be done many ways and in any court. One of which can be "where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."[65] Officer of the court includes any judge, law clerk, court clerk, lawyer, investigator, probation officer, referee, legal guardian, parenting-time expeditor, mediator, evaluator, administrator, special appointee, and/or anyone else whose influence is part of the judicial mechanism.[66][67]
Continuing-violations doctrine
In tort law, if any person or entity commits a series of illegal acts against another person or entity (or in criminal law if a defendant commits a continuing crime) the limitation period may begin to run from the last act in the series.[68][69] The entire chain of events can be tolled if the violations were continuing. Courts have explained that the continuing-violations doctrine "tolls the statute of limitations in situations where a continuing pattern forms due to discriminatory acts which have been occurring over a period of time, as long as at least one incident of discrimination occurred within the limitations period."[70] Whether the continuing-violations doctrine applies to a particular violation is subject to judicial discretion; it was said to apply to copyright infringement in the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit,[71] but not in the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit.[72][73]
See also
References
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to actions taken on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, regardless of when the conviction occurred....
The issue before the Court is whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would apply the discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations in a mass-media defamation case. The Court holds that it would not.
(v) For which a three-member panel of the Board agrees that reopening is warranted when the following circumstances are present, provided that a respondent may file only one motion to reopen pursuant to this paragraph (c)(3): (A) A material change in fact or law underlying a removability ground or grounds specified in section 212 or 237 of the Act that occurred after the entry of an administratively final order that vitiates all grounds of removability applicable to the alien; and (B) The movant exercised diligence in pursuing the motion to reopen;
(vi) Filed based on specific allegations, supported by evidence, that the respondent is a United States citizen or national....") (emphasis added)
- "Stogner v. California". oyez.org. Retrieved 30 December 2007.
Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials.
Traditionally, in tort law, 'proximate cause' has been defined as a person's wrongful conduct which is a substantial factor in bringing about harm to another.
- "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 January 2012. Retrieved 13 August 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations
An inquisitorial system is a legal system in which the court, or a part of the court, is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case. This is distinct from an adversarial system, in which the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense. Inquisitorial systems are used primarily in countries with civil legal systems, such as France and Italy, or legal systems based on Islamic law like Saudi Arabia,[1] rather than in common law systems. It is the prevalent legal system in Continental Europe, Latin America, African countries not formerly under British rule, East Asia (except Hong Kong), Indochina, Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia. Most countries with an inquisitorial system also have some form of civil code as their main source of law.
Countries using common law, including the United States, may use an inquisitorial system for summary hearings in the case of misdemeanors or infractions, such as minor traffic violations. The distinction between an adversarial and inquisitorial system is theoretically unrelated to the distinction between a civil legal and common-law system. Some legal scholars consider inquisitorial misleading, and prefer the word nonadversarial.[2] The function is often vested in the office of the public procurator, as in China, Japan, and Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system
Precognition in Scots law is the practice of precognoscing a witness, that is the taking of a factual statement from witnesses by both prosecution and defence after indictment or claim but before trial. This is often undertaken by trainee lawyers or precognition officers employed by firms; anecdotal evidence suggests many of these are former police officers.[1]
This procedure is followed in both civil and criminal causes.[2] The subsequent statement is generally inadmissible as evidence in the trial,[3] but it allows the procurator fiscal, advocate or solicitor in Scotland to appear before the Courts of Scotland knowing what evidence each witness is likely to present. Following the judgement of the Appeal Court in Beurskens v HM Advocate [2014] HCJAC 99 it is possible for a precognition to be considered as a statement, and thus be admissible as evidence in court.[4]
Historically precognitions were not only a distinctive feature of Scottish criminal procedure, but vital to the defence. Before the passage of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 there was limited disclosure by the prosecution to the defence.[5] Section 121 of 2010 Act required the prosecutor to disclose all information that would "materially weaken or undermine the evidence... by the prosecution", "materially strengthen the accused's case", or "form part of the evidence to be by the prosecutor".[6] This was in response to the 2007 review by Lord Coulsfield. Before this the accused was entitled to a copy of the indictment with all the charges laid against them, and to a list of prosecution witnesses and productions (other evidence)[7] and to all statements taken by the prosecution and knowledge of witnesses prior criminal records.[8]
Police officers from Police Scotland can be asked to attend for precognition by solicitors for the defence, and it is possible for them to refuse to attend (except where a Sheriff orders a precognition on oath). However, as of 7 August 2013 Police Scotland had no record of how many officers had refused to attend a precognition for the defence.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognition_(Scots_law)
In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard[1] by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal or the issuing of a search warrant. There is no universally accepted definition or formulation for probable cause. One traditional definition, which comes from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1964 decision Beck v. Ohio, is when "whether at [the moment of arrest] the facts and circumstances within [an officer's] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient to warrant a prudent [person] in believing that [a suspect] had committed or was committing an offense."[2]
It is also the standard by which grand juries issue criminal indictments. The principle behind the standard is to limit the power of authorities to perform random or abusive searches (unlawful search and seizure), and to promote lawful evidence gathering and procedural form during criminal arrest and prosecution. The standard also applies to personal or property searches.[3]
The term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Probable in this case may relate to statistical probability or to a general standard of common behavior and customs. The context of the word probable here is not exclusive to community standards, and could partially derive from its use in formal mathematical statistics as some have suggested;[4] but cf. probō, Latin etymology.
In U.S. immigration proceedings, the “reason to believe” standard has been interpreted as equivalent to probable cause.[5]
Probable cause should not be confused with reasonable suspicion, which is the required criteria to perform a Terry stop in the United States of America. The criteria for reasonable suspicion are less strict than those for probable cause.
Definition
A common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".[6] Notable in this definition is a lack of requirement for public position or public authority of the individual making the recognition, allowing for use of the term by citizens and/or the general public. One nonlegal definition of probable cause is, “(A) reasonable ground for supposing that a charge is well-founded” (Merriam-Webster, 2019).
In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar–Spinelli test.
In Brinegar v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court defines probable cause as "where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed."[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
A writ of assistance is a written order (a writ) issued by a court instructing a law enforcement official, such as a sheriff or a tax collector, to perform a certain task. Historically, several types of writs have been called "writs of assistance".[1] Most often, a writ of assistance is "used to enforce an order for the possession of lands".[2] When used to evict someone from real property, such a writ is also called a writ of restitution or a writ of possession.[3] In the area of customs, writs of assistance were a product of enactments of the British Parliament beginning with the Customs Act of 1660 (12 Charles II c.11, sec. 1) though the first mention of the phrase was in the follow-up Customs Act of 1662 (14 Charles II, c.11, sec.4).[4] The writs of assistance were issued by the Court of Exchequer to help customs officials search for smuggled goods. These writs were called "writs of assistance" because they called upon sheriffs, other officials, and loyal subjects to "assist" the customs official in carrying out his duties.[5]
In general, customs writs of assistance served as general search warrants that did not expire, allowing customs officials to search anywhere for smuggled goods without having to obtain a specific warrant. These writs became controversial when they were issued by courts in British America between 1755 and 1760 (then mirroring like writs having previously been issued, and being enforced, in the motherland by Britain's Exchequer Court), especially the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Controversy over these general writs of assistance inspired the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbids general search warrants in the United States of America. Though generally these colonial writs were no more onerous than the ones enforced in Britain, a fallacious 1760 London Magazine article asserted the writs issued in the motherland "...were specific, not general" thereby generating the perception in the colonies that the colonists were being treated unfairly. John Adams was to later assert that the ensuing court battle was the "seeds of the American Revolution."[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance
The Navigation Acts, or more broadly the Acts of Trade and Navigation, were a long series of English laws that developed, promoted, and regulated English ships, shipping, trade, and commerce between other countries and with its own colonies. The laws also regulated England's fisheries and restricted foreigners' participation in its colonial trade.[1] While based on earlier precedents, they were first enacted in 1651 under the Commonwealth.
The system was reenacted and broadened with the Restoration by the Act of 1660, and further developed and tightened by the Navigation Acts of 1663, 1673, and 1696.[2] Upon this basis during the 18th century, the Acts were modified by subsequent amendments, changes, and the addition of enforcement mechanisms and staff. Additionally, a major change in the very purpose of the Acts in the 1760s – that of generating a colonial revenue, rather than only regulating the Empire's trade – would help lead to major rebellions,[3] and significant changes in the implementation of the Acts themselves.[4]
The Acts generally prohibited the use of foreign ships, required the employment of English and colonial mariners for 75% of the crews, including East India Company ships. The Acts prohibited colonies from exporting specific, enumerated, products to countries other than Britain and those countries' colonies, and mandated that imports be sourced only through Britain.
Overall, the Acts formed the basis for English (and later) British overseas trade for nearly 200 years, but with the development and gradual acceptance of free trade, the Acts were eventually repealed in 1849. The laws reflected the European economic theory of mercantilism which sought to keep all the benefits of trade inside their respective Empires, and to minimize the loss of gold and silver, or profits, to foreigners through purchases and trade. The system would develop with the colonies supplying raw materials for British industry, and in exchange for this guaranteed market, the colonies would purchase manufactured goods from or through Britain.
The major impetus for the first Navigation Act was the ruinous deterioration of English trade in the aftermath of the Eighty Years' War, and the associated lifting of the Spanish embargoes on trade between the Spanish Empire and the Dutch Republic. The end of the embargoes in 1647 unleashed the full power of the Amsterdam Entrepôt and other Dutch competitive advantages in European and world trade. Within a few years, English merchants had practically been overwhelmed in the Baltic and North sea trade, as well as trade with the Iberian Peninsula, the Mediterranean and the Levant. Even the trade with English colonies (partly still in the hands of the royalists, as the English Civil War was in its final stages and the Commonwealth of England had not yet imposed its authority throughout the English colonies) was "engrossed" by Dutch merchants. English direct trade was crowded out by a sudden influx of commodities from the Levant, Mediterranean and the Spanish and Portuguese empires, and the West Indies via the Dutch Entrepôt, carried in Dutch ships and for Dutch account.[5]
The obvious solution seemed to be to seal off the English markets to these unwanted imports. A precedent was the Act the Greenland Company had obtained from Parliament in 1645 prohibiting the import of whale products into England, except in ships owned by that company. This principle was now generalized. In 1648 the Levant Company petitioned Parliament for the prohibition of imports of Turkish goods "...from Holland and other places but directly from the places of their growth."[6] Baltic traders added their voices to this chorus. In 1650 the Standing Council for Trade and the Council of State of the Commonwealth prepared a general policy designed to impede the flow of Mediterranean and colonial commodities via Holland and Zeeland into England.[7]
Following the 1696 act, the Acts of Trade and Navigation were generally obeyed, except for the Molasses Act 1733, which led to extensive smuggling because no effective means of enforcement was provided until the 1760s. Stricter enforcement under the Sugar Act 1764 became one source of resentment of Great Britain by merchants in the American colonies. This, in turn, helped push the American colonies to rebel in the late 18th century, even though the consensus view among modern economic historians and economists is that the "costs imposed on [American] colonists by the trade restrictions of the Navigation Acts were small."[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_Acts
The Board of Trade is a British government body concerned with commerce and industry, currently within the Department for Business and Trade.[1] Its full title is The Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council appointed for the consideration of all matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations, but is commonly known as the Board of Trade, and formerly known as the Lords of Trade and Plantations or Lords of Trade, and it has been a committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. The board has gone through several evolutions, beginning with extensive involvement in colonial matters in the 17th century, to powerful regulatory functions in the Victorian Era and early 20th century. It was virtually dormant in the last third of 20th century. In 2017, it was revitalised as an advisory board headed by the International Trade Secretary who has nominally held the title of President of the Board of Trade, and who at present is the only privy counsellor of the board, the other members of the present board filling roles as advisers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Trade
In the history of colonialism, a plantation was a form of colonization where settlers would establish permanent or semi-permanent colonial settlements in a new region. The term first appeared in the 1580s in the English language to describe the process of colonization before being also used to refer to a colony by the 1610s. By the 1710s, the word was also being used to describe large farms where cash crop goods were produced, typically in tropical regions.[1]
The first plantations were established during the Edwardian conquest of Wales and the plantations of Ireland by the English Crown. In Wales, King Edward I of England began a policy of constructing a chain of fortifications and castles in North Wales to control the native Welsh population; the Welsh were only permitted to enter the fortifications and castles unarmed during the day and were forbidden from trading.[2] In Ireland, during the Tudor and Stuart eras the English Crown initiated a large-scale colonization of Ireland, in particular the province of Ulster, with Protestant settlers from Great Britain. These plantations led to the demography of Ireland becoming permanently altered, creating a new Protestant Ascendancy which would dominate Irish society for the next few centuries.[3]
In North America, during the period of European colonization in the early modern period, several plantations were established by English settlers, including in Virginia, Rhode Island, and elsewhere throughout the Thirteen Colonies. Other European colonial powers used the plantation method of colonization as well, though not to the extent of English settlers.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_(settlement_or_colony)
Free trade is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports. In government, free trade is predominantly advocated by political parties that hold economically liberal positions, while economic nationalist and left-wing political parties generally support protectionism,[1][2][3][4] the opposite of free trade.
Most nations are today members of the World Trade Organization multilateral trade agreements. Free trade was best exemplified by the unilateral stance of Great Britain who reduced regulations and duties on imports and exports from the mid-nineteenth century to the 1920s.[5] An alternative approach, of creating free trade areas between groups of countries by agreement, such as that of the European Economic Area and the Mercosur open markets, creates a protectionist barrier between that free trade area and the rest of the world. Most governments still impose some protectionist policies that are intended to support local employment, such as applying tariffs to imports or subsidies to exports. Governments may also restrict free trade to limit exports of natural resources. Other barriers that may hinder trade include import quotas, taxes and non-tariff barriers, such as regulatory legislation.
Historically, openness to free trade substantially increased from 1815 to the outbreak of World War I. Trade openness increased again during the 1920s, but collapsed (in particular in Europe and North America) during the Great Depression. Trade openness increased substantially again from the 1950s onwards (albeit with a slowdown during the 1973 oil crisis). Economists and economic historians contend that current levels of trade openness are the highest they have ever been.[6][7][8]
Economists are generally supportive of free trade.[9] There is a broad consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare while free trade and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth[10][11][12][13][14][15] and economic stability.[16] However, in the short run, liberalization of trade can cause significant and unequally distributed losses and the economic dislocation of workers in import-competing sectors.[11][17][18]
Features
Free trade policies may promote the following features:[citation needed]
- Trade of goods without taxes (including tariffs) or other trade barriers (e.g. quotas on imports or subsidies for producers).
- Trade in services without taxes or other trade barriers.
- The absence of "trade-distorting" policies (such as taxes, subsidies, regulations, or laws) that give some firms, households, or factors of production an advantage over others.
- Unregulated access to markets.
- Unregulated access to market information.
- Inability of firms to distort markets through government-imposed monopoly or oligopoly power.
- Trade agreements which encourage free trade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_of_the_Exchequer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Restoration
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=debarrment&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1
Debarment is the state of being excluded from enjoying certain possessions, rights, privileges, or practices and the act of prevention by legal means. For example, companies can be debarred from contracts due to allegations of fraud, mismanagement, and similar improprieties. Firms, individuals, and non-governmental organizations can be debarred.
In cross-debarment, organizations and agencies agree to mutually exclude others based on debarment by affiliates.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debarment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/execution
An ex post facto law[1] is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
State collapse is a sudden dissolution of a sovereign state.[1] It is often used to describe extreme situations in which state institutions dissolve rapidly.[2][1] When a new regime moves in, often led by the military, civil society typically fails to rally around the central government, and societal actors fend for themselves at the local level.[1] Neighboring states interfere politically, sometimes harboring dissidents within their borders, and the informal economy becomes dominant, operating beyond the control of the state and further undermining potential reconstruction.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_collapse
In politics, regulatory capture (also agency capture and client politics) is a form of corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group.[1][2]
When regulatory capture occurs, a special interest is prioritized over the general interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. The theory of client politics is related to that of rent-seeking and political failure; client politics "occurs when most or all of the benefits of a program go to some single, reasonably small interest (e.g., industry, profession, or locality) but most or all of the costs will be borne by a large number of people (for example, all taxpayers)".[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_Capture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization
 The Code of Federal Regulations | |
| Discipline | Administrative law |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Publication details | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register (United States) |
| Frequency | Annually |
| License | Public domain |
| Standard abbreviations | |
| Bluebook | C.F.R. |
| ISO 4 | Code Fed. Regul. |
| Indexing | |
| ISSN | 1946-4975 |
| Links | |
| Administrative law of the United States |
|---|
 |
| General |
| Statutory framework |
| Policy coordination |
| Judicial review of agency action |
| Separation of powers |
| Related areas of law (and agencies) |
| Related topics |
In the law of the United States, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general and permanent regulations promulgated by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government of the United States. The CFR is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation.
The CFR annual edition is published as a special issue of the Federal Register by the Office of the Federal Register (part of the National Archives and Records Administration) and the Government Publishing Office.[1] In addition to this annual edition, the CFR is published online on the Electronic CFR (eCFR) website, which is updated daily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Federal_Regulations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_code
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Law_Revision_Counsel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/calorie_anorexia_calorie-count_thermodynamics_bomb-calorimeter_measure_weight_genetics_deformation-obesity- etc.
| Part of a series on |
| Weather |
|---|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Weather portal |
The dry season is a yearly period of low rainfall, especially in the tropics. The weather in the tropics is dominated by the tropical rain belt, which moves from the northern to the southern tropics and back over the course of the year. The temperate counterpart to the tropical dry season is summer or winter.
Rain belt
The tropical rain belt lies in the southern hemisphere roughly from October to March; during that time the northern tropics have a dry season with sparser precipitation, and days are typically sunny throughout. From April to September, the rain belt lies in the northern hemisphere, and the southern tropics have their dry season. Under the Köppen climate classification, for tropical climates, a dry season month is defined as a month when average precipitation is below 60 millimetres (2.4 in).[1]
The rain belt reaches roughly as far north as the Tropic of Cancer and as far south as the Tropic of Capricorn. Near these latitudes, there is one wet season and one dry season annually. At the equator there are two wet and two dry seasons, as the rain belt passes over twice a year, once moving north and once moving south. Between the tropics and the equator, locations may experience a short wet and a long wet season; and a short dry and a long dry season. Local geography may substantially modify these climate patterns, however.
Drought
During the dry season, humidity is very low, causing some watering holes and rivers to dry up. This lack of water (and lack of food supply) may force many grazing animals to migrate to more fertile spots. Examples of such animals are: zebras, elephants, giraffe, rhinoceros, antelope and wildebeest, water buffalo, cape buffalo, gaur, tapir, emu, ostrich, rhea, and kangaroos. Because of the lack of water in the plants, bushfires (wildfires) are common.[2]
Diseases
Data shows that in Africa the start of the dry season coincides with a rise in the cases of measles—which researchers believe might be attributed to the higher concentration of people in the dry season, as agricultural operations are all but impossible without irrigation. During this time, some farmers move into cities, creating hubs of higher population density, and allowing the disease to spread more easily.[3]
Research
New data shows that in the seasonal parts of the South American Amazon rainforest, foliage growth and coverage varies between the dry and wet seasons—with about 25% more leaves and faster growth in the dry season. Researchers believe that the Amazon itself has an effect in bringing[clarification needed] the onset of the wet season: by growing more foliage, it evaporates more water.[4] However, this growth appears only in the undisturbed parts of the Amazon basin, where researchers believe roots can reach deeper and gather more rainwater.[5] It has also been shown that ozone levels are much higher in the dry than in the wet season in the Amazon basin.[6]
References
- Kirchhoff, V. W. J. H.; Da Silva, I. M. O.; Browell, E. V. (1990). "Ozone measurements in Amazonia: Dry season versus wet season". Journal of Geophysical Research. 95 (D10): 16913. Bibcode:1990JGR....9516913K. doi:10.1029/jd095id10p16913. Archived from the original on 2011-06-06. Retrieved 2008-04-21.
| Authority control: National |
|---|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas_Indicopleustes
Grim's Ditch, Grim's Dyke (also Grimsdyke or Grimes Dike in derivative names) or Grim's Bank is a name shared by a number of prehistoric bank and ditch linear earthworks across England. They are of different dates and may have had different functions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grim%27s_Ditch
.cover.jpg) Title page of first volume of Grimms' Kinder- und Hausmärchen (1819) 2nd ed. | |
| Author | Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm |
|---|---|
| Original title | Kinder- und Hausmärchen (lit. Children's and Household Tales) |
| Country | Germany |
| Language | German |
| Genre | |
| Published | 1812–1858 |
| Text | Grimms' Fairy Tales at Wikisource |
Grimms' Fairy Tales, originally known as the Children's and Household Tales (German: Kinder- und Hausmärchen, pronounced [ˌkɪndɐ ʔʊnt ˈhaʊsmɛːɐ̯çən]), is a German collection of fairy tales by the Grimm brothers or "Brothers Grimm", Jacob and Wilhelm, first published on 20 December 1812. Vol. 1 of the first edition contained 86 stories, which were followed by 70 more tales, numbered consecutively, in the 1st edition, Vol. 2, in 1815. By the seventh edition in 1857, the corpus of tales had expanded to 200 tales and 10 "Children's Legends". It is listed by UNESCO in its Memory of the World Registry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimms%27_Fairy_Tales
UNESCO's Memory of the World (MoW) Programme is an international initiative launched to safeguard the documentary heritage of humanity against collective amnesia, neglect, decay over time and climatic conditions, as well as deliberate destruction.[1] It calls for the preservation of valuable archival holdings, library collections, and private individual compendia all over the world for posterity, the reconstitution of dispersed or displaced documentary heritage, and increased accessibility to, and dissemination of, these items.[1][2][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_of_the_World_Programme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanus_of_Byzantium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas_Indicopleustes
The Book of Psalms (/sɑː(l)mz/ SAH(L)MZ or /sɔː(l)mz/ SAW(L)MZ;[2] Hebrew: תְּהִלִּים, Tehillim, lit. "praises"), also known as the Psalms, or the Psalter, is the first book of the third section of the Hebrew Bible called Ketuvim ("Writings"), and a book of the Old Testament.[3]
The book is an anthology of Hebrew religious hymns. In the Jewish and Western Christian traditions, there are 150 psalms, and several more in the Eastern Christian churches.[4][5] The book is divided into five sections, each ending with a doxology, or a hymn of praise. There are several types of psalms, including hymns or songs of praise, communal and individual laments, royal psalms and individual thanksgivings. The book also includes psalms of communal thanksgiving, wisdom, pilgrimage and other categories.
While many of the psalms contain attributions to the name of King David and other Biblical figures including Asaph, the sons of Korah, and Solomon, David's authorship is not accepted by most modern Bible scholars, who instead attribute the composition of the psalms to various authors writing between the 9th and 5th centuries BC. The psalms were written from the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan to the post-exilic period and the book was probably compiled and edited into its present form during the post-exilic period in the 5th century BC.[5]
In English, the title of the book is derived from the Greek word ψαλμοί (psalmoi), meaning "instrumental music" and, by extension, "the words accompanying the music".[6] The Hebrew name of the book, Tehillim (תהילים), means “praises,” as it contains many praises and supplications to God. In the Quran, the Arabic word Zabur is used for in reference to the psalms.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms
The elixir of life, also known as elixir of immortality, is a potion that supposedly grants the drinker eternal life and/or eternal youth. This elixir was also said to cure all diseases. Alchemists in various ages and cultures sought the means of formulating the elixir.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_of_life
No comments:
Post a Comment