Search This Blog

Saturday, July 18, 2020

Parliament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The facing benches of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom are said to contribute to an adversarial style of debate.
 
Knesset, the parliament of Israel.
 
 
Session Hall of Parliament of Finland.
 
In modern politics and history, a parliament is a legislative body of government. Generally, a modern parliament has three functions: representing the electorate, making laws, and overseeing the government via hearings and inquiries. The term is similar to the idea of a senate, synod or congress, and is commonly used in countries that are current or former monarchies, a form of government with a monarch as the head. Some contexts restrict the use of the word parliament to parliamentary systems, although it is also used to describe the legislature in some presidential systems (e.g. the Parliament of Ghana), even where it is not in the official name.

Historically, parliaments included various kinds of deliberative, consultative, and judicial assemblies, e.g. medieval parliaments.

Etymology

The English term is derived from Anglo-Norman and dates to the 14th century, coming from the 11th century Old French parlement, from parler, meaning "to talk". The meaning evolved over time, originally referring to any discussion, conversation, or negotiation through various kinds of deliberative or judicial groups, often summoned by a monarch. By the 15th century, in Britain, it had come to specifically mean the legislature.

Early parliaments

Since ancient times, when societies were tribal, there were councils or a headman whose decisions were assessed by village elders. This is called tribalism. Some scholars suggest that in ancient Mesopotamia there was a primitive democratic government where the kings were assessed by council. The same has been said about ancient India, where some form of deliberative assemblies existed, and therefore there was some form of democracy. However, these claims are not accepted by most scholars, who see these forms of government as oligarchies.

Ancient Athens was the cradle of democracy. The Athenian assembly (ἐκκλησία, ekklesia) was the most important institution, and every free male citizen could take part in the discussions. Slaves and women could not. However, Athenian democracy was not representative, but rather direct, and therefore the ekklesia was different from the parliamentary system.

The Roman Republic had legislative assemblies, who had the final say regarding the election of magistrates, the enactment of new statutes, the carrying out of capital punishment, the declaration of war and peace, and the creation (or dissolution) of alliances. The Roman Senate controlled money, administration, and the details of foreign policy.

Some Muslim scholars argue that the Islamic shura (a method of taking decisions in Islamic societies) is analogous to the parliament. However, others highlight what they consider fundamental differences between the shura system and the parliamentary system.

Iran

The first recorded signs of a council to decide on different issues in ancient Iran dates back to 247 BC while the Parthian empire was in power. The Parthians established the first Iranian empire since the conquest of Persia by Alexander. In the early years of their rule, an assembly of the nobles called “Mehestan” was formed that made the final decision on serious issues of state.

The word "Mehestan" consists of two parts. "Meh", a word of the old Persian origin, which literally means "The Great" and "-Stan", a suffix in the Persian language, which describes an especial place. Altogether Mehestan means a place where the greats come together.

The Mehestan Assembly, which consisted of Zoroastrian religious leaders and clan elders exerted great influence over the administration of the kingdom.

One of the most important decisions of the council took place in 208 AD, when a civil war broke out and the Mehestan decided that the empire would be ruled by two brothers simultaneously, Ardavan V and Blash V. In 224 AD, following the dissolution of the Parthian empire, after over 470 years, the Mahestan council came to an end.

Spain

The Congress of Deputies, the lower house of the Spanish Parliament.

Although there are documented councils held in 873, 1020, 1050 and 1063, there was no representation of commoners. What is considered to be the first parliament (with the presence of commoners), the Cortes of León, was held in the Kingdom of León in 1188. According to the UNESCO, the Decreta of Leon of 1188 is the oldest documentary manifestation of the European parliamentary system. In addition, UNESCO granted the 1188 Cortes of Alfonso IX the title of "Memory of the World" and the city of Leon has been recognized as the "Cradle of Parliamentarism".
After coming to power, King Alfonso IX, facing an attack by his two neighbors, Castile and Portugal, decided to summon the "Royal Curia". This was a medieval organization composed of aristocrats and bishops but because of the seriousness of the situation and the need to maximize political support, Alfonso IX took the decision to also call the representatives of the urban middle class from the most important cities of the kingdom to the assembly. León's Cortes dealt with matters like the right to private property, the inviolability of domicile, the right to appeal to justice opposite the King and the obligation of the King to consult the Cortes before entering a war. Prelates, nobles and commoners met separately in the three estates of the Cortes. In this meeting, new laws were approved to protect commoners against the arbitrarities of nobles, prelates and the king. This important set of laws is known as the Carta Magna Leonesa.

Following this event, new Cortes would appear in the other different territories that would make up Spain: Principality of Catalonia in 1192, the Kingdom of Castile in 1250, Kingdom of Aragon in 1274, Kingdom of Valencia in 1283 and Kingdom of Navarre in 1300.

After the union of the Kingdoms of Leon and Castile under the Crown of Castile, their Cortes were united as well in 1258. The Castilian Cortes had representatives from Burgos, Toledo, León, Seville, Córdoba, Murcia, Jaén, Zamora, Segovia, Ávila, Salamanca, Cuenca, Toro, Valladolid, Soria, Madrid, Guadalajara and Granada (after 1492). The Cortes' assent was required to pass new taxes, and could also advise the king on other matters. The comunero rebels intended a stronger role for the Cortes, but were defeated by the forces of Habsburg Emperor Charles V in 1521. The Cortes maintained some power, however, though it became more of a consultative entity. However, by the time of King Philip II, Charles's son, the Castilian Cortes had come under functionally complete royal control, with its delegates dependent on the Crown for their income.

The Cortes of the Crown of Aragon kingdoms retained their power to control the king's spending with regard to the finances of those kingdoms. But after the War of the Spanish Succession and the victory of another royal house – the Bourbons – and King Philip V, their Cortes were suppressed (those of Aragon and Valencia in 1707, and those of Catalonia and the Balearic islands in 1714).

The very first Cortes representing the whole of Spain (and the Spanish empire of the day) assembled in 1812, in Cadiz, where it operated as a government in exile as at that time most of the rest of Spain was in the hands of Napoleon's army.

Portugal

After its self-proclamation as an independent kingdom in 1139 by Afonso I of Portugal (followed by the recognition by the Kingdom of León in the Treaty of Zamora of 1143), the first historically established Cortes of the Kingdom of Portugal occurred in 1211 in Coimbra by initiative of Afonso II of Portugal. These established the first general laws of the kingdom (Leis Gerais do Reino): protection of the king's property, stipulation of measures for the administration of justice and the rights of his subjects to be protected from abuses by royal officials, and confirming the clerical donations of the previous king Sancho I of Portugal. These Cortes also affirmed the validity of canon law for the Church in Portugal, while introducing the prohibition of the purchase of lands by churches or monasteries (although they can be acquired by donations and legacies).

After the conquest of Algarve in 1249, the Kingdom of Portugal completed its Reconquista. In 1254 King Afonso III of Portugal summoned Portuguese Cortes in Leiria, with the inclusion of burghers from old and newly incorporated municipalities. This inclusion establishes the Cortes of Leiria of 1254 as the second sample of modern parliamentarism in the history of Europe (after the Cortes of León in 1188). In these Cortes the monetagio was introduced: a fixed sum was to be paid by the burghers to the Crown as a substitute for the septennium (the traditional revision of the face value of coinage by the Crown every seven years). These Cortes also introduced staple laws on the Douro River, favoring the new royal city of Vila Nova de Gaia at the expense of the old episcopal city of Porto. 

The Portuguese Cortes met again under King Afonso III of Portugal in 1256, 1261 and 1273, always by royal summon. Medieval Kings of Portugal continued to rely on small assemblies of notables, and only summoned the full Cortes on extraordinary occasions. A Cortes would be called if the king wanted to introduce new taxes, change some fundamental laws, announce significant shifts in foreign policy (e.g. ratify treaties), or settle matters of royal succession, issues where the cooperation and assent of the towns was thought necessary. Changing taxation (especially requesting war subsidies), was probably the most frequent reason for convening the Cortes. As the nobles and clergy were largely tax-exempt, setting taxation involved intensive negotiations between the royal council and the burgher delegates at the Cortes. 

Delegates (procuradores) not only considered the king's proposals, but, in turn, also used the Cortes to submit petitions of their own to the royal council on a myriad of matters, e.g. extending and confirming town privileges, punishing abuses of officials, introducing new price controls, constraints on Jews, pledges on coinage, etc. The royal response to these petitions became enshrined as ordinances and statutes, thus giving the Cortes the aspect of a legislature. These petitions were originally referred to as aggravamentos (grievances) then artigos (articles) and eventually capitulos (chapters). In a Cortes-Gerais, petitions were discussed and voted upon separately by each estate and required the approval of at least two of the three estates before being passed up to the royal council. The proposal was then subject to royal veto (either accepted or rejected by the king in its entirety) before becoming law.

Nonetheless, the exact extent of Cortes power was ambiguous. Kings insisted on their ancient prerogative to promulgate laws independently of the Cortes. The compromise, in theory, was that ordinances enacted in Cortes could only be modified or repealed by Cortes. But even that principle was often circumvented or ignored in practice.

The Cortes probably had their heyday in the 14th and 15th centuries, reaching their apex when John I of Portugal relied almost wholly upon the bourgeoisie for his power. For a period after the 1383–1385 Crisis, the Cortes were convened almost annually. But as time went on, they became less important. Portuguese monarchs, tapping into the riches of the Portuguese empire overseas, grew less dependent on Cortes subsidies and convened them less frequently. John II (r.1481-1495) used them to break the high nobility, but dispensed with them otherwise. Manuel I (r.1495-1521) convened them only four times in his long reign. By the time of Sebastian (r.1554–1578), the Cortes was practically an irrelevance.

Curiously, the Cortes gained a new importance with the Iberian Union of 1581, finding a role as the representative of Portuguese interests to the new Habsburg monarch. The Cortes played a critical role in the 1640 Restoration, and enjoyed a brief period of resurgence during the reign of John IV of Portugal (r.1640-1656). But by the end of the 17th century, it found itself sidelined once again. The last Cortes met in 1698, for the mere formality of confirming the appointment of Infante John (future John V of Portugal) as the successor of Peter II of Portugal. Thereafter, Portuguese kings ruled as absolute monarchs and no Cortes were assembled for over a century. This state of affairs came to an end with the Liberal Revolution of 1820, which set in motion the introduction of a new constitution, and a permanent and proper parliament, that however inherited the name of Cortes Gerais.

England

Early forms of assembly

England has long had a tradition of a body of men who would assist and advise the king on important matters. Under the Anglo-Saxon kings, there was an advisory council, the Witenagemot. The name derives from the Old English ƿitena ȝemōt, or witena gemōt, for "meeting of wise men". The first recorded act of a witenagemot was the law code issued by King Æthelberht of Kent ca. 600, the earliest document which survives in sustained Old English prose; however, the witan was certainly in existence long before this time. The Witan, along with the folkmoots (local assemblies), is an important ancestor of the modern English parliament.

As part of the Norman Conquest of England, the new king, William I, did away with the Witenagemot, replacing it with a Curia Regis ("King's Council"). Membership of the Curia was largely restricted to the tenants in chief, the few nobles who "rented" great estates directly from the king, along with ecclesiastics. William brought to England the feudal system of his native Normandy, and sought the advice of the curia regis before making laws. This is the original body from which the Parliament, the higher courts of law, and the Privy Council and Cabinet descend. Of these, the legislature is formally the High Court of Parliament; judges sit in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Only the executive government is no longer conducted in a royal court.

Most historians date the emergence of a parliament with some degree of power to which the throne had to defer no later than the rule of Edward I. Like previous kings, Edward called leading nobles and church leaders to discuss government matters, especially finance and taxation. A meeting in 1295 became known as the Model Parliament because it set the pattern for later Parliaments. The significant difference between the Model Parliament and the earlier Curia Regis was the addition of the Commons; that is, the inclusion of elected representatives of rural landowners and of townsmen. In 1307, Edward I agreed not to collect certain taxes without the "consent of the realm" through parliament. He also enlarged the court system.

Magna Carta and the Model Parliament

A 1215 edition of Magna Carta, as featured on display at the British Library.

The tenants-in-chief often struggled with their spiritual counterparts and with the king for power. In 1215, they secured from King John of England Magna Carta, which established that the king may not levy or collect any taxes (except the feudal taxes to which they were hitherto accustomed), save with the consent of a council. It was also established that the most important tenants-in-chief and ecclesiastics be summoned to the council by personal writs from the sovereign, and that all others be summoned to the council by general writs from the sheriffs of their counties. Modern government has its origins in the Curia Regis; parliament descends from the Great Council later known as the parliamentum established by Magna Carta

During the reign of King Henry III, 13th-Century English Parliaments incorporated elected representatives from shires and towns. These parliaments are, as such, considered forerunners of the modern parliament.

In 1265, Simon de Montfort, then in rebellion against Henry III, summoned a parliament of his supporters without royal authorization. The archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and barons were summoned, as were two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough. Knights had been summoned to previous councils, but it was unprecedented for the boroughs to receive any representation. Come 1295, Edward I later adopted de Montfort's ideas for representation and election in the so-called "Model Parliament". At first, each estate debated independently; by the reign of Edward III, however, Parliament recognisably assumed its modern form, with authorities dividing the legislative body into two separate chambers.

Parliament under Henry VIII and Edward VI

The purpose and structure of Parliament in Tudor England underwent a significant transformation under the reign of Henry VIII. Originally its methods were primarily medieval, and the monarch still possessed a form of inarguable dominion over its decisions. According to Elton, it was Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex, then chief minister to Henry VIII, who initiated still other changes within parliament. 

The Reformation Acts supplied Parliament with unlimited power over the country. This included authority over virtually every matter, whether social, economic, political, or religious; it legalised the Reformation, officially and indisputably. The king had to rule through the council, not over it, and all sides needed to reach a mutual agreement when creating or passing laws, adjusting or implementing taxes, or changing religious doctrines. This was significant: the monarch no longer had sole control over the country. For instance, during the later years of Mary, Parliament exercised its authority in originally rejecting Mary's bid to revive Catholicism in the realm. Later on, the legislative body even denied Elizabeth her request to marry. If Parliament had possessed this power before Cromwell, such as when Wolsey served as secretary, the Reformation may never have happened, as the king would have had to gain the consent of all parliament members before so drastically changing the country's religious laws and fundamental identity.

The power of Parliament increased considerably after Cromwell's adjustments. It also provided the country with unprecedented stability. More stability, in turn, helped assure more effective management, organisation, and efficiency. Parliament printed statutes and devised a more coherent parliamentary procedure

The rise of Parliament proved especially important in the sense that it limited the repercussions of dynastic complications that had so often plunged England into civil war. Parliament still ran the country even in the absence of suitable heirs to the throne, and its legitimacy as a decision-making body reduced the royal prerogatives of kings like Henry VIII and the importance of their whims. For example, Henry VIII could not simply establish supremacy by proclamation; he required Parliament to enforce statutes and add felonies and treasons. An important liberty for Parliament was its freedom of speech; Henry allowed anything to be spoken openly within Parliament and speakers could not face arrest – a fact which they exploited incessantly. Nevertheless, Parliament in Henry VIII's time offered up very little objection to the monarch's desires. Under his and Edward's reign, the legislative body complied willingly with the majority of the kings' decisions.

Much of this compliance stemmed from how the English viewed and traditionally understood authority. As Williams described it, "King and parliament were not separate entities, but a single body, of which the monarch was the senior partner and the Lords and the Commons the lesser, but still essential, members.".

Importance of the Commonwealth years

The statue of Oliver Cromwell, as it stands outside the House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster.

Although its role in government expanded significantly during the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI, the Parliament of England saw some of its most important gains in the 17th century. A series of conflicts between the Crown and Parliament culminated in the execution of King Charles I in 1649. Afterward, England became a commonwealth, with Oliver Cromwell, its lord protector, the de facto ruler. Frustrated with its decisions, Cromwell purged and suspended Parliament on several occasions.
A controversial figure accused of despotism, war crimes, and even genocide, Cromwell is nonetheless regarded as essential to the growth of democracy in England. The years of the Commonwealth, coupled with the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 and the subsequent Glorious Revolution of 1688, helped reinforce and strengthen Parliament as an institution separate from the Crown.

Acts of Union

The Parliament of England met until it merged with the Parliament of Scotland under the Acts of Union. This union created the new Parliament of Great Britain in 1707.

Scotland

The debating chamber of the reconvened Scottish Parliament from the public gallery.

From the 10th century the Kingdom of Alba was ruled by chiefs (toisechs) and subkings (mormaers) under the suzerainty, real or nominal, of a High King. Popular assemblies, as in Ireland, were involved in law-making, and sometimes in king-making, although the introduction of tanistry—naming a successor in the lifetime of a king—made the second less than common. These early assemblies cannot be considered "parliaments" in the later sense of the word, and were entirely separate from the later, Norman-influenced, institution.

The Parliament of Scotland evolved during the Middle Ages from the King's Council of Bishops and Earls. The unicameral parliament is first found on record, referred to as a colloquium, in 1235 at Kirkliston (a village now in Edinburgh). 

By the early fourteenth century the attendance of knights and freeholders had become important, and from 1326 burgh commissioners attended. Consisting of the Three Estates; of clerics, lay tenants-in-chief and burgh commissioners sitting in a single chamber, the Scottish parliament acquired significant powers over particular issues. Most obviously it was needed for consent for taxation (although taxation was only raised irregularly in Scotland in the medieval period), but it also had a strong influence over justice, foreign policy, war, and all manner of other legislation, whether political, ecclesiastical, social or economic. Parliamentary business was also carried out by "sister" institutions, before c. 1500 by General Council and thereafter by the Convention of Estates. These could carry out much business also dealt with by Parliament – taxation, legislation and policy-making – but lacked the ultimate authority of a full parliament.

The parliament, which is also referred to as the Estates of Scotland, the Three Estates, the Scots Parliament or the auld Scots Parliament (Eng: old), met until the Acts of Union merged the Parliament of Scotland and the Parliament of England, creating the new Parliament of Great Britain in 1707.

Following the 1997 Scottish devolution referendum, and the passing of the Scotland Act 1998 by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament was reconvened on 1 July 1999, although with much more limited powers than its 18th-century predecessor. The parliament has sat since 2004 at its newly constructed Scottish Parliament Building in Edinburgh, situated at the foot of the Royal Mile, next to the royal palace of Holyroodhouse.

Nordic and Germanic countries

Iceland's parliament House, at Austurvöllur in Reykjavík, built in 1880–1881. Home of one of the oldest still-acting parliaments in the world.
 
A thing or ting (Old Norse and Icelandic: þing; other modern Scandinavian: ting, ding in Dutch) was the governing assembly in Germanic societies, made up of the free men of the community and presided by lawspeakers

The thing was the assembly of the free men of a country, province or a hundred (hundare/härad/herred). There were consequently, hierarchies of things, so that the local things were represented at the thing for a larger area, for a province or land. At the thing, disputes were solved and political decisions were made. The place for the thing was often also the place for public religious rites and for commerce.

The thing met at regular intervals, legislated, elected chieftains and kings, and judged according to the law, which was memorised and recited by the "law speaker" (the judge). 

The Icelandic, Faroese and Manx parliaments trace their origins back to the Viking expansion originating from the Petty kingdoms of Norway as well as Denmark, replicating Viking government systems in the conquered territories, such as those represented by the Gulating near Bergen in western Norway.
  • The Icelandic Althing, dating to 930.
  • The Faroese Løgting, dating to a similar period.
  • The Manx Tynwald, which claims to be over 1,000 years old.
Later national diets with chambers for different estates developed, e.g. in Sweden and in Finland (which was part of Sweden until 1809), each with a House of Knights for the nobility. In both these countries, the national parliaments are now called riksdag (in Finland also eduskunta), a word used since the Middle Ages and equivalent of the German word Reichstag.

Today the term lives on in the official names of national legislatures, political and judicial institutions in the North-Germanic countries. In the Yorkshire and former Danelaw areas of England, which were subject to much Norse invasion and settlement, the wapentake was another name for the same institution.

Italy

The Sicilian Parliament, dating to 1097, evolved as the legislature of the Kingdom of Sicily.

Switzerland


The Federal Diet of Switzerland was one of the longest-lived representative bodies in history, continuing from the 13th century to 1848.

France

Originally, there was only the Parliament of Paris, born out of the Curia Regis in 1307, and located inside the medieval royal palace, now the Paris Hall of Justice. The jurisdiction of the Parliament of Paris covered the entire kingdom. In the thirteenth century, judicial functions were added. In 1443, following the turmoil of the Hundred Years' War, King Charles VII of France granted Languedoc its own parliament by establishing the Parliament of Toulouse, the first parliament outside of Paris, whose jurisdiction extended over the most part of southern France. From 1443 until the French Revolution several other parliaments were created in some provinces of France (Grenoble, Bordeaux). 

All the parliaments could issue regulatory decrees for the application of royal edicts or of customary practices; they could also refuse to register laws that they judged contrary to fundamental law or simply as being untimely. Parliamentary power in France was suppressed more so than in England as a result of absolutism, and parliaments were eventually overshadowed by the larger Estates General, up until the French Revolution, when the National Assembly became the lower house of France's bicameral legislature.

Poland

The First Sejm in Łęczyca. Recording of laws. A.D. 1180

According to the Chronicles of Gallus Anonymus, the first legendary Polish ruler, Siemowit, who began the Piast Dynasty, was chosen by a wiec. The veche (Russian: вече, Polish: wiec) was a popular assembly in medieval Slavic countries, and in late medieval period, a parliament. The idea of the wiec led in 1182 to the development of the Polish parliament, the Sejm.

The term "sejm" comes from an old Polish expression denoting a meeting of the populace. The power of early sejms grew between 1146–1295, when the power of individual rulers waned and various councils and wiece grew stronger. The history of the national Sejm dates back to 1182. Since the 14th century irregular sejms (described in various Latin sources as contentio generalis, conventio magna, conventio solemna, parlamentum, parlamentum generale, dieta or Polish sejm walny) have been called by Polish kings. From 1374, the king had to receive sejm permission to raise taxes. The General Sejm (Polish Sejm Generalny or Sejm Walny), first convoked by the king John I Olbracht in 1493 near Piotrków, evolved from earlier regional and provincial meetings (sejmiks). It followed most closely the sejmik generally, which arose from the 1454 Nieszawa Statutes, granted to the szlachta (nobles) by King Casimir IV the Jagiellonian. From 1493 forward, indirect elections were repeated every two years. With the development of the unique Polish Golden Liberty the Sejm's powers increased.

The Commonwealth's general parliament consisted of three estates: the King of Poland (who also acted as the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Russia/Ruthenia, Prussia, Mazovia, etc.), the Senat (consisting of Ministers, Palatines, Castellans and Bishops) and the Chamber of Envoys—circa 170 nobles (szlachta) acting on behalf of their Lands and sent by Land Parliaments. Also representatives of selected cities but without any voting powers. Since 1573 at a royal election all peers of the Commonwealth could participate in the Parliament and become the King's electors.

Ukraine

A Zaporizhian Sich Rada

Cossack Rada was the legislative body of a military republic of the Ukrainian Cossacks that grew rapidly in the 15th century from serfs fleeing the more controlled parts of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. The republic did not regard social origin/nobility and accepted all people who declared to be Orthodox Christians.

Originally established at the Zaporizhian Sich, the rada (council) was an institution of Cossack administration in Ukraine from the 16th to the 18th century. With the establishment of the Hetman state in 1648, it was officially known as the General Military Council until 1750.

Russia

The zemsky sobor (Russian: зе́мский собо́р) was the first Russian parliament of the feudal Estates type, in the 16th and 17th centuries. The term roughly means assembly of the land.

It could be summoned either by tsar, or patriarch, or the Boyar Duma. Three categories of population, comparable to the Estates-General of France but with the numbering of the first two Estates reversed, participated in the assembly:

Nobility and high bureaucracy, including the Boyar Duma,
The Holy Sobor of high Orthodox clergy,
Representatives of merchants and townspeople (third estate).

The name of the parliament of nowadays Russian Federation is the Federal Assembly of Russia. The term for its lower house, State Duma (which is better known than the Federal Assembly itself, and is often mistaken for the entirety of the parliament) comes from the Russian word думать (dumat), "to think". The Boyar Duma was an advisory council to the grand princes and tsars of Muscovy. The Duma was discontinued by Peter the Great, who transferred its functions to the Governing Senate in 1711.

Novgorod and Pskov

The veche was the highest legislature and judicial authority in the republic of Novgorod until 1478. In its sister state, Pskov, a separate veche operated until 1510.

Since the Novgorod revolution of 1137 ousted the ruling grand prince, the veche became the supreme state authority. After the reforms of 1410, the veche was restructured on a model similar to that of Venice, becoming the Commons chamber of the parliament. An upper Senate-like Council of Lords was also created, with title membership for all former city magistrates. Some sources indicate that veche membership may have become full-time, and parliament deputies were now called vechniks. It is recounted that the Novgorod assembly could be summoned by anyone who rung the veche bell, although it is more likely that the common procedure was more complex. This bell was a symbol of republican sovereignty and independence. The whole population of the city—boyars, merchants, and common citizens—then gathered at Yaroslav's Court. Separate assemblies could be held in the districts of Novgorod. In Pskov the veche assembled in the court of the Trinity cathedral.

Roman Catholic Church

"Conciliarism" or the "conciliar movement", was a reform movement in the 14th and 15th century Roman Catholic Church which held that final authority in spiritual matters resided with the Roman Church as corporation of Christians, embodied by a general church council, not with the pope. In effect, the movement sought – ultimately, in vain – to create an All-Catholic Parliament. Its struggle with the Papacy had many points in common with the struggle of parliaments in specific countries against the authority of Kings and other secular rulers.

Motion of no confidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
A motion of no confidence, or a vote of no confidence, or no confidence motion, is a statement or vote about whether a person in a position of responsibility (government, managerial, etc.) is no longer deemed fit to hold that position, perhaps because they are inadequate in some aspect, are failing to carry out obligations, or are making decisions that other members feel detrimental. As a parliamentary motion, it demonstrates to the head of state that the elected parliament no longer has confidence in (one or more members of) the appointed government. In some countries, if a no confidence motion is passed against an individual minister they have to resign along with the entire council of ministers.

A censure motion is different from a no confidence motion. Depending on the constitution of the body concerned, "no confidence" may lead to dismissal of the Council of Ministers or other position-holders, whereas "censure" is meant to show disapproval and does not result in the resignation of ministers. The censure motion can be against an individual minister or a group of ministers, but depending on a country's constitution, a no confidence motion may be more directed against the entire cabinet. Again, depending on the applicable rules, censure motions may need to state the reasons for the motion while no confidence motions may not require reasons to be specified.

Parliamentary systems

There are a number of variations in this procedure between parliaments. In some countries a motion of no confidence can be directed at the government collectively or at any individual member, including the prime minister. In Spain, it is presented by the prime minister after consultation. Sometimes motions of no confidence are proposed even though they have no likelihood of passage, simply to pressure a government or to embarrass its own critics, who may for political reasons decide not to vote against it.

In many parliamentary democracies, there are strict time limits for no confidence motions: they may only be allowed once every three, four or six months. Thus, the timing of a motion of no confidence is a matter of political judgement; a motion of no confidence on a relatively trivial matter may prove counterproductive if a more important issue suddenly arises which actually warrants a motion of no confidence, because such a motion cannot be proposed if one has been voted on recently. Sometimes, the government will choose to declare that one of its bills is a "motion of confidence" in order to prevent dissident members of their own party voting against it.

Australia

In the Australian Parliament, a motion of no confidence requires a majority of the members present in the House of Representatives to agree to it. The House of Representatives consists of 151 members; requiring 76 votes in favour of the motion when all members of the House are present. A straight vote of no confidence in a government, or a motion or amendment censuring a government, has never been successful in the House of Representatives. Despite this, on eight occasions governments have either resigned or advised a dissolution following their defeat on other questions before the House. The last time a government resigned after being defeated in the House came in October 1941, when the House rejected the budget of Arthur Fadden's minority government.

Specific motions of no confidence or censure motions against the Prime Minister, ministers, the Leader of the Opposition, Senators and leaders of political parties have been moved and have been successful on some occasions. Motions of no confidence against the government may be passed in the Senate, yet may have little or no impact in the House. However, the Senate's right to refuse supply helped spark the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. The convention remains a grey area as Westminster governments are not normally expected to maintain the confidence of the upper house.

Canada

In Canadian politics, a vote of no confidence is a motion that the legislature disapproves, and no longer consents to the governing Prime Minister or provincial Premier and the incumbent Cabinet. A vote of no confidence that passes leads to the fall of the incumbent government. The practice originates as a constitutional convention, and remains an uncodified procedure not outlined in any standing orders for the House of Commons of Canada. A no confidence motion may only be directed against the incumbent government in the legislature; with votes of no confidence against the legislature's Official Opposition being inadmissible.

At the federal level a vote of no confidence is a motion presented by a member of the House of Commons that explicitly states the House has no confidence in the incumbent government. The government may also declare any bill or motion to be a question of confidence. Several motions and bills are also considered implicit motions on confidence, and a vote of no confidence may be asserted automatically if they fail to pass. Bills and motions that are considered implicit motions of confidence includes appropriations/supply bills, motions concerning budgetary policy, and the Address in Reply to the speech from the throne. While the failure to pass these bills may be used as an automatic assertion of a vote of no confidence, the opposition is not obligated to assert the failure as a no confidence motion against the government.

Should a vote of no confidence pass, the Prime Minister of Canada is required to submit his or her resignation to the Governor General of Canada. The Governor General may then invite the leader of another coalition/party to attempt to form a new government in the House of Commons, or dissolve Parliament and call for a general election. Six no confidence motions have been passed in the House of Commons of Canada, in 1926, 1963, 1974, 1979, 2005, and 2011. Successful votes of no confidence in the 20th century were all the result of a loss of supply, while votes of no confidence in 2005 and 2011 were the result of explicit confidence motions presented by the opposition. 

The confidence convention is also present in the provincial legislatures of Canada, and largely operate in the same manner as its federal counterpart. However, if the motion passes, the decision to either dissolve the legislature and call for an election, or see if another coalition/party can form a government is left to the provincial lieutenant governors, and not the Governor General.

Two Canadian territories, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, operate as a consensus government system; in which the premier is chosen by the members of the non-partisan legislature. In the event a vote of no confidence against the incumbent government passes, the premier and cabinet are removed from office, and the legislature is permitted to elect a new premier. Ministers in consensus governments are also nominated by members of the legislature, and as a result, confidence motions may be directed against any individual ministers holding office.

European Union

The European Parliament can dismiss the European Commission, the executive body of the European Union, through a successful motion of no confidence. Such a motion requires a two-thirds vote. A successful vote on the motion leads to the resignation of the Commission.

Germany

In Germany, a vote of no confidence in the Federal Chancellor requires that the opposition, on the same ballot, propose a candidate of their own whom they want to be appointed as successor by the Federal President. Thus, a motion of no confidence can only be brought forward if there is a positive majority for the new candidate. The idea was to prevent crises of the state such as those found near the end of the German Weimar Republic. Frequently, Chancellors were turned out of office without their successors having enough parliamentary support to govern. Unlike the British system, the Chancellor does not have to resign in response to the failure of a vote of confidence, provided it has been initiated by them and not by the parliamentary opposition, but rather may ask the President to call general elections – a request the President may or may not fulfill.

India

In India, a motion of no confidence can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Parliament of India). The motion is admitted for discussion when a minimum of 50 members of the house support the motion (under rule 198 of Lok Sabha Rules 16th edition). If the motion carries, the House debates and votes on the motion. If a majority of the members of the house vote in favour of the motion, the motion is passed and the Government is bound to vacate the office. Acharya Kripalani moved the first-ever no confidence motion on the floor of the Lok Sabha in August 1963, immediately after the disastrous India–China War. As of July 2019, 27 no-confidence motions have been moved. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi faced the most no confidence motions, fifteen, followed by Lal Bahadur Shastri and P. V. Narasimha Rao (three each), Morarji Desai (two) and Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajiv Gandhi, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Narendra Modi (one each). Atal Bihari Vajpayee lost the no confidence motion by a margin of 1 vote (269-270) in April 1999. Prime Minister Desai resigned on 12 July 1979. The most recent no confidence motion against the Narendra Modi government was accepted by the Lok Sabha speaker, but was defeated by 325–115.

With the anti-defection law, the vote of no confidence has no relevance when the majority party has an absolute majority in the House. If the party with an absolute majority in the House issues a whip to party members to vote in favour of the Government, then it is impossible to remove the Government by a no confidence motion. Hence the no confidence exercise of the House merely becomes a no confidence exercise of the Party.

Ireland

In Ireland, if a motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach or Government of Ireland is passed by Dáil Éireann and the Taoiseach and Government do not resign, the Dáil must be dissolved and a general election must be called.

Italy

In Italy, the government requires the support of both houses of Parliament. A vote of no confidence may be proposed if one-tenth of the members of a single house sign the proposition and starting from three days before the appointed date, said vote can be brought into discussion. Following the case of Filippo Mancuso in 1995 and the subsequent Constitutional Court sentence in 1996, it is possible to propose an individual vote of no confidence against a single minister instead of the whole government.

Japan

Article 69 of the 1947 Constitution of Japan provides that "if the House of Representatives passes a non-confidence resolution, or rejects a confidence resolution, the Cabinet shall resign en masse, unless the House of Representatives is dissolved within ten (10) days".

Pakistan

The Constitution of Pakistan has provision for a no confidence motion in all constituents of the Electoral College of the state. The motions can target speakers and deputy speakers of provincial and national assemblies, the Prime Minister, chief ministers of provinces, as well as the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Senate. Before it can be put for vote on the pertinent house's floor, it needs to have the backing of at least 20% of the elected members in all cases except those moved against speakers or deputy speakers, in which case there is no minimum support limit. After being put to vote, the motion is only deemed successful if passed by a majority.

In terms of history, the no confidence procedure has mostly been used in removing speakers and deputy speakers. Of the 11 times the motion has been invoked, nine motions targeted these posts with four being effective. An incumbent Prime Minister of Pakistan has only been subject to a no confidence vote once, in November 1989, when Benazir Bhutto faced an ultimately unsuccessful motion moved by Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi. The same is the case for a provincial chief minister, as the only instance of its use is the one moved against Chief Minister of Balochistan, Sanaullah Zehri in January 2018, which was successful as Zehri resigned before the vote could take place.

Peru

In Peru, the legislative and the executive branch both have the power to bring a motion of no confidence against acting legal members of each branch. The President of the Cabinet can propose a motion of no confidence against any minister to Congress, that then needs more than half the Congress to approve it. The President of the Republic has the power to dissolve Congress if it has censured or denied its confidence to two Cabinets. These articles (132-134) can be found in the 1993 version of the Constitution of Peru.

Due to the 2019 Peruvian constitutional crisis, President Martín Vizcarra enacted a constitutional process on 29 May 2019 that would create a motion of no confidence towards Congress if they refused to cooperate with his proposed actions against corruption.

South Africa

Any MP in the lower house (National Assembly), may request a motion of no confidence in either the cabinet (excluding the President) or the President. The Speaker is obliged to, within the rules of parliament, add such a motion to the Order Paper. Such a motion must be given due priority. If a motion of no confidence cannot be scheduled by the last sitting day of the annual sitting, it must be the first item on the Order Paper of the next sitting. In the event of a successful motion, the Speaker automatically assumes the position of acting President. 

On 7 August 2017, Speaker Baleka Mbete announced that she would permit a motion of no confidence in Jacob Zuma's government to proceed in the National Assembly via secret ballot. It was the eighth motion to be brought against Zuma in his presidency and the first to be held via secret ballot. After the vote was held the next day, the motion was defeated 198–177, with 25 abstentions. Around 20 governing party ANC MPs voted in favour of the measure.

Spain

The Spanish Constitution of 1978 provides for motions of no confidence to be proposed by one-tenth of the Congress of Deputies. Following the German model, votes of no confidence in Spain are constructive, so the motion must also include an alternative candidate for Prime Minister. For a motion of no confidence to be successful, it has to be carried by an absolute majority in the Congress of Deputies. A minimum period of five days must pass after the motion's registration before it can come up for a vote. Other parties are entitled to submit alternative motions within the first two days from the registration.

Concurrently, the Prime Minister is barred from dissolving the Cortes Generales and calling a general election while a motion of no confidence is pending. If the motion is successful, the incumbent Prime Minister must resign. Per the Constitution, the replacement candidate named in the motion is automatically deemed to have the confidence of the Congress of Deputies and is immediately appointed as Prime Minister by the monarch. If unsuccessful, the signatories of the motion may not submit another during the same session.

Current Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was sworn in on 2 June 2018 after a motion of no-confidence against Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy was approved on 1 June 2018.

Sweden

No confidence motions can be levelled against either the Prime Minister (on behalf of the entire Government) or an individual lower-level minister. At least 35 members of parliament (MPs) have to support a proposal to initiate such a vote. A majority of MPs (175 members) must vote in favour of a declaration of no confidence for it to be successful. If an individual minister loses the confidence vote, he/she must resign. If the prime minister loses the no confidence vote, his/her entire government must resign. The parliamentary speaker may allow the ousted prime minister to head a transitional or caretaker government until parliament elects a new prime minister.

Under the principle of negative parliamentarism, a prime ministerial candidate nominated by the speaker does not need the confidence of a majority of MPs to be elected. However, a majority of MPs must not vote against the candidate, which renders prime ministerial votes similar to a no confidence vote. This means for a prime ministerial candidate to be successful in the parliamentary vote, he must have at least a total of 175 'yes' and/or 'abstain' votes. If a speaker fails four times to have his/her nominee elected, an election must be held within three months of the final vote.

United Kingdom

Traditionally, in the Westminster system, the defeat of a supply bill (one that concerns the spending of money) is seen to automatically require the government to either resign or ask for a new election, much like a no confidence vote. A government in a Westminster system that cannot spend money is hamstrung, also called loss of supply.

Prior to 2011, in the British Parliament, a no confidence motion generally first appeared as an early day motion although the vote on the Speech from the Throne also constituted a confidence motion. However, under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, only a motion explicitly resolving "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" is treated as a motion of no confidence.

Semi-presidential systems

In semi-presidential systems, the legislature may occasionally pass motions of no confidence, which removes only the cabinet and prime minister, the legislature may also have the power to impeach an executive or judicial officer, with another institution or the legislature removing the officer from their office.

Russia

In the Russian Federation, the lower house of the Federal Assembly (the State Duma) may by a simple majority (i.e. at least 226 votes out of 450) pass a motion of no confidence against the Government of Russia as a whole. In this case, the matter goes for consideration of the President, who may choose to dismiss the cabinet (which the President can do at any moment in time at his own discretion anyway) or just to ignore the Duma's decision. Should the Duma pass a second motion of no confidence against the same composition of the cabinet within three months, the President will be forced to make a concrete decision – to dismiss the government or to dissolve the Duma itself and call for new general elections. The State Duma may not be dissolved on these grounds if it was elected less than a year earlier, if it has already initiated impeachment proceedings against the President himself by bringing respective accusations, if less than six months is left until elections of the President, or if there is a state of emergency or martial law throughout the whole territory of Russian Federation. In the above-mentioned cases, the President would therefore be effectively forced to dismiss the Government.

France

In France, the lower house of French Parliament (the French National Assembly) may by a simple majority vote pass a motion of no confidence against the Government of France as a whole. In this case, the Government is removed from power and the President of France has to appoint a new Prime Minister of France, who will have to form a new government.

History

The first motion of no confidence occurred in March 1782 when, following news of the British defeat at Yorktown in the American Revolutionary War the previous October, the Parliament of Great Britain voted that they "can no longer repose confidence in the present ministers". Prime Minister Lord North responded by asking King George III to accept his resignation. This did not immediately create a constitutional convention. During the early 19th century, however, attempts by prime ministers, such as Robert Peel, to govern in the absence of a parliamentary majority proved unsuccessful, and by the mid-19th century, the power of a motion of no confidence to break a government was firmly established in the UK.

In the United Kingdom, 11 prime ministers have been defeated through a no-confidence motion. There has been only one such motion since 1925, in 1979 .

In modern times, passage of a motion of no confidence is a relatively rare event in two-party democracies. In almost all cases, party discipline is sufficient to allow a majority party to defeat a motion of no confidence, and if faced with possible defections in the government party, the government is likely to change its policies rather than lose a vote of no confidence. The cases in which a motion of no confidence has passed are generally those in which the government party's slim majority has been eliminated by either by-elections or defections, such as the 1979 vote of no confidence in the Callaghan ministry in the UK which was carried by one vote, forcing a general election which was won by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party

Motions of no confidence are far more common in multi-party systems in which a minority party must form a coalition government. This can mean that there have been many short-lived governments because the party structure allows small parties to defeat a government without means to create a government. This has widely been regarded as the cause of instability for the French Fourth Republic and the German Weimar Republic. More recent examples have been in Italy between the 1950s and 1990s, Israel, and Japan.

To deal with this situation, the French placed a greater degree of executive power in the office of its President, who is immune from motions of no confidence, along with a two-round plurality voting system that makes easier the formation of stable majority governments

In 2008, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, of the re-appointed minority government of Canada, requested that Governor-General Michaëlle Jean prorogue Parliament. The request was granted, and it allowed the Prime Minister to delay a potential vote on the non-confidence motion presented by the opposition. (See 2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute.) Three years later, in 2011, Harper's minority government was defeated by a motion of non-confidence declaring the government to be in contempt of Parliament, leading to the election that year.

In 2013, during the Euromaidan pro-EU riots, the opposition in Ukraine called for a motion of no confidence against the Cabinet of Ministers and pro-Russian, Euroskeptic Prime Minister Mykola Azarov. At least 226 votes were needed to gain a majority in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament. However, it fell 40 votes short, and Azarov's government prevailed.

On 1 June 2018, in Spain, the Government of Mariano Rajoy was ousted after a motion of no confidence passed 180–169 following the sentence of the Gürtel corruption scandal which involved the ruling party. Pedro Sánchez of the PSOE was sworn in as the new Prime Minister. This is the first time in Spanish history that a vote of no confidence has resulted in a change of government.

On 25 September 2018, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven was ousted after losing a vote of no confidence in the Swedish Parliament. This took place in the aftermath of an election held on 9 September, in which the centre-left bloc led by Löfven's Social Democratic Party only won 144 seats in parliament, 31 seats short of an absolute majority and just one seat more than the opposition Alliance bloc. The Sweden Democrats, having just won 62 seats, also voted with the main opposition bloc to express no confidence in the government.

Censure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A censure is an expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism. In parliamentary procedure, it is a debatable main motion that could be adopted by a majority vote. Among the forms that it can take are a stern rebuke by a legislature, a spiritual penalty imposed by a church, or a negative judgment pronounced on a theological proposition. It is usually non-binding (requiring no compulsory action from the censured party), unlike a motion of no confidence (which may require the referenced party to resign).

Parliamentary procedure

Explanation and use

Censure (main motion)
Requires second?Yes
Debatable?Yes
Amendable?Yes
Vote requiredMajority

The motion to censure is a main motion expressing a strong opinion of disapproval that could be debated by the assembly and adopted by a majority vote. According to Robert's Rules of Order (Newly Revised) (RONR), it is an exception to the general rule that "a motion must not use language that reflects on a member's conduct or character, or is discourteous, unnecessarily harsh, or not allowed in debate." Demeter's Manual notes, "It is a reprimand, aimed at reformation of the person and prevention of further offending acts." While there are many possible grounds for censuring members of an organization, such as embezzlement, absenteeism, drunkenness, and so on, the grounds for censuring a presiding officer are more limited:
Serious grounds for censure against presiding officers (presidents, chairmen, etc.) are, in general: arrogation or assumption by the presiding officer of dictatorial powers – powers not conferred upon him by law – by which he harasses, embarrasses and humiliates members; or, specifically: (1) he refuses to recognize members entitled to the floor; (2) he refuses to accept and to put canonical motions to vote; (3) he refuses to entertain appropriate appeals from his decision; (4) he ignores proper points of order; (5) he disobeys the bylaws and the rules of order; (6) he disobeys the assembly's will and substitutes his own; (7) he denies to members the proper exercise of their constitutional or parliamentary rights.
More serious disciplinary procedures may involve fine, suspension, or expulsion. In some cases, the assembly may declare the chair vacant and elect a new chairman for the meeting; or a motion can be made to permanently remove an officer (depending on the rules of the assembly).

Procedure

If the motion is made to censure the presiding officer, then he must relinquish the chair to the vice-president until the motion is disposed. But during this time, the vice-president is still referred to as "Mr. Vice President" in debate, since a censure is merely a warning and not a proceeding that removes the president from the chair. An officer being censured is not referred to by name in the motion, but simply as "the president", "the treasurer", etc.

After a motion to censure is passed, the chair (or the vice-president, if the presiding officer is being censured) addresses the censured member by name. He may say something to the effect of, "Brother F, you have been censured by vote of the assembly. A censure indicates the assembly's disapproval of your conduct". ([at meetings.] This phrase should not be included as the cause for censure may have occurred outside of meetings.) "A censure is a warning. It is the warning voice of suspension or expulsion. Please take due notice thereof and govern yourself accordingly." Or, if the chair is being censured, the vice-president may say, "Mr. X, you have been censured by the assembly for the reasons contained in the resolution. I now return to you the presidency."

Politics

In politics, a censure is an alternative to more serious measures against misconduct or dereliction of duty.

Canada

Censure is an action by the House of Commons or the Senate rebuking the actions or conduct of an individual. The power to censure is not directly mentioned in the constitutional texts of Canada but is derived from the powers bestowed upon both Chambers through section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867. A motion of censure can be introduced by any Member of Parliament or Senator and passed by a simple majority for censure to be deemed to have been delivered. In addition, if the censure is related to the privileges of the Chamber, the individual in question could be summoned to the bar of the House or Senate (or, in the case of a sitting member, to that member's place in the chamber) to be censured, and could also face other sanctions from the house, including imprisonment. Normally, censure is exclusively an on-the-record rebuke — it is not equivalent to a motion of no confidence, and a prime minister can continue in office even if censured.

Louis Riel faced Parliamentary censure for his role in the Red River Rebellion, and was expelled from Parliament 16 April 1874.

Japan

In Japan, a censure motion is a motion that can be passed by the House of Councillors, the upper house of the National Diet. No-confidence motions are passed in the House of Representatives, and this generally doesn't happen as this house is controlled by the ruling party. On the other hand, censure motions have been passed by opposition parties several times during the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) administrations from 2009. The motions were combined with a demand from the opposition to take a certain action, and a refusal to cooperate with the ruling party on key issues unless some actions were taken. 

For example, on 20 April 2012 the opposition Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), Your Party and New Renaissance Party submitted censure motions against ministers of Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda's Democratic Party of Japan-controlled cabinet. They censured Minister of Defense Naoki Tanaka and Minister of Land Takeshi Maeda, and refused to cooperate with the government on passing an increase to Japan's consumption tax from 5% to 10%. Noda had "staked his political life" on passing the consumption tax increase, so on 4 June 2012, Noda reshuffled his cabinet and replaced Tanaka and Maeda.

On 28 August 2012, a censure motion was passed by the LDP and the New Komeito Party against Prime Minister Noda himself. The opposition parties were to boycott debate in the chamber, it means that bills passed in the DPJ-controlled House of Representatives cannot be enacted.

Australia

The Senate, the upper house of the Australian Parliament, has censured two Prime Ministers in recent decades that of Paul Keating and John Howard.

The Australian Attorney General George Brandis was censured on 2 March 2015 for his treatment of Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs.

Senator for Queensland Fraser Anning was censured for remarks he made about the Christchurch mosque shootings.

United Kingdom

In the UK The Crown cannot be prosecuted for breaches of the law even where it has no exemption, such as from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. A Crown Censure is the method by which the Health and Safety Executive records, but for Crown immunity, there would be sufficient evidence to secure a H&S conviction against the Crown.

United States

Censure is the public reprimanding of a public official for inappropriate conduct or voting behavior. When the president is censured, it serves only as a condemnation and has no direct effect on the validity of presidency, nor are there any other particular legal consequences. Unlike impeachment, censure has no basis in the Constitution or in the rules of the Senate and House of Representatives. It derives from the formal condemnation of either congressional body of their own members.

Chronology

To date, Andrew Jackson is the only sitting President of the United States to be successfully censured, although his censure was subsequently expunged from official records, and James K. Polk was also censured by the House of Representatives in 1848. Since 2017, several Members of Congress have introduced motions to censure President Donald Trump for various controversies, including as a possible substitute for impeachment during the Trump-Ukraine scandal, but none have been successful.

On 2 December 1954, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy from Wisconsin was censured by the United States Senate for failing to cooperate with the subcommittee that was investigating him, and for insulting the committee that was recommending his censure.

On 10 June 1980, Democratic Representative Charles H. Wilson from California was censured by the House of Representatives for "financial misconduct", as a result of the "Koreagate" scandal of 1976. "Koreagate" was an American political scandal involving South Koreans seeking influence with members of Congress. An immediate goal seems to have been reversing President Richard Nixon's decision to withdraw troops from South Korea. It involved the KCIA (now the National Intelligence Service) funneling bribes and favors through Korean businessman Tongsun Park in an attempt to gain favor and influence. Some 115 members of Congress were implicated.

On 20 July 1983, Representatives Dan Crane, a Republican from Illinois, and Gerry Studds, a Democrat from Massachusetts, were censured by the House of Representatives for their involvement in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal.

On 12 July 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives censured (in a 355-to-0 vote) a scientific publication titled "A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples", by Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovich, and Robert Bauserman; (see Rind et al. controversy) which was published in the American Psychological Association's "Psychological Bulletin (July 1998).

On 31 July 2007, retired Army General Philip Kensinger was censured by the United States Army for misleading investigators of the Pat Tillman death in 2004.

On 6 July 2009, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford was censured by the South Carolina Republican Party executive committee for traveling overseas on taxpayer funds to visit his mistress.

On 13 October 2009, the mayor of Sheboygan, Wisconsin, Bob Ryan, was censured due to a YouTube video that showed him making sexually vulgar comments about his sister-in-law taken at a bar on a cell phone. The censure was voted 15-0 by the Sheboygan Common Council. His powers were also quickly reduced by the Common Council, and he was ultimately removed from office two and a half years later in a recall election for continued improprieties in office.

In November 2009, members of the Charleston County Republican Party censured Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina in response to his voting to bail out banks and other Wall Street firms, and for his sentiments on immigration reform and cap-and-trade climate change legislation.

On 2 December 2010, Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel from the State of New York was censured after an ethics panel found he violated House rules, specifically failing to pay taxes on a villa in the Dominican Republic, improperly soliciting charitable donations, and running a campaign office out of a rent-stabilized apartment meant for residential use.

On 4 January 2010, members of the Lexington County Republican Party censured Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina for his support of government intervention in the private financial sector and for “debasing” longstanding Republican beliefs in economic competition.

On 22 January 2013, the Arizona Republican Party censured longtime Sen. John McCain for what it called his “long and terrible” record of voting with liberal Democrats on some issues.

Catholic Church

Canon law

In canon law, a censure is a penalty imposed primarily for the purpose of breaking contumacy and reintegrating the offender in the community.

The ecclesiastical censures are excommunication and interdict, which can be imposed on any member of the Church, and suspension, which only affects clerics.

Theological censure

In Catholic theology, a theological censure is a doctrinal judgment by which the church stigmatizes certain teachings detrimental to faith or morals.

Peel Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission   Report of the Palest...