DOCSLIB.ORG

Nineteenth Century Legal Treatises Legislature Author Index

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nineteenth Century Legal Treatises Legislature Author Index Nineteenth Century Legal Treatises Legislature Author Index Adam, Edwin, 1862-1931. Ball, J. T. (John Thomas), 1815-1898. An abridgment of the procedure acts passed by the Historical review of the legislative systems supreme courts in Scotland : containing the acts of operative in Ireland : from the invasion of Henry the sederunt of the Lords of Council and Session, from Second to the union (1172-1800). January 1852 to October 1886, and the acts of London ; New York : Longmans, Green. 1889 adjournal of the High Court of Justiciary, at present Legislature in force. xv, 304 p. ; 23 cm.; UK-65-172; new ed., rev. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark. 1886 throughout and enl. Legislature Fiche: 85485-85488 xii, 196 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.; UK-65-175; with notes and references by Edwin Adam. Bell, Robert, d. 1816. Fiche: 85517-85519 A treatise on the election laws, as they relate to the representation of Scotland : in the Parliament of Adams, John Quincy, 1767-1848. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Speech of John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, Edinburgh : Printed by G. Ramsay, for A. Constable. upon the right of the people, men and women, to 1812 petition ; On the freedom of speech and debate in the Legislature House of Representatives of the United States ; On xi, 523, cxi p. ; 27 cm.; UK-65-165. the resolutions of seven state legislatures, and the Fiche: 84960-84966 petitions of more than one hundred thousand petitioners, relating to the annexation of Texas to this Bentham, Jeremy, 1748-1832. Union : delivered in the House of Representatives of Plan of parliamentary reform : in the form of a the United States, in fragments of the morning hour, catechism with reasons for each article : with an from the 16th of June to the 7th of July 1838, introduction, shewing the necessity of radical, and the inclusive. inadequacy of moderate, reform. Washington : Gales and Seaton. 1838 London : T.J. Wooler. 1818 Legislature Legislature 131 p. ; 25 cm.; US-65-32. 156 p. ; 23 cm.; UK-65-112. Fiche: 36355-36356 Fiche: 55604-55605 Alexander, William, 1794-1859. Bentham, Jeremy, 1748-1832. The practice of the commissary courts in Scotland Plan of parliamentary reform : in the form of a : with an appendix containing acts of Parliament and catechism, with reasons for each article, with an sederunt, practical forms, etc. introduction, shewing the necessity of radical, and the Edinburgh : A. and C. Black. 1859 inadequacy of moderate, reform. Legislature London : R. Hunter. 1817 xii, 218 p. : ill. ; 26 cm.; UK-65-162. Legislature Fiche: 84555-84557 iv, cccxxxvii, 52, 16 p. ; 22 cm.; UK-65-137. Fiche: 68533-68537 Alton, Edmund, b. 1859. Among the law-makers. Bentham, Jeremy, 1748-1832. New York : C. Scribner's Sons. 1886 Principles of legislation : from the ms. of Jeremy Legislature Bentham. xiv, 308 p., [16] leaves of plates : ill., ports. ; 21 Boston : Wells and Lilly. 1830 cm.; US-65-25. Legislature Fiche: 36054-36058 310 p. ; 23 cm.; US-65-128; by M. Dumont. Fiche: 57974-57977 Anstey, Thomas Chisholme, 1816-1873. On some supposed constitutional restraints upon Bentham, Jeremy, 1748-1832. the parliamentary franchise. Theory of legislation. London : Office of the Social Science Association. Boston : Weeks, Jordan. 1840 1867 Legislature Legislature 2 v. ; 20 cm.; UK-65-89; translated from the French 48 p. ; 22 cm.; UK-65-113. of Etienne Dumont by R. Hildreth. Fiche: 55676 Fiche: 49920-49925 Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Bishop, Joel Prentiss, 1814-1901. Committee on the Amendment of the Law. Commentaries on the written laws and their Report of Committee on the Amendment of the interpretation. Law. Boston : Little, Brown. 1882 New York : The Association. 1889 Legislature Legislature viii, 354 p. ; 25 cm.; US-65-11. 8 p. ; 23 cm.; US-65-42. Fiche: 35482-35485 Fiche: 36367 1 Nineteenth Century Legal Treatises Legislature Author Index Black, Henry Campbell, 1860-1927. Burleigh, Joseph Bartlett. Handbook on the construction and interpretation The legislative guide : containing all the rules for of the laws : with a chapter on the interpretation of conducting business in Congress, Jefferson's manual, judicial decisions and the doctrine of precedents. and the citizens' manual : including a concise system St. Paul, Minn. : West Pub. Co. 1896 of rules of order founded on congressional Legislature proceedings : with copious notes and marginal x, 499 p. ; 24 cm.; US-65-2. references. Fiche: 35184-35189 Philadelphia : Lippincott, Grambo. 1854 Legislature Black, Henry Campbell, 1860-1927. 288, 32 p. : ill. ; 21 cm.; US-65-144; 4th ed., rev. Handbook on the construction and interpretation Fiche: 74542-74545 of the laws : with a chapter on the interpretation of judicial decisions and the doctrine of precedents. Butler, William Allen, 1825-1902. St. Paul, Minn. : West Pub. Co. 1896 The revision of the statutes of the state of New Legislature York and the revisers : an address delivered before x, 499 p. ; 24 cm.; US-65-2. the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Fiche: 74463-74468 January 22, 1889. New York : Banks & Bros. 1889 Blagg, J. W. (John Ward). Legislature The law as to public meeting. iii, 100 p. : ports. ; 23 cm.; US-65-29. London : Butterworths. 1888 Fiche: 36301-36302 Legislature vi, 76 p. ; 20 cm.; UK-65-109. Campbell, Robert, 1832-1912. Fiche: 55599-55600 The law and practice of citation and diligence : on the basis of the late Mr. Darling's book on the powers Bramwell, George. and duties of messengers at arms and other officers of The manner of proceeding on bills in the House of the law. Commons. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark. 1862 London : J. & L.G. Hansard. 1833 Legislature Legislature xxxvi, 598 p. : ill. ; 22 cm.; UK-65-163. xxiii, 160, 175 p. ; 28 cm.; UK-65-91. Fiche: 84786-84792 Fiche: 49204-49207 Cay, John. Broughton, John Cam Hobhouse, Baron, 1786- An analysis of the Scottish Reform Act (2 & 3 1869. Will. IV cap. 65) : with decisions of the courts of Proceedings in the House of Commons, and in the appeal. Court of King's-Bench, relative to the author of the Edinburgh : W. Blackwood and Sons. 1850 "Trifling mistake" : together with the argument Legislature against Parliamentary commitment, and the decision viii, x, 782 p. ; 22 cm.; UK-65-168. which the judges gave without hearing the case. Fiche: 85151-85159 London : Stodart and Steuart. 1820 Legislature Cay, John. xxxix, 132 p. ; 22 cm.; UK-65-129; prepared for the An analysis of the Scottish Reform Act : with press by John C. Hobhouse. decisions of the courts of appeal. Fiche: 59637-59638 Edinburgh : W. Blackwood and Sons. 1837-1840 Legislature Burdett, Francis, Sir, 1770-1844. 2 v. in 1 (xii, 391 p.) ; 22 cm.; UK-65-166. The substance of the speech delivered by Sir Fiche: 84974-84978 Francis Burdett, Bart., in the House of Commons on Tuesday, the 2d the June, 1818, on moving a series of Chandler, William E. (William Eaton), 1835- resolutions on the subject of parliamentary reform. 1917. London : R. Stodart. 1818 Can the Senate investigate the conduct of a Legislature senator prior to his election? : speech of Hon. 34 p. ; 21 cm.; UK-65-116. William E. Chandler of New Hampshire in the Senate Fiche: 55680 of the United States, Friday, April 14, 1983, on the resolution to investigate the charges against Senator William N. Roach of North Dakota. Washington : [s.n.]. 1893 Legislature 37 p. ; 23 cm.; US-65-41. Fiche: 36366 2 Nineteenth Century Legal Treatises Legislature Author Index Chipman, Daniel, 1765-1850. Clifford, Frederick, 1828-1904. Speech of Hon. Daniel Chipman: delivered in the A history of private bill legislation. convention holden at Montpelier, on the sixth of London : Butterworths. 1885-1887 January 1836. Legislature Middlebury [Vt.] : E.R. Jewett. 1837 2 v. ; 23 cm.; UK-65-51. Legislature Fiche: 47646-47663 25 p. ; 23 cm.; US-65-44. Fiche: 40351 Coode, George, 1807-1869. A letter to the Right Hon. the Viscount Palmerston Chittenden, L. E. (Lucius Eugene), 1824-1900. : on his bills for the disintegration of the statute law. Recollections of President Lincoln and his London : Ridgway. [1861] administration. Legislature New York : Harper. c1891 11 p. ; 22 cm.; UK-65-120; 2nd ed. Legislature Fiche: 56167 viii, 470 p. : port. ; 23 cm.; US-65-5. Fiche: 35594-35599 Coode, George, 1807-1869. On legislative expression, or, The language of the Christian, Edward, d. 1823. written law. A concise account of the origin of the two Houses London : T. Turpin. 1852 of Parliament : with an impartial statement of the Legislature privileges of the House of Commons, and the liberty 69 p. ; 21 cm.; UK-65-119; 2nd ed. of the subject. Fiche: 56166 London : T. Cadell and W. Davies. 1810 Legislature Coode, George, 1807-1869. vii, 98 p. ; 21 cm.; UK-65-107. On legislative expression, or, The language of the Fiche: 55596-55597 written law. London : W. Benning. 1845 Christian, Edward, d. 1823. Legislature A dissertation shewing that the House of Lords, in 69 p. ; 21 cm.; UK-65-114. cases of judicature, are bound by the same rules of Fiche: 55678 evidence that are observed by all other courts. London : Clarke. 1820 Cooley, Thomas McIntyre, 1824-1898. Legislature A treatise on the constitutional limitations which iv, 136 p. ; 22 cm.; UK-65-117; 2nd ed., with rest upon the legislative power of the states of the observations. American union. Fiche: 56118-56119 Boston : Little, Brown. 1868 Legislature Christian, Edward, d. 1823. xlvii, 720 p. ; 25 cm.; US-65-145. A dissertation upon evidence before the House of Fiche: 75449-75457 Lords : with observations upon the subjects of law which have arisen in the Bill of Pains and Penalties Cooper, Charles Purton, 1793-1873.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History
    Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Updated February 1, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45087 Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Summary Censure is a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Member of Congress, President, federal judge, or other government official. While Member censure is a disciplinary measure that is sanctioned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5), non-Member censure is not. Rather, it is a formal expression or “sense of” one or both houses of Congress. Censure resolutions targeting non-Members have utilized a range of statements to highlight conduct deemed by the resolutions’ sponsors to be inappropriate or unauthorized. Before the Nixon Administration, such resolutions included variations of the words or phrases unconstitutional, usurpation, reproof, and abuse of power. Beginning in 1972, the most clearly “censorious” resolutions have contained the word censure in the text. Resolutions attempting to censure the President are usually simple resolutions. These resolutions are not privileged for consideration in the House or Senate. They are, instead, considered under the regular parliamentary mechanisms used to process “sense of” legislation. Since 1800, Members of the House and Senate have introduced resolutions of censure against at least 12 sitting Presidents. Two additional Presidents received criticism via alternative means (a House committee report and an amendment to a resolution). The clearest instance of a successful presidential censure is Andrew Jackson. The Senate approved a resolution of censure in 1834. On three other occasions, critical resolutions were adopted, but their final language, as amended, obscured the original intention to censure the President.
    [Show full text]
  • Simplified Parliamentary Procedure
    Extension to Communities Simplifi ed Parliamentary Procedure 2 • Iowa State University Extension Introduction Effective Meetings — Simplifi ed Parliamentary Procedure “We must learn to run a meeting without victimizing the audience; but more impor- tantly, without being victimized by individuals who are armed with parliamentary procedure and a personal agenda.” — www.calweb.com/~laredo/parlproc.htm Parliamentary procedure. Sound complicated? Controlling? Boring? Intimidating? Why do we need to know all those rules for conducting a meeting? Why can’t we just run the meetings however we want to? Who cares if we follow parliamentary procedure? How many times have you attended a meeting that ran on and on and didn’t accomplish anything? The meeting jumps from one topic to another without deciding on anything. Group members disrupt the meeting with their own personal agendas. Arguments erupt. A few people make all the decisions and ignore everyone else’s opinions. Everyone leaves the meeting feeling frustrated. Sound familiar? Then a little parliamentary procedure may just be the thing to turn your unproductive, frustrating meetings into a thing of beauty — or at least make them more enjoyable and productive. What is Parliamentary Procedure? Parliamentary procedure is a set of well proven rules designed to move business along in a meeting while maintaining order and controlling the communications process. Its purpose is to help groups accomplish their tasks through an orderly, democratic process. Parliamentary procedure is not intended to inhibit a meeting with unnecessary rules or to prevent people from expressing their opinions. It is intended to facilitate the smooth func- tioning of the meeting and promote cooperation and harmony among members.
    [Show full text]
  • BRNOVICH V. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus BRNOVICH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA, ET AL. v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 19–1257. Argued March 2, 2021—Decided July 1, 2021* Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote. Voters may cast their ballots on election day in person at a traditional precinct or a “voting center” in their county of residence. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16–411(B)(4). Arizonans also may cast an “early ballot” by mail up to 27 days before an election, §§16–541, 16–542(C), and they also may vote in person at an early voting location in each county, §§16–542(A), (E). These cases involve challenges under §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) to aspects of the State’s regulations governing precinct-based election- day voting and early mail-in voting. First, Arizonans who vote in per- son on election day in a county that uses the precinct system must vote in the precinct to which they are assigned based on their address. See §16–122; see also §16–135.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the US Senate Republican Policy
    03 39-400 Chro 7/8/97 2:34 PM Page ix Chronology TH CONGRESS 79 (1945–1947) Senate Republicans: 38; Democrats: 57 Republican Minority Leader: Wallace H. White, Jr. Republican Policy Committee Chairman: Robert Taft Legislative Reorganization Act proposes creating Policy Committees; House objects Senate Policy Committees established in Legislative Appropriations Act Republicans win majorities in both the Senate and House, 1946 Senate Policy Committee holds first meeting (December 31, 1946) TH CONGRESS Sen.White (R–ME). 80 (1947–1949) Senate Republicans: 51 (gain of 13); Democrats: 45 Republican Majority Leader: Kenneth S. Wherry Republican Policy Committee Chairman: Robert Taft Republican Policy Committee begins keeping a “Record Vote Analysis” of Senate votes Harry Truman reelected President, 1948 ST CONGRESS 81 (1949–1951) Senate Republicans: 42 (loss of 9, loss of majority); Democrats: 54 Republican Minority Leader: Kenneth S. Wherry Republican Policy Committee Chairman: Robert Taft Sen.Vandenberg (R–MI), President Truman, Sen. Connally (D–TX), and Secretary of State Byrnes. Sen.Taft (R–OH). Sen.Wherry (R–NE). ix 03 39-400 Chro 7/8/97 2:34 PM Page x ND CONGRESS 82 (1951–1953) Senate Republicans: 47 (gain of 5); Democrats: 49 Republican Minority Leader: Kenneth S. Wherry Republican Policy Committee Chairman: Robert Taft Kenneth Wherry dies (November 29, 1951); Styles Bridges elected Minority Leader Robert Taft loses the Republican presidential nomination to General Dwight Eisenhower Dwight Eisenhower elected President, Republicans win majorities in Senate and House, 1952 RD CONGRESS 83 (1953–1955) Senate Republicans: 48 (gain of 1); Democrats: 47; Independent: 1 Republican Majority Leader: Robert Taft Republican Policy Committee Chairman: William Knowland Robert Taft dies (July 31, 1953); William Knowland elected Majority Leader Homer Ferguson elected chairman of the Policy Committee TH CONGRESS 84 Sen.
    [Show full text]
  • April 21, 2020 the Honorable Zoe Lofgren Chairperson Committee On
    April 21, 2020 The Honorable Zoe Lofgren The Honorable James P. McGovern Chairperson Chairman Committee on House Administration Committee on Rules 1309 Longworth House Office Building H-312, The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairperson Lofgren and Chairman McGovern: As our nation continues to confront the challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic, the American public must have confidence that their Members of Congress continue to perform the people’s business. I know that both of your committees have been working hard to identify secure ways to begin allowing remote voting and remote committee work, including mark-ups, hearings, and essential oversight. Beyond implementing the proxy voting as a first step, we ought to use this time as an opportunity to prepare for Congress to be able to work according to its full capabilities even with social and physical distancing guidelines in place. As you know, I have already indicated my clear preference for voting by the use of video-conferencing technology that millions of Americans now use to conduct business. These systems allow one to see and identify the person who is speaking and hear what is being said with little doubt about the identity of the participant. Used for the purposes of Floor and committee business, there would be little doubt who voted aye or nay. As, invariably, such action is performed in public and is public record, the issue of security appears to be minimal. While any distance-voting is less optimal than in-person voting or debating in committee or on the Floor of the House, the sound and image of the Member doing so virtually is far superior to the utilization of proxies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutionality of Legislative Supermajority Requirements: a Defense
    The Constitutionality of Legislative Supermajority Requirements: A Defense John 0. McGinnist and Michael B. Rappaporttt INTRODUCTION On the first day of the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives adopted a rule that requires a three-fifths majority of those voting to pass an increase in income tax rates.' This three-fifths rule had been publicized during the 1994 congressional elections as part of the House Republicans' Contract with America. In a recent Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich, seventeen well-known law professors assert that the rule is unconstitutional.3 They argue that requiring a legislative supermajority to enact bills conflicts with the intent of the Framers. They also contend that the rule conflicts with the Constitution's text, because they believe that the Constitution's specific supermajority requirements, such as the requirement for approval of treaties, indicate that simple majority voting is required for the passage of ordinary legislation.4 t Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School. tt Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law. The authors would like to thank Larry Alexander, Akhil Amar, Carl Auerbach, Jay Bybee, David Gray Carlson, Lawrence Cunningham, Neal Devins, John Harrison, Michael Herz, Arthur Jacobson, Gary Lawson, Nelson Lund, Erela Katz Rappaport, Paul Shupack, Stewart Sterk, Eugene Volokh, and Fred Zacharias for their comments and assistance. 1. See RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EFFECTIVE FOR ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS (Jan. 4, 1995) [hereinafter RULES] (House Rule XXI(5)(c)); see also id. House Rule XXI(5)(d) (barring retroactive tax increases). 2. The rule publicized in the Contract with America was actually broader than the one the House enacted.
    [Show full text]
  • § 12. Expulsion, Exclusion, and Censure
    Ch. 8 § 11 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS expenditures to the Clerk and in- As to exclusion—or denial by dicated his intention once in the House of the right of a Mem- Washington to complete and file ber-elect to a seat—by majority the required forms. vote, the House has the power to On June 2, 1936, the House de- judge elections and to determine clared the contestee entitled to his that no one was properly elected seat.(4) to a seat. If violations of the elec- tion campaign statutes are so ex- tensive or election returns so un- § 12. Expulsion, Exclusion, certain as to render an election void, the House may deny the and Censure right to a seat.(8) [Note: For full discussion of cen- sure and expulsion, see chapter 12, infra.] Expulsion Under article I, section 5, clause 2 of the United States Constitu- § 12.1 In the 77th Congress, the tion, the House may punish its Senate failed to expel, such Members and may expel a Mem- expulsion requiring a two- ber by a vote of two-thirds. thirds vote, a Senator whose In the 90th Congress, the Sen- qualifications had been chal- ate censured a Member in part for lenged by reason of election improper use and conversion of fraud and of conduct involv- campaign funds.(5) And the Com- mittee on House Administration ing moral turpitude. recommended in a report in the On Jan. 3, 1941, at the con- 74th Congress that a Member or vening of the 77th Congress, Mr. Delegate could be censured for William Langer, of North Dakota, failure to comply with the Corrupt took the oath of office, despite Practices Act.(6) However, the charges from the citizens of his House and the Senate have gen- state recommending he be denied erally held that a Member may a congressional seat because of not be expelled for conduct com- campaign fraud and past conduct mitted prior to his election.(7) involving moral turpitude.(9) 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of the Kansas Senate
    Rules of the Kansas Senate State of Kansas 2021-2024 January 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Rule 1. Time of Meetings.......................................................................... 5 Rule 2. Convening – Quorum – Assuming Duties of Chair...................... 5 Rule 3. Absence of Member...................................................................... 5 Rule 4. Order of Business and Session Proforma...................................... 5 Rule 5. Business in Order at Any Time..................................................... 6 Rule 6. Special Order................................................................................. 6 Rule 7. Standing Committees.................................................................... 7 Rule 8. Special and Select Committees..................................................... 8 Rule 9. Standing Committees – Duties of Chairperson, etc...................... 8 Rule 10. Vote in Senate Committee............................................................. 9 Rule 11. Committee Action on Bills and Resolutions................................. 9 Rule 12. Adversely Reported Bills and Resolutions................................... 10 Rule 13. When Bill or Concurrent Resolution Placed on General Orders.............................................................................. 10 Rule 14. Address the President – To Be Recognized – Speak But Twice on the Same Subject.................................................... 10 Rule 15. No Senator Shall Be Interrupted..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Supermajority Voting Rules
    Supermajority Voting Rules Richard T. Holden∗ August 1 6, 2005 Abstract The size of a supermajority required to change an existing contract varies widely in different settings. This paper analyzes the optimal supermajority re- quirement, determined by multilateral bargaining behind the veil of ignorance, where there are a continuum of possible policies. The optimum is determined by a tradeoff between reducing blocking power of small groups and reducing expropriation of minorities. We solve for the optimal supermajority require- ment as a function of the distribution of voter types, the number of voters and the degree of importance of the decision. The findings are consistent with observed heterogeneity of supermajority requirements in different settings and jurisdictions. Keywords: Supermajority, majority rule, qualified majority, special major- ity, constitutions, social contract, incomplete contracts. JEL Classification Codes: D63, D72, D74, F34, G34, H40 ∗Department of Economics, Harvard University, 1875 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA, 02138. email: [email protected]. I wish to thank Attila Ambrus, Murali Agastya, Philippe Aghion, Jerry Green, Oliver Hart, Markus Möbius, Hervé Moulin and Demian Reidel for helpful discussions, comments and suggestions. Special thanks is owed to Rosalind Dixon. 1 1Introduction Almost all agreements contain provisions governing the process by which the terms of the agreement can be changed. Often these clauses require a supermajority (more than 50%) of the parties to agree in order to make a change. Constitutions of democratic countries are perhaps the most prominent example of this. Yet the phenomenon is far more widespread. Majority creditor clauses in corporate and sovereigndebtcontractsprovidethatasupermajority of the creditors can bind other creditors in renegotiations with the borrower.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedure and History
    Congressional | Saas Research Service Informing the legislative debate since 1914 Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Jane A. Hudiburg Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process Christopher M. Davis Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process Updated February 1, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R45087 CRS REPORT Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Summary Censure 1s a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Memberof Congress, President, federal judge, or other government official. While Member censureis a disciplinary measure that is sanctioned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5), non-Member censure 1s not. Rather, it is a formal expression or “sense of” one or both houses of Congress. As such, censure resolutions targeting non-Membersusea variety of statements to highlight conduct deemedby the resolutions’ sponsors to be inappropriate or unauthorized. Resolutions that attempt to censure the President for abuse of power, ethics violations, or other behavior, are usually simple resolutions. These resolutions are not privileged for consideration in the House or Senate. They are, instead, considered under the regular parliamentary mechanisms used to process “sense of” legislation. Since 1800, Membersof the House and Senate have introduced resolutions of censure againstat least 12 sitting Presidents. Two additional Presidents received criticism via alternative means(a House committee report and an amendmentto a resolution). The clearest instance of a successful presidential censure is Andrew Jackson. A resolution of censure was approved in 1834. On three other occasions, critical resolutions were adopted, but their final language, as amended, obscured the original intention to censure the President.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert's Rules of Order – the Basics
    Robert’s Rules of Order – the Basics (This sheet should not be a substitute for Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 11nd Edition, but is meant to supplement the full set of rules.) Parliamentary procedure is a set of rules for conducting orderly meetings that accomplish goals fairly. Most PTAs use Roberts Rules of Order. Benefits of parliamentary procedure include the following: • Justice and courtesy for all • Maintenance of order • Consideration of one item at a time • All sides get heard • Ability for each member to provide input • Majority rule • Protection of the rights of all members including the minority Basic Principles • All members have equal rights, privileges and obligations • No person can speak until recognized by the chair • Personal remarks during debate are out of order • Only one question at a time may be considered, and only one person may have the floor at any one time • Members have a right to know what the immediately pending question is and to have it restated before a vote is taken • Full and free discussion of every main motion is a basic right • A quorum must be present for business to be conducted • A majority decides a question except when basic rights of members are involved or a rule provides otherwise. • A 2/3 vote is required for any motion that deprives a member of right in any way (e.g., cutting off debate) • Silence gives consent. Those who do not vote allow the decision to be made by those who do vote. • The Chair should always remain impartial Basic Definitions Motion – A formal proposal made to bring a subject before an assembly for its consideration and action.
    [Show full text]
  • RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2018 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus RUCHO ET AL. v. COMMON CAUSE ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 18–422. Argued March 26, 2019—Decided June 27, 2019* Voters and other plaintiffs in North Carolina and Maryland filed suits challenging their States’ congressional districting maps as unconsti- tutional partisan gerrymanders. The North Carolina plaintiffs claimed that the State’s districting plan discriminated against Demo- crats, while the Maryland plaintiffs claimed that their State’s plan discriminated against Republicans. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Four- teenth Amendment, the Elections Clause, and Article I, §2. The Dis- trict Courts in both cases ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the de- fendants appealed directly to this Court. Held: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions be- yond the reach of the federal courts. Pp. 6–34. (a) In these cases, the Court is asked to decide an important ques- tion of constitutional law. Before it does so, the Court “must find that the question is presented in a ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ that is .
    [Show full text]