From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shouldn't this be merged with Censorship? (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggest adding a brief mention of the censure resolution introduced in Congress following the impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton.

This is a difficult issue, but I'm not sure it's objective to say "The legality of the wiretapping has not yet been resolved." The debate in the Senate Intelligence Committee reveals that the NSA program Bush is known to have authorized, as well as other programs that remain secret, clearly do not comply with FISA. It might be better to say, "The constitutionality of warrantless electronic surveillance has not yet been resolved, although it is clearly illegal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act." Rmwarnick 22:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Where's the punishment sentenced for a Congressional member whose been censured? All that's in the article is about the President being censured, not a Congressperson or a Senator, which I assume happens more frequently. Joseph McCarthy was censured, and now there's rumors floating around that Tom DeLay's going to get censured. It would be nice if someone added more information on what being Censure does to a Congressperson.--YoungFreud 06:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Essentially, censure by itself does nothing. Censure of the president by congress, for example, would certainly be toothless (and astonishingly unlikely as long as the incumbent party holds congress as well as the presidency). The motion of censure itself may invoke other rules of congress, including removal from all committees or even a strongly worded request to resign (lest congress exercise its right to eject its own members)


why would you talk about a censure that never happened? i.e. how wants to censure bush.

Because a censure is an incredibly rare thing, so even a pretty largescale call for one that failed is worth a mention. Staxringold 13:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Censure in Canada[edit]

I hope nobody minds, but I added some info on the censure process up here in Canada; there is talk of the possible censure of the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper up here, so I thought it would be relevent. Thanks. =) FiveParadox 03:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Drawing From The West Wing[edit]

I was just wondering whether the example of a censure from a television series is entirely warranted in an encyclopedia — I would think that perhaps examples of real censures would be more appropriate in this article.

Tmoenk wrote: Jed Bartlet, the fictional president of television show The West Wing, was censured for failing to reveal that he had multiple sclerosis during his first presidential campaign.

Just wondering what other contributors might think on this one. FiveParadox 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


And you have this on the authority of who or what, Mr. Unsigned? FiveParadox 09:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Transferring Individual Censure Articles[edit]

Perhaps it would be appropriate, seeing the developing length of Censure in the United States, to move those examples to an article specifically dedicated to United States censures and a more detailed explanation of the process. I do not think that what should be a relatively general article such as 'Censure', in general, should be the host of four individual and lengthy examples. FiveParadox 09:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

over a 1000 FISA wiretap requests rejected[edit]

I removed this sentence:

 Which held true until the the Bush Administration had over 1,000 requets denied in the last 4 years.

Besides being an awkward, incomplete sentence with typos, initial research suggests that this is very exaggerated: as seen here. It appears that not a lot of their requests have been outright rejected, but over a hundred have been modified. This is more than normal, but it's not "over 1,000", and requires further explanation as to possible reasons (for one, it seems that many more requests were being made). However, I think it's more detail than is necessary in this particular article, and my hunch is that the person who anonymously interjected it was just upset and trying to defend Bush. Cesoid 00:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the Current Events tag because the censure introduced by Russ Feingold is pending a vote.

Joe McCarthy[edit]

I think the McCarthy censure paragraph is misleading. The text says that "McCarthy had recklessly accused employees" and that he was "censured by the United States Senate for behavior that was 'contrary to senatorial traditions.'" It gives the impression that he was censured for his reckless accusations. He was not. He was censured for failing to cooperate with the Senate subcommittee that was investigating him, and for calling some others who were out to get him a "lynch party". Roger 02:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone asked for a citation. I don't have a good one handy, but the essential element is the censure resolution itself. The 1954 text of it said:

Resolved, That the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, failed to cooperate with the Subcommittee [that was investigating him, and] repeatedly abused the subcommittee ... contrary to senatorial traditions.
Sec 2. The Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy [called the] Select Committee to Study Censure Charges a "lynch-party" ... and stating further: "I expected he would be afraid to answer the questions, but didn't think he'd be stupid enough to make a public statement"; ... and such conduct is hereby condemned.

Perhaps the article should have a more complete quote. Roger 22:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the part of this article addressing Senator McCarthy is as poorly written and as deceptive as the article on Joseph McCarthy itself. The Senator was not "censured", he was "condemned". You have to read the resolution in order to discover this fact. Also, one observer stated:

Regarding the first count, failure to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, the subcommittee never subpoenaed McCarthy, but only "invited" him to testify. One senator and two staff members resigned from the subcommittee because of its dishonesty towards McCarthy, and the subcommittee, in its final report, dated January 2, 1953, said that the matters under consideration "have become moot by reason of the 1952 election." No senator had ever been punished for something that had happened in a previous Congress or for declining an "invitation" to testify.
As for the second count, criticism of the Watkins Committee and the special Senate session, McCarthy was condemned for opinions he had expressed outside the Senate. As David Lawrence pointed out in an editorial in the June 7, 1957 issue of U.S. News & World Report, other senators had accused McCarthy of lying under oath, accepting influence money, engaging in election fraud, making libelous and false statements, practicing blackmail, doing the work of the communists for them, and engaging in a questionable "personal relationship" with Roy Cohn and David Schine, but they were not censured for acting "contrary to senatorial ethics" or for impairing the "dignity" of the Senate.

So, as anyone interested in the facts can easily see, the charges were not only trumped up but also the result was described as "censured" when in fact it was a "condemnation". The real world and the truth often does not apply to the left-wing editors of Wikipedia. I'm going to remove this entire entry unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Jtpaladin 22:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it accurate to call it "censure", even if the text of the resolution used the word "condemn"? What's the difference?
Perhaps the censure/condemnation reflected badly on the Senate. The article describes the Senate censuring A. Jackson, even tho that also reflected badly on the Senate. If the article is wrong or misleading, then correct it. Roger 06:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Censur of swedish wikipedia is very usuall[edit]

when we are talking about censure.. i think its wrong that on the Swedish version of Wikipedia you cant say what you want to with out being blocked for let say 24 hours or so. And you be blocked for no appearent reason like if you tell tha tyou dont agree on something toally silly the other person or someone else of that persons allies block you. Their is something wrong with the wikipedia system it makes people powerhungry and people block each other just becuase they can. /matrix17

Canon law[edit]

In canon law, a censure is generally defined as an interdict against a cleric which forbids him from publishing any more articles or books thought to be harmful to the Church. This ecclesiastic definition of censure should be included in the article page somehow. ADM (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


fiwuei muito feliz, em ter vc como amiga gostaria muito de te conhecer me add noi msn —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Censure (motion) and Theological censure[edit]

All three of these articles discuss the same topic; there is no difference in the scope of Censure and Censure (motion), and Theological censure is simply an application to the Roman Catholic Church. The other two articles should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Power of censure of the European Parliament[edit]

Legislature_of_the_European_Union#Parliament refers to this article, but here there's no section for the European Union/ the European Parliament. It would be nice to include the issue in this article. --Van Tuile (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)