Talk:Censure in the United States

Censure explanation AND context

Note: The count of US senators which were censured will need to be updated. - Also not a Lawyer

I am a newbie Wikipedia editor (one correction on a talk page that was quickly adopted in the article) and still am reluctant to edit others. Could I offer the text below as context?

Thanks, John, Not a Lawyer

Censure is a public, formal, and recorded reprimand. That punishment occurs in the legislative chamber (i.e., Senate or House of Representatives) AND in front of the member of Congress (MC) who is being chastised. The broader context is that censure is only the third most severe punishment of MCs by their congressional colleagues. A censured MC is not otherwise punished; retains his or her seat; and keeps his/her salary, office, powers, etc. However, if the misbehavior also is a Federal or state crime, the censured MC could be subject to indictment/conviction by those court systems. The most severe punishment of a MC is the sequential process of impeachment by the House (requiring a majority of votes) and conviction after a Senate trial (needing a two-thirds vote.) A Senate conviction immediately removes a MC (or any other impeached federal employee) from office; supposedly permanently prohibits the convicted MC from any other federal office; and may also lead to charges and punishment by the criminal courts. Senator William Blount (D/R-TN) in 1797 became the first (and so far only) sitting MC to be deemed by the House as guilty of an impeachable offense. (He arguably committed treason by conspiring with England to incite two Indian tribes and help those former foes of the U.S. conquer Spanish West Florida.) However, the Senate quickly expelled that colleague even before the House finished its impeachment, and Blount’s expulsion made it a moot issue that was dismissed in 1799. The second most severe punishment of MCs is expulsion from the chamber, and requires a two-thirds vote of that chamber. It happened 20 times – Sen. Blount in 1797, 17 Confederate MCs (from both chambers) expelled in 1861-1862 soon after the Civil War began, and two modern miscreants of Rep. Michael Meyers (D-PA) in 1980 (for Abscam) and James Trafficant (D-OH) in 2002 (for multiple convictions on many different crimes). Expulsion applies only to sitting MCs, and other “naughty” MCs-to-be were not seated at the start of a Congress by a majority vote. An example is Rep. Adam Clayton Powell (not seated in both 1967 and 1969), who was eventually defeated in a 1970 primary election by Rep. Charlie Rangel (both D-NY), who in turn violated many House ethical rules and may face censure, but not expulsion. The third most severe punishment is censure. The constitutional basis (albeit not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution) is the second paragraph of Article I, Section 5:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Censure was the process under official Senate and House rules since yyyy and yyyy, respectively. [Could not find years; but was first used in 1811 and 1832, respectively.] The last censures were 1967 in the Senate (Tom Dodd, and father of Chris Dodd, both D-CT) and 1984 in the House (George V. Hansen, R-ID). Because the House has 435 voting members (and assorted delegates and other non-voting MCs), finding one MC to introduce a censure resolution is very easy. More important, who cares about Pres. Andrew Jackson’s censure by Congress when an impeached Pres. Andrew Johnson came within one Senate vote of conviction and expulsion from the White House? (The impeached Pres. Bill Clinton was not even close to that 2/3rd vote threshold.) Starting in the 1980s, a fourth most severe punishment for MCs (passing a meaningless resolution to reprimand, rebuke, admonish, repudiate etc.) has evolved, but without the historical and official designation. MCs wanted to denounce so many other MCs that the leaders of both parties in both chambers of Congress created that water-downed substitute for a censure. [Decidely POV!] Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) clearly broke a House rule against calling the President a liar; engaged in disorderly behavior on the House floor in a joint and televised session of Congress; and could avoid a censure by apologizing from the House floor. He instead wanted to play the role of martyr and reap the political benefits from that official censure. The House Democratic leaders instead used that informal route (censure-lite) rather than censure (and award those “badges” to) Rep. Wilson.

Explain censure

What does censure mean and how does it work. We have a lot of trivia in this article but little substance.

• Why would someone be censured?
• How is censure won - voted on?
• Who can be censured?
• What does it mean when a censure has taken place? Is it a law? Is there any repercussion? Is it just a kind of non-binding resolution?

For instance in regards to the recent censure of moveon.org in the news (Sept 2007) this article provides no help in figuring out the story or the meaning of 'censure.'

We need someone who understands this issue to clarify it! 154.20.109.121 01:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The definiton of censure, as used by the U.S. Congress, is defined in the first sentence of the article as a reprimand. A reprimand, according to wiktionary, may be a "severe, formal or official reproof; reprehension, rebuke, private or public." It appears that from the first line of the article, we can answer your questions, "what does censure mean" and "who can be censured?" As far as the substance of the article, I agree it is very much lacking, and a more extensive description of the general practice is needed rather than the current piecemeal presentation. CB...(ö) 03:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Out of all people who aren't included on this list include former president Andrew Jackson, the only sitting president to be censured by Congress.

24.9.187.91 00:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush is here due to the fact that censures were or are being proposed. The list is not simply about those who where successfully censored but also any politician for whom a censored motion has been suggested, pending, or even voted down. Being on the list does not make any statement on the validity of the proposed or adopted censure motion.--Cab88 09:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy

What's with the Joe McCarthy apologists putting something like "...intercepted Soviet communications from the now-declassified VENONA project, as well as the opening of Soviet Archives, indicate that some of the individuals he pursued were, in fact, Soviet spies or Communist sympathizers" after every mention of his wrongdoings? Ok, so he might have been right about a couple of people but the ubiquity of that phrase around these parts makes it seem as if he's been rehabilitated. It's not like he didn't deserve to be censured. SchnappM 04:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What's with the anti-McCarthyites claiming that McCarthy was "censured" when in fact he was "condemned"? What does this sentence have to do with the "condemnation":

McCarthy had recklessly accused employees of the U.S. government of membership in the communist party, or of communist sympathies. McCarthy's efforts did not result in any convictions or criminal prosecutions for espionage but created in the country what has been called "The Red Scare."

This is completely POV and violates Wiki rules. Jtpaladin 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Should this be a current event?

NOthing is really going on that relates to this topic--Storm63640 16:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not unless the article had rapid page development/editing. CB...(ö) 03:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Okay, I've cleaned up most of the article, but the section on the House of Representatives still needs attention. Specifically, there are no sources and the inclusion of only Democratic examples presents the appearance of pro-Republican bias. 02:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fictional section referring to The West Wing

Someone with more advanced English skills than me shoud add a new section "fiction", referring to the fictional censure of Josiah Bartlet on the TV-show The West Wing. --MrMister88 (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A fictional censure would not fall within the scope of the article's title, but rather would be best served by a "See Also" section, the main censure page, or no link at all. CB...(ö) 03:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion

Expulsion - I would have though a more important topic. Maybe it could be merged with this page ("Expulsion and Censure"), or have its own page, and a list (like on this page) of those expelled from Congress, with links to Impeachment or Impeachment in the United States. - Matthew238 (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Why is there a neutrality tag on Representative censures but no discussion on the talk page? What does the dispute relate to and how are we going to resolve it if nobody knows? --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Censure in the United States#NPOV tag. CB...(ö) 03:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced/erroneous? information

Much of the information in this article is from no source or a single source; I've tried looking up such facts as the proposed censure of President John Adams and cannot find a corroborating online reference via Google. Thus, I am adding a {{disputed}} tag. CB...(ö) 03:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In reference to the censure of Pesident John Adams the correct reference comes from the Library of Congress and the official Continental Congress records IT was John Quincy Adams the Son of John Adams and the 6th president of the United States that faced censure while serving in congress and not as president. Davidholt45 (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)DavidHolt45

References

Grammar Alert

This sentence needs editing, "It derives from the formal condemnation of either a congressional body of their own members."

May I suggest three alternatives?

1. It is the formal condemnation of either congressional body of one of their own members.

2. It derives from the formal condemnation a congressional body of one of their own members.

3. It derives from the formal condemnations by legislative bodies of their own members. Lifeofthemind (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to suggest, you can just do. That's how it works around here! Go for it ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

But it is nice an civil sometimes, if you think a matter could be controversial, to do without discussion. IMHO. I would go with number 1, personally, but change "condemnation of" to "condemnation by".--Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Duplication of other lists

Much of the lists in this article cover the same ground as List of United States senators expelled or censured and List of United States Representatives expelled, censured, or reprimanded. It might be better to take the lists out of here and focus this article on a more general treatment of what censure is about, how the notion has developed over time, how exactly motions of censure work, etc. The explanations could incorporate descriptions of well-known or especially illustrative cases of censure, but wouldn't try to cover all of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Either approach works for me. It might be though that we could combine both into this one article/list, so readers don't have to go two places for a less than 100KB subject. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If the two other lists were only of members censured, I would agree. But they also include members expelled, or who survived expulsion attempts, or (for the House) who were reprimanded. What would become of those lists? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. I'll defer to you as to how to handle. I see competing rationales, and don't love either choice (which are all we have). So either approach is reasonable, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out the lists and have added a little public domain historical material and some corrections of the presidential material. All others more than welcome to jump in. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Pix

This page could be improved IMHO by pulling in some pix, which should be quite easy.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

agree with others - this page is a mess

reading through the other sections here, it sounds like this article was truly atrocious at one point. it appears that so much was deleted, that the page is essentially pointless. i tried to rewrite the intro so that the very basic definition/understanding of "censure" as it relates to the u.s. government is at least presented here. i admit that the one reference i found might not be the best (the Free Dictionary), but at least it had some info. even the senate.gov pages didn't say much.

i hid the first reference in the "presidential censure" section. yes, the linked page DOES include the info about the near-censure of John Adams, but it is ludicrous to think that a transcript of a speech by a person who merely MENTIONS the John Adams episode counts as a primary source. particularly when the person who gave the speech being transcribed is a living person, and a current politician, and the use of the source could be seen as presenting bias.

it might be nice to note in that section (presidential censure) why there are so few tallied votes in the censure votes from the 1800s. i tried to look it up--but the vote totals don't match the number of states at the time, so that's not it.Colbey84 (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Not merely a mess, but a lying, stinking mess. So what else is new in #PresidentTweety's America? Where Trump was just censured for overt racism and Wikipedia has nary a mention. It's a historical fact NOW, not an NPV violation. Shanen (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Censure in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070725222200/http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/jcoc2ac.htm to http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/jcoc2ac.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Censure in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127000903/http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/tyler/essays/biography/4 to http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/tyler/essays/biography/4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)