A Senator Can Delay or Impede a Bill by

Political stalling tactic

A
filibuster
is a political procedure in which 1 or more than members of a legislative body prolong contend on proposed legislation so as to filibuster or entirely prevent decision. It is sometimes referred to as “talking a bill to decease” or “talking out a bill”,[1]
and is characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other determination-making body.

Etymology

[edit]

The term “filibuster” ultimately derives from the Dutch
vrijbuiter
(“freebooter”, a pillaging and plundering adventurer), though the precise history of its borrowing into English is obscure.[2]
The
Oxford English Dictionary
finds its only known use in early modern English in a 1587 book describing “flibutors” who robbed supply convoys.[2]
In the late 18th century, the term was re-borrowed into English from its French form
flibustier, a form that was used until the mid-19th century.

The modern form “filibuster” was borrowed in the early 1850s from the Spanish word
filibustero
(lawless plunderer), and was applied to private military machine adventurers similar William Walker who were then attacking and pillaging Castilian colonies in Cardinal America.[2]
Spain lost all its Central American territory in 1821.[3]
Over the form of the mid to tardily 19th century, the term “filibustering” became common in American English in the sense of “obstructing progress in a legislative assembly”.[2]

Aboriginal Rome

[edit]

Ane of the offset known practitioners of the filibuster was the Roman senator Cato the Younger. In debates over legislation he especially opposed, Cato would ofttimes obstruct the measure by speaking continuously until nightfall.[four]
As the Roman Senate had a rule requiring all business to conclude by dusk, Cato’s purposefully long-winded speeches were an effective device to forbid a vote.

Cato attempted to employ the delay at to the lowest degree twice to frustrate the political objectives of Julius Caesar.[iv]
The kickoff incident occurred during the summer of lx BC, when Caesar was returning dwelling house from his propraetorship in Hispania Ulterior. Caesar, by virtue of his military victories over the raiders and bandits in Hispania, had been awarded a triumph by the Senate. Having recently turned forty, Caesar had too become eligible to stand for consul. This posed a dilemma. Roman generals honored with a triumph were not allowed to enter the city prior to the ceremony, merely candidates for the consulship were required, past law, to appear in person at the Forum.[iv]
The date of the election, which had already been set, made it impossible for Caesar to stand unless he crossed the
pomerium
and gave up the right to his triumph. Caesar petitioned the Senate to stand up
in absentia,
but Cato employed a filibuster to cake the proposal. Faced with a option between a triumph and the consulship, Caesar chose the consulship and entered the city.

Cato made use of the filibuster again in 59 BC in response to a land reform nib sponsored by Caesar, who was so delegate.[4]
When it was Cato’s time to speak during the debate, he began ane of his characteristically long-winded speeches. Caesar, who needed to pass the bill earlier his co-consul, Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, took possession of the
fasces
at the end of the month, immediately recognized Cato’s intent and ordered the lictors to jail him for the residuum of the day. The movement was unpopular with many senators and Caesar, realizing his fault, soon ordered Cato’s release. The day was wasted without the Senate ever getting to vote on a motion supporting the neb, but Caesar somewhen circumvented Cato’s opposition by taking the mensurate to the Tribal Assembly, where it passed.

Westminster-style parliaments

[edit]

United Kingdom

[edit]

In the Parliament of the United kingdom, a nib defeated by a filibustering manoeuvre may exist said to have been “talked out”. The procedures of the Business firm of Commons require that members cover only points germane to the topic nether consideration or the debate underway whilst speaking. Example filibusters in the Commons and Lords include:

  • In 1874, Joseph Gillis Biggar started making long speeches in the House of Commons to filibuster the passage of Irish coercion acts. Charles Stewart Parnell, a young Irish gaelic nationalist Member of Parliament (MP), who in 1880 became leader of the Irish gaelic Parliamentary Political party, joined him in this tactic to obstruct the business of the House and force the Liberals and Conservatives to negotiate with him and his political party. The tactic was enormously successful, and Parnell and his MPs succeeded, for a fourth dimension, in forcing Parliament to accept the Irish Question of render to self-regime seriously.
  • In 1983, Labour MP John Golding talked for over 11 hours during an all-nighttime sitting at the commission phase of the British Telecommunications Neb. All the same, as this was at a standing committee and not in the Commons sleeping room, he was also able to have breaks to consume.
  • On July 3, 1998, Labour MP Michael Foster’s Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill was blocked in Parliament by opposition filibustering.[
    commendation needed
    ]
  • In Jan 2000, filibustering directed by Conservative MPs to oppose the Disqualifications Bill led to counterfoil of the day’due south parliamentary business on Prime Minister Tony Blair’s i,000th 24-hour interval in office. Notwithstanding, since this business included Prime Minister’due south Questions, William Hague, Bourgeois leader at that fourth dimension, was deprived of the opportunity of a loftier-profile confrontation with the Prime number Minister.
  • On Friday 20 April 2007, a individual member’s neb aimed at exempting Members of Parliament from the Freedom of Data Act was ‘talked out’ by a collection of MPs, led by Liberal Democrats Simon Hughes and Norman Bakery who debated for v hours, therefore running out of time for the parliamentary day and ‘sending the bill to the lesser of the stack.’ Nonetheless, since there were no other private member’southward bills to debate, information technology was resurrected the following Monday.[5]
  • In Jan 2011, Labour peers, including most notably John Prescott, were attempting to delay the passage of the Parliamentary Voting Organization and Constituencies Pecker 2010 until afterwards sixteen February, the deadline given by the Electoral Commission to permit the referendum on the Alternative Vote to accept identify on 5 May. On the eighth day of debate, staff in the House of Lords fix up army camp beds and refreshments to allow peers to residuum, for the starting time time in eight years.[6]
  • In Jan 2012, Conservative and Scottish National Party MPs used filibustering to successfully block the Daylight Savings Beak 2010–12, a private member’s bill that would put the UK on Central European Time. The filibustering included an attempt by Jacob Rees-Mogg to amend the bill to give the county of Somerset its own time zone, 15 minutes behind London.[7]
    [8]
  • In Nov 2014, Conservative MPs Philip Davies and Christopher Chope successfully filibustered a private member’due south nib that would have prohibited retaliatory evictions. Davies’due south speech was curtailed by Deputy Speaker Dawn Primarolo for disregarding her potency, later on she ordered Davies to wrap upwards his then 60 minutes-long spoken language. A closure motion moved by the regime, which was agreed to 60–0, failed due to being inquorate.[nine]
    [10]
  • In Oct 2016 Bourgeois Government minister Sam Gyimah filibustered a bill sponsored by John Nicolson of the Scottish National Party that would pardon historic convictions for homosexual acts (which are no longer an offence), replacing an existing law that requires each pardon to be applied for separately.

The all-time Commons tape for not-stop speaking, vi hours, was ready by Henry Brougham in 1828, though this was non a filibuster. The 21st century record was set on December 2, 2005, by Andrew Dismore, Labour MP for Hendon. Dismore spoke for three hours and 17 minutes to block a Conservative individual fellow member’s beak, the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill, which he claimed amounted to “vigilante law.”[11]
Although Dismore is credited with speaking for 197 minutes, he regularly accustomed interventions from other MPs who wished to comment on points made in his speech. Taking multiple interventions artificially inflates the elapsing of a speech and thus may be used as a tactic to prolong a speech.

In local unitary authorities of England a motion may be carried into closure by filibustering. This results in whatever additional motions receiving less fourth dimension for debate by councillors instead forcing a vote by the council under closure rules.[
citation needed
]

Northern Ireland

[edit]

A notable filibuster took place in the Northern Ireland Business firm of Commons in 1936 when Tommy Henderson (Independent Unionist MP for Shankill) spoke for ix and a half hours (catastrophe just before 4 am) on the Appropriation Beak. As this bill practical government spending to all departments, almost whatever topic was relevant to the debate, and Henderson used the opportunity to list all of his many criticisms of the Unionist government.

Australia

[edit]

Both houses of the Australian parliament take strictly enforced rules on how long members may speak, and so filibusters are by and large not possible, though this is not the example in some state legislatures.[12]
[13]

In opposition, Tony Abbott’southward Liberal National coalition used break of continuing orders in 2012 for the purposes of filibustering, most ordinarily during question time confronting the Labor government.[14]
[15]

New Zealand

[edit]

In August 2000, New Zealand opposition parties National and ACT delayed the voting for the Employment Relations Bill by voting slowly, and in some cases in Māori (which required translation into English language).[sixteen]

In 2009, several parties staged a filibuster of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill in opposition to the government setting upwardly a new Auckland Council under urgency and without argue or review past select committee, by proposing thousands of wrecking amendments and voting in Māori as each amendment had to exist voted on and votes in Māori translated into English language. Amendments included renaming the council to “Auckland Katchafire Council” or “Rodney Hide Memorial Council” and replacing the phrase “powers of a regional council” with “power and muscle”.[17]
[eighteen]

India

[edit]

The Rajya Sabha (Council of states) – which is the upper business firm in the Indian bicameral legislature – allows for a debate to be brought to a close with a elementary majority conclusion of the house, on a closure motion so introduced past whatever member.[xix]
On the other hand, the Lok Sabha (Council of the people) – the lower house – leaves the closure of the debate to the discretion of the speaker, once a motion to end the contend is moved past a member.[20]

Popular:   A Person Who Believes in Fascism Thinks That:

Republic of ireland

[edit]

In 2014, Irish Justice Government minister Alan Shatter performed a filibuster; he was perceived to “drone on and on” and hence this was termed a “Drone Attack”.[21]

Canada

[edit]

Federal

[edit]

A dramatic example of filibustering in the House of Eatables of Canada took place betwixt Thursday June 23, 2011 and Saturday June 25, 2011. In an attempt to foreclose the passing of Bill C-6, which would have legislated the imposing of a four-year contract and pay conditions on the locked out Canada Mail workers, the New Autonomous Party (NDP) led a filibustering session which lasted for fifty-8 hours. The NDP argued that the legislation in its then form undermined collective bargaining. Specifically, the NDP opposed the salary provisions and the course of binding mediation outlined in the bill.[22]

The House was supposed to pause for the summer Thursday June 23, but remained open in an extended session due to the filibuster. The 103 NDP MPs had been taking it in turn to deliver twenty minute speeches – plus 10 minutes of questions and comments – in social club to delay the passing of the bill. MPs are immune to give such speeches each time a vote takes place, and many votes were needed earlier the pecker could be passed. As the Conservative Political party of Canada held a majority in the House, the beak passed.[22]
[23]
This was the longest filibuster since the 1999 Reform Political party of Canada filibuster, on native treaty issues in British Columbia.[24]
[25]

In Canada filibusters are more common at the commission level than in the House of Eatables itself.[
citation needed
]

Bourgeois Fellow member of Parliament Tom Lukiwski is known for his power to stall Parliamentary Commission business by filibustering.[26]
[27]
One such example occurred October 26, 2006, when he spoke for almost 120 minutes to foreclose the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development from studying a private fellow member’s beak to implement the Kyoto Accord.[28]
[29]
[thirty]
He likewise spoke for near 6 hours on February 5, 2008 and Feb 7, 2008 at the Continuing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meetings to block inquiry into allegations that the Conservative Party spent over the maximum allowable entrada limits during the 2006 ballot.[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]

Another case of filibuster in Canada federally came in early 2014 when NDP MP and Deputy Leader David Christopherson filibustered the government’s nib C-23, the Fair Elections Deed at the Process and Business firm Diplomacy Committee.[36]
His filibuster lasted several meetings, in the concluding of which he spoke for over 8 hours. It was washed to support his own motion to hold cross-country hearings on the beak so that MPs could hear what the Canadian public thought of the bill.[37]
In the end, given that the Conservative government had a majority at commission, his motion was defeated and the bill passed although with some pregnant amendments.[38]

In spring 2017 Bourgeois and NDP Opposition MPs united to filibuster a motion from Authorities Firm Leader Bardish Chagger arguing information technology was an endeavor by the Liberal Government to limit the ability of opposition parties to concur the regime to account.[39]
David Christopherson was again one of the leaders in this filibuster along with Conservative Scott Reid (politician). Several other opposition MPs made significant contributions to the filibuster including, Blake Richards, John Nater, and Jamie Schmale. The filibuster lasted from March 21 until May 2 when the Liberal Regime agreed to drop the most controversial elements of their proposal.[40]

Provincial

[edit]

The Legislature of the Province of Ontario has witnessed several significant filibusters,[41]
although two are notable for the unusual way by which they were undertaken.[42]
The first was an effort on May 6, 1991, by Mike Harris, later premier merely then leader of the opposition Progressive Conservatives, to derail the implementation of the budget tabled past the NDP government under premier Bob Rae. The tactic involved the introduction of Bill 95 (a.yard.a.
Zebra Mussel Act), the title of which independent the names of every lake, river and stream in the province.[43]
Between the reading of the title by the proposing MPP, and the subsequent obligatory reading of the title by the clerk of the sleeping accommodation, this delay occupied the entirety of the mean solar day’s session until adjournment. To prevent this particular tactic to be used once more, changes were eventually fabricated to the Continuing Orders to limit the fourth dimension allocated each day to the introduction of bills to xxx minutes.[41]

A 2nd high-contour and uniquely implemented delay in the Ontario Legislature occurred in April, 1997, where the Ontario New Democratic Party, then in opposition, tried to prevent the governing Progressive Conservatives’ Bill 103 from taking effect. To protest the Tory government’s legislation that would amalgamate the municipalities of Metro Toronto into the “megacity” of Toronto, the small NDP conclave introduced xi,500 amendments to the megacity beak, created on computers with mail merge functionality. Each amendment would name a street in the proposed city, and provide that public hearings be held into the megacity with residents of the street invited to participate. The Ontario Liberal Party likewise joined the delay with a smaller series of amendments; a typical Liberal subpoena would requite a historical designation to a named street. The NDP then added another series of over 700 amendments, each proposing a dissimilar engagement for the bill to come up into force.

The filibuster began on Apr two with the Abbeywood Trail subpoena[44]
and occupied the legislature twenty-four hours and night, the members alternating in shifts. On April 4, wearied and frequently sleepy government members inadvertently allow one of the NDP amendments pass, and the handful of residents of Cafon Court in Etobicoke were granted the right to a public consultation on the bill, although the government subsequently nullified this with an amendment of its own.[45]
On Apr 6, with the alphabetical listing of streets barely into the Es, Speaker Chris Stockwell ruled that in that location was no need for the 220 words identical in each amendment to be read aloud each time, just the street name.[46]
With a vote still needed on each amendment, Zorra Street was not reached until April 8.[47]
The Liberal amendments were then voted downwardly one by i, eventually using a similar abbreviated process, and the delay finally concluded on April 11.[48]

An ironic example of filibustering occurred when the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador reportedly had “aught else to do in the Business firm of Assembly” and debated between only themselves about their own upkeep after both the Conservative and NDP party indicated either their support for the bill or intent to vote.[49]

Other

[edit]

On 28 October 1897, Dr. Otto Lecher, Delegate for Brünn, spoke continuously for twelve hours before the
Abgeordnetenhaus
(“House of Delegates”) of the
Reichsrat
(“Regal Council”) of Austria, to block action on the “Ausgleich” with Republic of hungary, which was due for renewal. Mark Twain was present, and described the speech and the political context in his essay “Stirring Times in Austria”.[fifty]

In the Southern Rhodesia Legislative Assembly, Contained member Dr Ahrn Palley staged a like delay against the Constabulary and Social club Maintenance Pecker on 22 November 1960, although this took the form of moving a long serial of amendments to the Bill, and therefore consisted of multiple individual speeches interspersed with comments from other Members. Palley kept the Associates sitting from eight PM to 12:30 PM the following day.

In the Senate of the Philippines, Roseller Lim of the Nacionalista Political party held out the longest filibuster in Philippine Senate history.[
citation needed
]

On the election for the President of the Senate of the Philippines in April 1963, he stood on the podium for more than 18 hours to wait for party-mate Alejandro Almendras who was to arrive from the U.s.a.. The Nacionalistas, who comprised exactly half of the Senate, wanted to prevent the ballot of Ferdinand Marcos to the Senate Presidency. Prohibited from even going to the comfort room, he had to relieve in his pants until Almendras’ inflow. He voted for political party-mate Eulogio Rodriguez just every bit Almendras arrived, and had to be carried off via stretcher out of the session hall due to burnout. Yet, Almendras voted for Marcos, and the latter wrested the Senate Presidency from the Nacionalistas after more than than a decade of control.[
citation needed
]

On Dec sixteen, 2010, Werner Kogler of the Austrian Dark-green Party gave his speech before the budget commission, criticizing the failings of the upkeep and the governing parties (Social Democratic Party and Austrian People’southward Party) in the last years. The filibuster lasted for 12 hours and 42 minutes (starting at 13:18, and speaking until ii:00 in the morning),[51]
thus breaking the previous record held past his political party-colleague Madeleine Petrovic (ten hours and 35 minutes on March eleven, 1993),[52]
after which the standing orders had been changed, so speaking time was limited to 20 minutes.[53]
Still, it didn’t proceed Kogler from giving his spoken language.

United States

[edit]

Senate

[edit]

The filibuster is a powerful legislative device in the United states of america Senate. Senate rules let a senator or senators to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless “three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn”[54]
(commonly 60 out of 100 senators) bring debate to a close past invoking cloture nether Senate Rule XXII. Fifty-fifty if a delay attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes floor time.[55]
Defenders call the filibuster “The Soul of the Senate.”[56]

It is not function of the U.s. Constitution, becoming theoretically possible with a alter of Senate rules only in 1806 and not used until 1837.[57]
Rarely used for much of the Senate’southward first two centuries, it was strengthened in the 1970s[58]
and in recent years[
when?
]
, the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters past moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to reach cloture have failed.[59]
As a result, in recent decades this has come to mean that all major legislation (apart from budgets) now requires a 60% majority to pass.

Popular:   Select All Transformations That Must Result in a Congruent Image

Under current Senate rules, whatever modification or limitation of the delay would be a rule modify that itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting (equally opposed to the normal 3-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to break the filibuster.[54]
Withal, nether Senate precedents, a simple majority tin (and has) acted to limit the practice by overruling decisions of the chair. The removal or substantial limitation of the filibuster past a elementary bulk, rather than a rule change, is called the constitutional choice by proponents,[60]
and the nuclear option by opponents.

On Nov 21, 2013, the Democrat-controlled Senate voted 52 to 48 to require merely a bulk vote to end a filibuster of all executive and judicial nominees, excluding Supreme Court nominees, rather than the iii/v of votes previously required.[61]
On April half dozen, 2017, the Republican controlled Senate voted 52 to 48 to require only a majority vote to end a delay of Supreme Court nominees.[62]
A 3/5 supermajority is still required to end filibusters on legislation.

In 2021, the Senate filibuster’s past, particularly its historical usage in blocking civil rights legislation, a do described by the Associated Press as racist, fueled arguments for its finish.[63]
On January nineteen, 2022 the Democratic controlled Senate voted to change the filibuster. The vote, however, failed 52-48.[64]

House of Representatives

[edit]

In the United States House of Representatives, the delay (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent dominion limiting the elapsing of fence was created.[65]
The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed eliminated information technology in 1890.[66]
Every bit the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House had acted before to control flooring debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes. The magic minute allows party leaders to speak for as long as they wish, which Kevin McCarthy used in 2021 to set a record for the longest spoken language on the House flooring (eight hours and 33 minutes) in opposition to the Build Dorsum Better Act.[67]
[68]

Country legislatures

[edit]

But 13 state legislatures have a filibuster:

  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arkansas
  • Connecticut
  • Florida
  • Hawaii
  • Idaho
  • Maine
  • Nebraska
  • Due south Carolina
  • Texas
  • Utah
  • Vermont

France

[edit]

In France, in August 2006, the left-wing opposition submitted 137,449 amendments[69]
to the proposed law bringing the share in Gaz de France endemic by the French state from 80% to 34% in lodge to permit for the merger between Gaz de France and Suez.[seventy]
Normal parliamentary procedure would crave 10 years to vote on all the amendments.

The French constitution gives the authorities ii options to defeat such a filibuster. The outset one was originally the apply of the commodity 49 paragraph 3 procedure, according to which the law was adopted except if a majority is reached on a not-conviction motion (a reform of July 2008 resulted in this ability being restricted to monetary measures just, plus one time each ordinary session – i.eastward. from October to June – on whatsoever bill. Before this reform, article 49, 3 was ofttimes used, especially when the regime was short a majority in the Assemblée nationale to support the text simply still plenty to avoid a non-confidence vote). The 2d one is the commodity 44 paragraph 3 through which the government tin force a global vote on all amendments it did non approve or submit itself.[71]

In the terminate, the regime did non take to use either of those procedures. Every bit the parliamentary debate started, the left-wing opposition chose to withdraw all the amendments to permit for the vote to proceed. The “filibuster” was aborted because the opposition to the privatisation of Gaz de French republic appeared to lack support amongst the general population. It also appeared that this privatisation law could exist used by the left-fly in the presidential election of 2007 every bit a political argument. Indeed, Nicolas Sarkozy, president of the Marriage pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP – the correct wing party), Interior Minister, former Finance Government minister and future President, had previously promised that the share endemic by the French government in Gaz de France would never get below 70%.

Republic of chile

[edit]

In 1993, Jorge Ulloa of the Independent Democratic Union, held a six-hour-long speech at the Bedchamber of Deputies in Valparaíso, assuasive for Pablo Longueira to arrive from Concepción and vote the impeachment of three Supreme Court justices.[72]

In the Chamber of Deputies of Republic of chile, on November viii, 2021, Jaime Naranjo, deputy from the Socialist Party, spoke for almost xv hours during the discussion of the impeachment against President Sebastián Piñera, assuasive for Broad Front’s Gonzalo Wintertime[72]
and Giorgio Jackson (both on a COVID-19 shut contact preemptive quarantine until that midnight) to arrive in Congress to participate in the session. Christian Democratic Jorge Sabag was in Chillán and had a PCR test taken earlier that day; although initially refusing to nourish the session, members of the Christian Autonomous Party lath convinced him to make the trip to Valparaíso, arriving that night, but later on Jackson and Winter. Their votes were essential to impeach Piñera.[73]
[74]

Hong Kong

[edit]

The first incidence of delay in the Legislative Council (LegCo) after the Handover occurred during the second reading of the Provision of Municipal Services (Reorganization) Bill in 1999, which aimed at dissolving the partially elected Urban Council and Regional Council. Equally the absence of some pro-Institution legislators would mean an inadequate back up for the passing of the bill, the Pro-establishment Military camp filibustered along with Michael Suen, the so-Secretary for Constitutional Diplomacy, the voting of the bill was delayed to the adjacent day and that the absentees could cast their votes. Though the filibuster was criticised past the pro-democracy camp, Lau Kong-wah of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) defended their actions, saying “it (a filibuster) is totally acceptable in a parliamentary assembly.”[75]

Legislators of the Pro-democracy Camp filibustered during a argue near financing the construction of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link by raising many questions on very minor bug, delaying the passing of the bill from 18 December 2009 to 16 January 2010.[76]
The Legislative Council Building was surrounded past thousands of anti-loftier-speed rails protesters during the form of the meetings.

In 2012, Albert Chan and Wong Yuk-man of People Power submitted a total of 1306 amendments to the Legislative Quango (Subpoena) Bill, past which the government attempted to preclude lawmakers from participating in by-elections later their resignation. The bill was a response to the so-called ‘Five Constituencies Referendum, in which 5 lawmakers from the pro-democracy camp resigned and so joined the by-ballot, claiming that information technology would affirm the public’due south back up to push forrad the electoral reform. The pro-democracy campsite strongly opposed the neb[
citation needed
]
, saying it was seen a deprivation of the citizens’ political rights. As a consequence of the filibuster, the LegCo carried on multiple overnight debates on the amendments. In the morning time of 17 May 2012, the President of the LegCo (Jasper Tsang) terminated the debate, citing Article 92 of the Rules of Process of LegCo:
In whatsoever matter non provided for in these Rules of Procedure, the exercise and procedure to be followed in the Council shall exist such every bit may be decided past the President who may, if he thinks fit, be guided by the exercise and process of other legislatures.
In the cease, all motions to amend the bill were defeated and the Bill was passed.

To ban filibuster, Ip Kwok-him of the DAB sought to limit each member to move only one movement, by alteration the procedures of the Finance Committee and its two subcommittees in 2013. All 27 members from pan-democracy military camp submitted 1.9 million amendments.[77]
The Secretariat estimated that 408 human being-months (each containing 156 working hours) were needed to vet the facts and accuracy of the motions, and, if all amendments were admitted by the Chairman, the voting time would take 23,868 ii-hour meetings.

With the drastic election reforms implemented by Beijing, as of 2022, filibustering is no longer an ongoing practice in Hong Kong as all opposition lawmakers were replaced by pro-Beijing lawmakers, pregnant in that location is no need or apply for filibustering.

Italy

[edit]

In Italy, filibustering has ancient traditions and is expressed overall with the suggestion of legal texts[78]
on which interventions take place.[79]

Iran

[edit]

In Iranian oil nationalisation, the filibustering speech of Hossain Makki, the National Front deputy took four days
[lxxx]
that fabricated the pro-British and pro-royalists in Majlis (Iran) inactive. To forestall a vote, the opposition, headed past Hossein Makki, conducted a filibuster. For four days Makki talked almost the country’s tortuous experience with AIOC and the shortcomings of the bill. Four days afterwards when the term ended the argue had reached no conclusion. The fate of the bill remained to be decided by the adjacent Majlis.[81]

S Korea

[edit]

South Korean opposition lawmakers started a filibuster on February 23, 2016 to stall the Anti-Terrorism bill, which they claim will give likewise much power to the National Intelligence Service and result in invasions of citizens’ privacy. As of March 2, the delay completed with a full of 193 hours, and the passing of the beak.[82]
Southward Korea’s 20th legislative elections were held two months after the filibuster, and the opposite party the Minjoo Political party of Korea won more than seats than the ruling party, the Saenuri Party.

Espana

[edit]

In the Catalonian parliament, opposition lawmakers started a filibuster on September vi, 2017 in order to stall the independence plebiscite.

See also

[edit]

  • Constitution of the Roman Republic
  • Gag order
  • Gaming the system
  • Justice delayed is justice denied
  • Liberum veto
  • “The Stackhouse Filibuster” – an episode of
    The West Fly
  • “Babe, It’s Cold Outside” – an episode of
    Scandal
  • Obstructionism
Popular:   Fill in the Blank Questions Are Considered___________questions

References

[edit]

Notes

[edit]


  1. ^

    “Talking information technology out” usage case:
    “MPs renew info exemption effort”. BBC. 15 May 2007. Retrieved
    25 September
    2010
    .


  2. ^


    a




    b




    c




    d




    Oxford English Dictionary, “filibuster”, pp. F:212–213.

  3. ^


    Fouts, Michael. “No Spain, No Gain”.
    Ohio History Connection.


  4. ^


    a




    b




    c




    d




    Goldsworthy, Adrian (2006).
    Caesar: Life of a Colossus. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 583.



  5. ^


    “MPs’ info exemption pecker revived”. BBC News. 2007-04-24. Retrieved
    2010-12-24
    .



  6. ^


    Thomson, Ainsley (2011-01-17). “U.K. in Marathon Session on Voting Bill”.
    The Wall Street Journal.



  7. ^


    “Conservative backbenchers halt effort to move clocks forwards”. January 21, 2012. Retrieved
    July 12,
    2012
    .



  8. ^



    Jacob Rees-Mogg Proposes Somerset Time Zone. Archived from the original on 2021-12-11.



  9. ^


    “Hansard”
    (PDF). 28 November 2014.



  10. ^


    “Fury equally retaliatory evictions beak talked out of Commons”. Inside Housing. Archived from the original on xiv Baronial 2016. Retrieved
    15 June
    2016
    .



  11. ^

    BBC News – “MP’south marathon spoken communication sinks nib.” Retrieved Feb 14, 2007.

  12. ^

    Parliament of Commonwealth of australia – Standing Orders and other orders of the Senate. Retrieved June 23, 2008. Archived February sixteen, 2012, at the Wayback Car

  13. ^

    Parliament of Australia – House of Representatives Continuing and Sessional Orders. Retrieved June 23, 2008. Archived February 16, 2012, at the Wayback Machine

  14. ^


    Ireland, Judith (February 29, 2012). “Abbott finds a new victim for his schtick”.
    Sydney Morning Herald.



  15. ^


    “Suspended in the time it takes for a sound bite”.
    The Australian. 2012-03-16.



  16. ^


    Small, Vernon (2000-08-21). “Beak debate goes to rare Monday”.
    The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on March 15, 2018. Retrieved
    2017-12-16
    .



  17. ^


    “Melissa Lee Memorial Quango” mooted”. Newstalk ZB. Archived from the original on 2009-05-19. Retrieved
    2010-12-24
    .



  18. ^


    “Labour filibuster on Supercity bills”. Stuff.co.nz. 25 May 2009. Retrieved
    2010-12-24
    .



  19. ^


    Regime of India (January 2010). “two: General Matters”.
    Handbook for Members of Rajya Sabha
    (PDF). p. 60.



  20. ^


    Government of Republic of india. “two: General”.
    Handbook for Members of Lok Sabha
    (PDF)
    (Fifteenth ed.). p. 67.



  21. ^


    “Bizarre story defies Shatter’due south drone assail”.
    The Irish gaelic Times. February xx, 2014.


  22. ^


    a




    b




    “Canada Mail back-to-work bill passes key vote”. CBC. June 25, 2011.


  23. ^


    “John Ivison: Time stands all the same in the House of Eatables as NDP filibuster drags on”.
    National Mail service. June 24, 2011. Archived from the original on January 29, 2013.



  24. ^



    politics.canada.com
    https://spider web.annal.org/web/20110629101140/http://politics.canada.com/2011/06/ndp-filibuster-cost-canadians/. Archived from the original on June 29, 2011.



  25. ^


    “Marathon Canada Postal service debate continues on Colina”.
    Vancouver Sun. June 24, 2011.



  26. ^


    Alexander Panetta (2008-04-03). “Tory’s loose lips an nugget – until now”. Toronto: The Canadian Printing. Retrieved
    2010-02-13
    .



  27. ^


    Catherine Clark, Tom Lukiwski (July 27, 2009). “‘Beyond Politics’ interview (at nineteen:xi)”. CPAC.


  28. ^


    “Parties trade blame for House logjam”. Toronto: The Canadian Press. 2006-10-26. Archived from the original on 2011-06-06. Retrieved
    2010-02-13
    .



  29. ^


    “Standing Committee on Surroundings and Sustainable Development”. Parliament of Canada. October 26, 2006. Retrieved
    2010-02-13
    .



  30. ^


    Mike De Souza. “Tories accused of stalling their own greenish agenda”. www.canada.com. Archived from the original on 2011-06-04. Retrieved
    2010-02-13
    .



  31. ^


    “Angry chairman suspends session”. www.canada.com. Archived from the original on 2011-06-04. Retrieved
    2010-02-13
    .



  32. ^


    “Tories accused of stalling advert scheme review”. www.canada.com. Archived from the original on 2011-06-04. Retrieved
    2010-02-13
    .



  33. ^


    Kady O’Malley. “Filibuster ahoy! Liveblogging the Procedure and Firm Affairs Committee for every bit long every bit it takes…” www.macleans.ca. Retrieved
    2010-02-13
    .



    [
    dead link
    ]



  34. ^


    Kady O’Malley. “Liveblogging PROC: We’ll finish blogging when he stops talking – the return of the killer delay (From the archives)”. world wide web.macleans.ca. Retrieved
    2010-02-13
    .



  35. ^


    Kady O’Malley. “Liveblogging the Procedure and House Affairs Committee for as long every bit it takes… (Part 3)”. www.macleans.ca. Retrieved
    2010-02-xiii
    .



    [
    dead link
    ]



  36. ^


    “House of Commons Committees – PROC (41-two) – Minutes of Proceedings – Number 016”. Retrieved
    15 June
    2016
    .



  37. ^


    Stone, Laura. “The fine art of the filibuster: training, focus and a hardy bladder”. Retrieved
    15 June
    2016
    .



  38. ^


    “Conservatives pass Fair Elections Act”.
    Toronto Star. 13 May 2014. Retrieved
    15 June
    2016
    .



  39. ^

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/firm-procedure-reid-christopherson-1.4050987[
    bare URL
    ]


  40. ^


    Bryden, Joan; Press, The Canadian (April 30, 2017). “Government drops almost contentious proposals for reforming House of Commons rules”.

  41. ^


    a




    b




    “Obstacle in the Ontario Legislature: The struggle for power betwixt the regime and the opposition”
    (PDF)
    . Retrieved
    2012-08-07
    .



  42. ^


    “On Filibusters”. Retrieved
    2012-08-07
    .



  43. ^


    “Hansard Transcripts 1991-May-06 ¦ Legislative Assembly of Ontario”. Retrieved
    2022-06-03
    .



  44. ^


    “Legislative Associates of Ontario. Hansard. Wednesday, 2 April 1997, volume B” (in French). Ontla.on.ca. Archived from the original on 2017-07-07. Retrieved
    2010-12-24
    .



  45. ^


    “Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Hansard. Friday, 4 April 1997, volume H”. Ontla.on.ca. Retrieved
    2010-12-24
    .



  46. ^


    “Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Hansard. Sunday, vi Apr 1997, volume Due north”. Ontla.on.ca. Retrieved
    2010-12-24
    .



  47. ^


    “Legislative Associates of Ontario. Hansard. Tuesday, 8 April 1997, volume South”. Ontla.on.ca. Retrieved
    2010-12-24
    .



  48. ^


    “Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Hansard. Fri, 11 April 1997, volume AE”. Ontla.on.ca. Retrieved
    2010-12-24
    .



  49. ^


    McLeod, James (March 14, 2017). “Liberal regime filibusters its own upkeep debate”.
    The Telegram. Archived from the original on March fifteen, 2017. Retrieved
    November 5,
    2017
    .



  50. ^


    Mark Twain. “Stirring Times in Austria”. Retrieved
    thirteen Aug
    2017
    .



  51. ^

    “Werner Kogler blocks budget with record delay”, Presse, xvi. Dezember 2010

  52. ^


    “Stenographical Protokol of the 107th conference of the XVIII. legislature period (March 10th to twelfth; 1993)”
    (PDF)
    (in German language). Retrieved
    2010-12-24
    .



  53. ^

    Parlamentskorrespondenz/09/12.03.2007/Nr. 156,
    Die lange Nacht im Hohen Haus
  54. ^


    a




    b




    “Rules Of The Senate: Precedence of Motions (Rule XXII)”.
    United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. United states Senate. Retrieved
    March three,
    2022
    .



    {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)


  55. ^


    Beth, Richard; Stanley Bach (March 28, 2003).
    Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate
    (PDF). Congressional Research Service. pp. 4, 9.



  56. ^


    Richard A. Arenberg; Robert B. Dove (2012).
    Defending the Filibuster: The Soul of the Senate. Indiana U.P. ISBN978-0253001917.



  57. ^


    Binder, Sarah (April 22, 2010). “The History of the Filibuster”.
    Brookings
    . Retrieved
    June xiv,
    2012
    .



  58. ^


    Jonathan Backer.
    Brennan Center for Justice: A Short History on the Ramble Option. Archived from the original on 2012-12-21.



  59. ^


    Gregory John Wawro; Eric Schickler (2006).
    Filibuster: Obstruction And Lawmaking in the U.South. Senate. Princeton U.P. pp. 1–12. ISBN0691125090.



  60. ^


    “The Need for the Constitutional Option”.
    HuffPost. 2010-03-28. Retrieved
    2022-06-30
    .



  61. ^


    Peters, Jeremy W. (2013-xi-21). “In Landmark Vote, Senate Limits Use of the Delay”.
    The New York Times.



  62. ^


    “Senate OKs ‘nuclear pick,’ clears path for high courtroom nomination vote”.
    ABC News. 2017-04-06. Retrieved
    2017-04-06
    .



  63. ^


    “Senate filibuster’s racist past fueled arguments for its end”.
    AP NEWS. 2021-04-20. Retrieved
    2022-01-19
    .



  64. ^


    “Senate votes down delay change as Manchin, Sinema side with Republicans”.
    New York Postal service. 2022-01-20. Retrieved
    2022-05-03
    .



  65. ^


    Oleszek, Walter (1998-12-01). “A Pre-Twentieth Century Look at the House Committee on Rules”.
    The U.South. Firm of Representatives Committee on Rules. Archived from the original on 2022-02-06. Retrieved
    2022-06-30
    .



  66. ^


    Litt, David (2021-03-08). “We Already Got Rid of the Delay Once Earlier”.
    The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2022-06-xv. Retrieved
    2022-06-30
    .



  67. ^


    “Kevin McCarthy breaks record for longest-ever House voice communication, talking for more than viii hours to obstruct Biden’s social-spending neb”.
    Business concern Insider. 19 November 2021. Retrieved
    19 November
    2021
    .



    {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)


  68. ^


    “McCarthy delays spending neb vote with longest spoken language ever on House floor”.
    Flim-flam News. 19 November 2021. Retrieved
    nineteen November
    2021
    .



    {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-condition (link)


  69. ^


    “TIMELINE: Central dates in Gaz de French republic-Suez merger”.
    Reuters. two September 2007. Retrieved
    2010-02-24
    .



  70. ^


    Kanter, James (xix September 2006). “Program for Gaz de France advances toward a vote”.
    International Herald Tribune
    . Retrieved
    2010-02-24
    .



  71. ^


    “France – Constitution”. International Ramble Police force. Retrieved
    2010-02-24
    .


  72. ^


    a




    b




    Hermosilla, Ignacio (2021-11-08). ““Filibusterismo”: la técnica de Naranjo que hace recordar el discurso de half dozen horas de Jorge Ulloa”.
    Radio Bío-Bío
    (in Spanish). Retrieved
    2021-11-10
    .



  73. ^


    Wilson, José Miguel (2021-11-08). “Acusación a Piñera: Votos opositores en duda, la resistencia de Naranjo y el caso Jackson se transforman en factores clave”.
    La Tercera. Diamond Books. OCLC 1245993113. Retrieved
    2021-11-08
    .



  74. ^


    Cooperativa.cl (9 November 2021). “[Minuto a Minuto] [En vivo] Cuando Jaime Naranjo cumple xv horas hablando, Giorgio Jackson llega, por fin, al Congreso”.
    Cooperativa
    (in Spanish). Retrieved
    2021-eleven-09
    .



  75. ^

    Official Record of Proceedings, Legislative Council, ane Dec 1999, p. 1875.

  76. ^

    Hong Kong Opposition to Track Holds Off Vote, Wall Street Periodical

  77. ^

    Paper for the Finance Committee Coming together on 22 February 2013: Members’ motions that seek to meliorate the procedures of the Finance Commission and its 2 subcommittees, Legislative Council of Hong Kong

  78. ^


    (in Italian)
    Pacuvio Labeone,

    Italicum, canguri e scavalchi: gli emendamenti azzeccagarbugli
    , Goleminformazione, 22 gennaio 2015.

  79. ^


    (in Italian)

    I tre giorni della supercazzola
    , L’Ago e il filo, 2013.

  80. ^


    “Oil Agreements in Islamic republic of iran”.
    Encyclopædia Iranica. 1901-05-28. Retrieved
    2015-09-01
    .



  81. ^


    Elm, M. (1994).
    Oil, Power, and Principle: Iran’s Oil Nationalization and Its Backwash. Contemporary issues in the Centre East. Syracuse University Printing. p. 56. ISBN978-0-8156-2642-8
    . Retrieved
    2015-09-01
    .



  82. ^


    “South Korea breaks record trying to block surveillance”. 2 March 2016. Archived from the original on xvi March 2016. Retrieved
    15 June
    2016
    .


Media

[edit]

  • BBC, “Filibustering,” at BBC News, 16 July 2005.
  • BBC, “MP’s marathon speech sinks bill” at BBC News, ii Dec. 2005.

Further reading

[edit]

  • Beth, Richard; Stanley Bach (2003-03-28).
    Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate. Congressional Research Service.

  • Sarah A. Binder and Steven Southward. Smith,
    Politics or Principle: Filibustering in the United States Senate. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Printing, 1996. ISBN 0-8157-0952-8
  • Eleanor Clift, “Filibuster: Not Similar It Used to Exist,”
    Newsweek, 24 Nov. 2003.
  • Bill Dauster, “It’due south Not Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: The Senate Filibuster Ain’t What it Used To Be”,
    The Washington Monthly, Nov. 1996, at 34–36.
  • Alan South. Frumin, “Cloture Procedure,” in
    Riddick’southward Senate Procedure,
    282–334. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1992.
  • Gregory Koger (2010).
    Filibustering: A Political History of Obstacle in the House and Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-44964-vii. OCLC 455871593.
  • Lazare, Daniel (1996).
    The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy. Harcourt. ISBN978-0-15-100085-2. OCLC 32626734.

  • Jessica Reaves, “The Filibuster Formula,”
    Fourth dimension, 25 Feb. 2003.
  • U.South. Senate, “Filibuster and Cloture.”
  • U.S. Senate, “Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment.”

External links

[edit]

  • Archive of the subpoena debates, two April 1997 (Canada, Toronto) Archived 2017-07-07 at the Wayback Auto in the Provincial Hansard. The filibuster extends from section L176B of the archive to L176AE; the Cafon Court skid-upwardly is in section L176H, Stockwell rules on the issue of repetition in L176N, and Zorra Street is reached in L176S.
  • Congressional Quarterly 101 Delay Archived 2009-06-24 at the Wayback Automobile



A Senator Can Delay or Impede a Bill by

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster