Censure

[ProSense]

It's largely a measure for reprimanding members of Congress. Here is the definition:

Censure

Less severe than expulsion, a censure (sometimes referred to as condemnation or denouncement) does not remove a senator from office. It is a formal statement of disapproval, however, that can have a powerful psychological effect on a member and his/her relationships in the Senate. In 1834, the Senate censured President Andrew Jackson – the first and only time the Senate censured a president. Since 1789 the Senate has censured nine of its members.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Censure_vrd.htm

What is "Censure?"

Although ill-defined, censure is a process of Congressional reprimand--the political equivalent of a strongly-worded letter. In 1834, a Whig Senate "censured" Democratic President Andrew Jackson in retaliation for his withholding documents. Three years later, a Democratic Senate "expunged" the censure from the record. However, that act of censure had no basis in either the Constitution or the Rules of the House and Senate. This remains true today. Ordinarily, Congressional disapproval of the President is relayed either through its legislative power including the veto override power or through impeachment.

Presumably, censure of the President would take the form of a resolution adopted by both the House and Senate and then publicly announced. Legally, the resolution would have no effect. Censure derives from the formal condemnation by either the House or the Senate in rebuke of a Member of their own body. After a majority vote, the Member is publicly denounced, but still retains the position of Representative or Senator. However, the House removes the offending Member from any leadership positions in committees or sub-committees.


Probable Censure Procedure (from C-SPAN)

A resolution censuring the President is not contemplated by the rules of the House. This means it has no inherent privilege; it is not a question of the privileges of the House, nor is it a matter of personal privilege. Thus, there is no framework for considering it.

A special rule from the House Rules Committee would be required for its floor consideration and to set debate parameters.

A censure resolution could be drafted, considered, and then reported from the House Judiciary Committee, or

A censure resolution could be introduced and taken up immediately under the auspices of a special rule from the House Rules Committee, or

A censure resolution could be introduced by an individual Member, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee for its consideration.

In the Senate, a censure resolution could be introduced and would be referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, or

The Senate Judiciary Committee could draft, consider and report out a censure resolution to the full Senate; or

A unanimous consent agreement could be worked out in advance to introduce a censure resolution by sending it to the desk and providing for its immediate consideration.

Floor debate and possible amendment of a censure resolution would most likely be governed by a unanimous consent agreement among all Senators.

If there is a single objection to a unanimous consent agreement, the Majority Leader could move to proceed to a censure resolution.

Adoption of a motion to proceed requires a majority vote, unless it is filibustered. In that case, a 3/5ths vote (60 or more) is required to end the filibuster.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/censure.htm

[MH1]

1. "Legally, the resolution would have no effect."

Thanks for bringing facts into the discussion. Not sure how interested the madding crowds will be, though.

[ProSense]

2. And that's if it receives enough votes (Repubs too) to pass. n/t

[ProSense]

3. Censure, an opening move

Censure, an opening move

By JOHN HALL
Media General News Service
19-MAR-06

Sen. Russ Feingold's call for the censure of President Bush is a serious proposal from a serious man. But it comes dripping with political spin because no such process is prescribed in the Constitution.

The last time a presidential censure was discussed, President Clinton was in trouble in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It was offered first as an alternative to impeachment in the House and then in the Senate as a compromise to sweep the whole mess off the table.

Both the Senate and the House refused to adopt censure because it was just a word with no meaning in law and carried no penalty. Both houses decided to take the course of impeachment and conviction or nothing at all. Eventually the House voted for impeachment and the Senate voted against conviction.

They did not mess with Mr. In Between because the Founding Fathers set no such middle course. The only choice was to remove Clinton through the impeachment process or to keep him. They kept him.

more...

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=HALL-03-19-06

[ProSense]

4. More...

Censure of the president, according to the historical minutes of the U.S. Senate, was used "in an unprecedented and never repeated tactic" on March 28, 1834. The Senate demanded that President Andrew Jackson turn over a document and Jackson, in the second year of his second term, refused.

Snip...

Censure and condemnation are Senate tools used to regulate the conduct of its own members. The process eventually brought down Sen. Joe McCarthy, whose hunts for subversives ruined lives and terrorized policymakers.

Because of the separation of powers, some constitutional scholars doubt censure's validity or meaning as far as regulating the conduct of presidents.

Nonetheless, there was a point in the impeachment process of Bill Clinton where many Democrats and several Republicans wanted a way out and would gladly have voted for censure. In fact, Clinton himself probably would have accepted a censure resolution that would have allowed him to get back to his job.

more...