Talk:Filibuster/Archive 1

question

is the filibuster practiced in any other national, state, or province governing body in the world? Kingturtle 18:23, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I seemt to recall reading somewhere that in the Houses of Commons in the UK, any member of parliament can halt preccedings and cause an immediate evacuation at any time by stating "spying eyes are present" (or some variation on that). This originated in War times to combat espionage, but has since been used to delay debate etc. I'm not sure where I read this though, or how accurate my memory of it is...

I beleive the House of Commoms phrase is "I spy strangers", other than that you're correct. Grinner 15:38, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

When was this last used in the UK? I have not seen a filibuster in the US sense of going on and on used in the UK because usually the speaker will tell someone to shut up if they go off topic. Deszmond

When was the filibuster first used in the US?

I think it was in the 1850s. The rules for fillibusters have changed many times since then, however. NCdave 8 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)

cartoon

Filibuster is also the name of a web-based political cartoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRS-80 (talk • contribs) 1 July 2004

Moved text from article

[begin moved text] Error: "Until 1917, there was no formal mechanism to allow the senate to close debate, and any senator could start a filibuster."

Correction: ""Rule 7. In case of a debate becoming tedious, four Senators may call for the question; or the same number may at any time move for the previous question, viz, "Shall the main question now be put?" " Citation: Journal of William Maclay, United States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(mj0016))

And: "WHILE a question is before the Senate, no motion shall be received unless for an amendment, for the previous question, or for postponing the main question, or to commit it, or to adjourn. Rule 8." and

"The previous question being moved and seconded, the question from the chair shall be, "Shall the main question be now put?"11 and if the nays prevail, the main question shall not then be put. Rule 9."

Citation: A MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE: for the Use of the Senate of the United States. BY THOMAS JEFFERSON http://www.constitution.org/tj/tj-mpp.htm

Until 1806, when the rule on "moving the question' was dropped, filibusters were not possible. [end moved text]

The moved text does discuss calling the question, but isn't shown to address the specific issue relevant to filibusters, interrupting a speaker who has the floor. Alone, I don't think it proves anything. Comments? Samaritan 02:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Frozen Republic, erm...

What's that bit about "(Frozen Republic, 198)" ?

Can you elaborate?

.~. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.96.82 (talk) 26 January 2005

Discussion

The "in current practice" part is not very clear. As a non-american, I've got no idea what is meant by "procedural filibuster" compared to "traditional filisbuster". Would be cool to know.

It sort of does, though apparently not clearly. In the "old days" the Senator could delay things by making an endless speech. Now, he need only indicate that he's filibustering, thereby preventing the senate from moving on to other business until they have enough votes for cloture. He doesn't have to keep talking continuously, but no new business can be conducted till the filibuster is 'dealt with'. Personally I don't think anyone will fully understand filibustering until they see Frank Capra's 1939 movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington<g> -- Someone else 10:20 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have an additional question about Frank Capra's movie, it is referenced as such "This is an homage to the above mentioned Frank Capra film." The problem I have with this is that nobody mentions the fact that Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is by Frank Capra. I realized that this was the reference only because I love Frank Capra and know the film. Without this prior knowledge I would have to click on the links to discover this 3 paragraphs down. Webhat 06:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Leaving the bells ringing

In the Canadian parliament in 1982, the Opposition (Conservative) whip did not enter the house of commons to indicate to the speaker (by bowing) that the Opposition was ready to vote on a National Energy Programme bill. With this ceremonial procedure incomplete, the Speaker could not call for a division of the house. The division bells rang for two weeks (they usually ring for several minutes to give members enough time to get to the house). The Government agreed to split the bill into two (more?) parts, after which the Opposition whip entered the house.

Later, the Parliament amended the standing orders to eliminate the ceremonial bowing of whips to the speaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.2.151 (talk) 25 April 2005

Relevance of filibuster content

The New American link at the bottom notes that, unlike stated in the article here, it's necessary for a filibuster to remain at least marginally on topic. Perhaps this can (referencing the appropriate rule) can be worked into the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesley Biggs (talk • contribs) 23 May 2005

Broken link

The [1] link (describing "cow walk") is broken and leads to the "Turkish daily news" homepage. --N0nick 21:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

From Nuclear Option (filibuster)

While doing heavy restructure edits to the Nuclear option article, I yanked what's a really good history of U.S. filibusters. It's more relevant here, but needs work. Have a go:

In the House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limited the duration of debate. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until an 1890 rule eliminated it. As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House has acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes.

When the first U.S. Senate met in 1789, the filibuster was not an option. The Senate adopted rules allowing them "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. In 1806, this rule was eliminated, removing that mechanism for ending debate and clearing the way for the filibuster. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837. In 1917, a rule allowing for the cloture of debate (ending a filibuster) with the vote of two-thirds of Senators present. In 1949, this was changed to two-thirds of the total membership, then in 1959 to two-thirds of those present and voting. In 1975, the cloture requirement was lowered to the current requirement of three-fifths of total membership.

Another type of filibuster used in the Senate: the post-cloture filibuster—using points of order to consume time, since they are not counted as part of the limited time provided for debate) — was eliminated as an effective delay technique by a rule change in 1979.

Before 2002, there were other procedural methods that allowed a minority party to block judicial nominations. The two most prevalent methods were "blue slips" and "holds", both of which prevent a nomination from leaving the Senate Judiciary Committee to proceed to the full Senate for debate and confirmation. Both methods allow just a few senators, and in some cases only one, to block a nomination.

Republicans made frequent use of these procedures under the Clinton Administration, but under the Bush Administration they have modified Senate rules to render both methods ineffective. Under current rules, the minority party has only one remaining procedural block with which to counter a nomination: the filibuster.

Blue Slips

Before a nomination is passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is screened by both senators from the nominee's home state, who endorse or object to the nominee on a piece of paper called a blue slip. Until 1995, a nominee would not be removed from committee consideration unless both home-state senators objected to the nominee. [1] (PDF)

In 1995, Republicans gained control of the Senate and modified the rules governing the judiciary committee process. The first such modification pertained to the blue slip rule. In the 104th Congress, 18 states had split Senate delegations, one Republican and one Democrat. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, changed the rule so that a nominee would be removed from consideration if only one of the home-state senators objected. The wording on the blue slips was also revised to say, “[n]o further proceedings on this nominee will be scheduled until both blue slips have been returned by the nominee’s home state senators.”[2] This allowed senators to delay nominations by not returning blue slips. Some of President Clinton's nominees were delayed years waiting for blue slips to be returned from Republican senators.[3]

After President George W. Bush took office in 2001, Hatch reversed positions on the "two blue slip" requirement and rewrote the rule to require both home-state senators to object to a nominee in order to block the nomination. [4] The text of the blue slip was also modified to remove the sentence saying no further proceedings would be scheduled until the blue slip was returned to the committee. These changes were overturned when Democrats regained control of the Senate, after Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont) changed his party alignment.

After the 2002 congressional elections, Republicans returned to majority party status. At that time, the blue slip requirements were again changed to require two dissenting blue slips to reject a nominee before the committee. Nevertheless, there have been hearings in which two dissenting blue slips were submitted but the nomination process was not halted. In 2003, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the fitness of Henry Saad. This occurred after both home-state senators, Senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, had objected to Saad's nomination [5]. With no committee options left to derail nominations to which they objected, Democrats began threatening to filibuster nominations once they reached the full floor of the Senate.

Holds

A "hold" is a procedure in which a senator communicates to the Senate leadership that he or she would withhold support for a unanimous consent agreement if a matter were to be brought before the Senate. The reason this has power is that in the absence of a powerful Rules Committee like the United States House of Representatives has, the Senate's ordinary business depends on unanimous consent agreements to specify what bills will be considered when, who may speak, what amendments (if any) may be offered, and when votes will take place. The quiet threat of a hold ordinarily is enough to take an issue -- including a judicial nomination -- off of the agenda, at least temporarily.

Republican Senators used this method to postpone votes on nominees in the Judiciary Committee under the Clinton Administration. [6] In late 1999, New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith blocked a vote on 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Richard Paez for months by putting an anonymous hold on the nomination. [7] Anonymous floor holds were abolished in 2003 [8].

The term nuclear optionwas partially abandoned by some of its supporters, who preferred to call it "the Constitutional option" or "the Byrd option" To make matters more confusing, in April 2005 Republicans began to attempt to redefine the 'nuclear option' as a description of the Democratic filibuster, rather than the rule change that would end it[9]. Important Republicans in the controversy included Majority Leader Bill Frist, who was one of the strongest opponents of the filibuster (and whose support from the religious right for his 2008 election bid may have depended on ending it[10]), and the those like John McCain that would have broken with their party in opposition to the nuclear option, possibly denying Frist the necessary majority.

Moved by--ghost 05:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How to choose judges?

Isn't a judge supposed to be impartial? A firmly held ideology in either direction prejudices the justices to the point that it is almost certain which way 7-8 judges will vote, before any arguments are even heard. In such a situation, wouldn't a strongly prejudiced judge constitute a "bad" one? In my mind, O'Connor was the ideal judge, able to look at things on a case-by-case basis and decide for herself how to interpret the Constitution to the given situation. Just my 2 cents ---Jeff (The Uncarved Block) 23:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Filibuster (military) / Filibuster (settler) / Filibuster (legislative tactic)

The term filibuster is also used to refer to the various efforts in the mid-19th century by private individuals to take control of various Central American and Caribbean territories with an eye towards them being annexed by the United States. I'd like to write an article about them, but am undecided on the title as both Filibuster (history) and Filibuster (military) would seem appropriate. Comments? Caerwine 22:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Well I went ahead and wrote the article and named it Filibuster (military) but as strated doing various diambigs, I encountered the article Filibuster (settler) which wasn't liked from this page and Filibuster (legislative tactic) which links to this page and Filibuster (diambiguation). Clearly the links all need to be cleaned up and better organized. For now I'm going to switch the link to Filibuster (military) at top that I added to Filibuster (disambiguation), but I sure would have had an easier time had that link been there to start with. Caerwine 16:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Filibuster (settler) and Filibuster (military) are now merged under Filibuster (military), since to describe the filibusters as "settlers" is a euphemism, to say the least.

Apologies.

I'm new at this. Forgot to put something in edit summary, in editing the article. I suppose it's too late now. Anyway, the point was not political pontification, just pointing out something. Namely, the foolishness of negotiating a vague, undefined term which allows either or both sides to do whatever they wish, making the agreement worthless. Not intended to say either party's seven is better than the other, or that the rest of the Senate is any better or worse than the fourteen in question.BPMoldovan 04:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Transcript

Where can I read an unedited transcript of Thurmond's 1957 speech? Bastie 15:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Secondary Meanings?

I like to use the word "filibuster" as a verb to describe the act of talking on...and on.... and on..... I wonder if anyone else has thought of such a definition? 68.32.48.32 1 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

Republicans Party First to use Filibuster

As an Independent I hope I have removed any bias in my addition. If any Republican feels the post does contain bias, please advice. Thank you, Daniel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneofshibumi (talk • contribs) 2 July 2005

Yes, I believe the article is biased in a liberal direction:

1. The real damage being done to Senate tradition is by the Democrats -- that's the real "nuclear option."

2. Abe Fortas would never have been confirmed. This is the absolute first time the filibuster is being used for judicial nominees who would otherwise be confirmed by the senate. They are being filibustered simply because certain democratic senators (or the left-wing groups they "represent") just don't like their judicial ideas, not because they would make bad judges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.83.93 (talk) 7 July 2005

Constituional argument against filibuster (a.k.a. the "nuclear option")

What exactly is the legal argument against the Senate's filibuster rule? Is it that the Senate has the constitutional responsibility to confirm justices and that the filibuster (potentially) prevents that? What majority of the Senate is required to declare the rule unconstitutional? Is such a change then subject to Supreme Court review?

I belive it comes from Article 1, Section 5 - "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings ...". The Senate has changed its rules on filibusters in the past (as with many other rules), and there dosen't seem to be any reason why it can't in the future. Toiyabe 01:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent change in the timing of tactical filibusters

I've noticed in the US Senate that in the last few months, the timings of tactical filibusters have also changed. Traditionly there used to be closure motions towards the end of debate to bring the debate to a close and vote. (Technically if pased, there was still 1 hour left per senator, but in practice very little of this time was used.) Now, there are tactical filibusters on motions to proceed. (In other words unless the filibuster is broken via a closure vote the bill can't be "offically" debated to begin with [nor amended on the floor.]) Jon 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Is a fillibuster?

Is the filibuster consistent with our institutions democratic values...democratic not meaning political parties?69.215.200.206 13:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Steph

Filibuster by Cato in Roman times?

My Latin isn't good enough, but I think that the first mention of a filibuster would be by Caesar in his notes on the Roman Civil War, Book I, Chapter 32, where he is pissed that Cato spends the whole day talking to avoid a vote:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Civil_War_%28Caesar%29/Book_1#32

There is another translation by John Warrington where it seems clearer:

...particularly of Cato, who, as usual, had tried to hold up the vote by talking all day...

But somebody needs to check the original before we can touch this.

--Scot W. Stevenson 07:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Filibusters in the UK Parliament - Henry Brougham's speech / general revision required

I am not particularly happy with that section, but haven't got time to revise it. Therefore, just some thoughts.

a) "The all-time Commons record for non-stop speaking is six hours, set by Henry Brougham in 1828." Mentioning Brougham's speech in this context seems to suggest that Brougham's speech was a filibuster. This is wrong. Brougham's famous speech "Present State of the Law" was a serious effort to draw attention to the need for law reforms. It was just a long speech, but length alone does not make a speech a filibuster, does it?

b) I am not sure what the selection of filibusters is meant to demonstrate. From a few sources, which unfortunately are not at my hand, it appears that "talking out" was a rather common parliamentary strategy at least around the middle of the 19th century, so these examples can hardly claim to illustrate the history of "filibusters".

c) The whole section seems to be a rather crude rewording of this article: [11] However, this article is only about ONE particular "filibuster" by Mr Dismore; the other speeches are just mentioned for their length, but NOT for their obstructive purposes (and in Brougham's case, there was definitely no such obstructive purpose). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.226.135.65 (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Procedural Filibusters Source?

I've been looking, and I cannot find any reliable sources that explain procedural filibusters. I have found blogs that talk about the subject, but the only source that I can find that defines it, other than Wikipedia itself, is H2G2, and I don't know how reliable that is as a source.Ganonsghost 07:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

60 vote threshold vs actual continuous speech

"In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses"

Does anyone know the last time that a US Senator was actually required to speak continuously to maintain a filibuster?

Bill faulk 20:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it last occured in July of this year, in the case of one of the Iraq War-related bills. See "Democrats Steer All-Night Iraq Debate". It'd be great to add a mention of recent filibusters to the article,if you'd like. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My impression of the July 16th overnight session was that the Senate remained in session but that no one had to keep speaking. I'm curious to see how often the Senate Majority Leader has actually required formal debate and will see what I can find out. Bill faulk 14:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, Senators had to engage in debate on the 16th to avoid a vote on the underlying resolution. (If no one seeks recognition, then the Senate has to vote.) So, the overnight session was filled with Senators engaging in debate. I think the last time a Senator took to the floor to prevent consideration of a measure was Al D'Amato in 1986. (At least, that's the last time I can recall.) JasonCNJ 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I sent a letter to the Senate historian so hopefully I'll get more information. I found a summary of cloture votes but it made no distinction between procedural and traditional filibusters. Bill faulk 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Democrats spoke for some time during the overnight session. But the sentence from the article claims their Majority Leader, Harry Reid, could have required the Republicans to take over the job of speaking continuously after that session or lose the right to filibuster (say) a bill to cut off Iraq war funding after an appropriate date. Could he? Dan 23:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Democrats could have planned to avoid speaking on the floor at any time, forcing Republicans to keep up debate. There is no previous question motion (a motion to cut off debate and vote) in the Senate; the Senate votes immediately on any measure under consideration unless Senators seek recognition to debate the proposal. So, in theory, if the Dems refused to debate any measure and no Republican sought recognition, then the Chair would put the question under debate to the Senate for a vote. I suspect the reason Dems spoke during the overnight session was because there were more than enough Republicans to sholder the burden and, since the filibuster was not going to be broken, the Dems wanted to get their say in, too. So, in theory, when the majority is trying to break a true filibuster, the Senators wishing to delay a vote must keep talking to avoid a vote on the underlying proposal or motion...that vote is automatic unless a Senator is recognized for debate. JasonCNJ 00:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I realized I didn't really answer your question. The Republicans would never have "lost the right" to filibuster - that right is guaranteed to every Senator by Rule XXII. But, if the Dems aren't speaking on the measure (say to cut off funding for the war by a date certain) and the Republicans failed to have a speaker ready to seek recognition, then the Senate would vote on the underlying bill. So the filibuster would have been broken and the Republicans would have lost. JasonCNJ 00:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Nuclear Option"

I edited a couple points in the paragraph on the "nuclear option." My understanding is that the constitutionality of filibustering the nominees was not questioned, as the article said, but that the Senate has the Constitutional right to set its own rules of procedure, and that they could revise the rules to eliminate such filibusters. I also edited the paragraph to reflect that this threat has been used before in the Senate, and that "constitutional option" is the historical term for the idea. As it was written, it gave the idea that both this threat had been made up on the spot and that the term "constitutional option" was an invention of the Senators pushing for the "nuclear option." Neither is the case, as both the idea and the term have historical precedence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitikami (talk • contribs) 08:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the point?

I don't understand the purpose of a filibuster. How does wasting everyone's time "derail" legislation? Can't the Senate just wait 'til the guy's finished blabbing, then continue on? Won't everybody just thing the filibuster-er is really annoying and walk out on him? Don't answer me here - it would be better if someone would make the article clearer on this point. Brian Kendig 03:58, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's just it. If they walk out on the speaker, then he could call for a vote, and if only those who would have voted for/against the bill had left, the vote might be swayed.

--Mr Bound 01:06, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I have always been wondering why this practice is still being allowed by law. It seems very archaic and silly, and doesn't really seem to have a place in a modern legislature. This whole derailing of legislation seems like a very childish way to conduct debates and votings. Any opinions about that?

Kind of like forcing the recount of election votes dozens of times regardless of the result always saying you've lost.

--193.11.220.45 13:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Very immature indeed. I was actually surpised that one could do that.

but see thats whats beautiful of this country. The minority can atleast try to fight a bill instead of getting ignored. Its very archaic but very effective.

Hardly immature in my opinion. While obstructive, the filibuster if used fairly can theoretically force proper debate on an issue. One of the biggest problems with two party systems, or systems commonly dominated by one party or another is that the smaller parties don't really matter all that much when the majority is voting as a bloc. The filibuster sort of sets a more even playing field, serving as leverage the minority can use to be heard. Ideally, they'd use it to negotiate some sort of compromise. Unfortunately, in the US at least, it has become the sore loser's tool to get their way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.179.31.170 (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Burr's Connection

In 1806, Aaron Burr was in the midst of plotting an attempted conspiracy to conquer lands west of the Appalachians for his own nation. How could he be in the Senate making a rules change two years after shooting Alexander Hamilton dead? --KHill-LTown 20:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This comment poses a real problem which 4 years later has never been answered. The "1806" is not an error originated by a Wiki editor; the linked article by Gold and Gupta in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy does say (p.215) that "Vice President Aaron Burr, in 1806, approached the previous question motion." However all history books agree that Burr's term as VP ended in March 1805, and that in 1806 he was in the West, not in the Senate. So it would seem there must be a small error in the eminent source, but I am not an American history expert and do not know the exact correction needed. Could someone please make the required correction, if possible with another source? Dirac66 (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This appears to me to be an error in the 2004 Gold & Gupta article. That article says:

It was against this backdrop of limited debate that Vice President Aaron Burr, in 1806, approached the previous question motion. 1806 marked the first re-codification of the Standing Rules of the Senate. As then-Senator John Quincy Adams reported,³² Burr advised that the motion for the previous question was of no use and should be dropped:

[Burr] mentioned one or two rules which appeared to him to need a revisal...

In the 2004 article, Gold and Gupta seem to assume from the fact that the Rules were recodified in 1806 as meaning that Burr made his observation in 1806. However, in Gold's treatment of the same issue in the later 2008 edition of his book, Senate Procedure and Practice, ISBN 9780742563056 [12] (four years after the publication of the 2004 article), he writes, at page 49:

When the Senate first recodified its rules in 1806, it took the suggestion of former Vice President Aaron Burr and eliminated the previous question motion altogether, as explained in the diary of then-Senator John Quincy Adams, Burr

mentioned one or two rules which appeared to him to need a revisal...

It appears to me that Gold and Gupta, in the 2004 article, simply assumed that Burr's "mention" was contemporaneous with the 1806 revision, making a small error in a detail not central to their article's subject. It happens. TJRC (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(add) Here's my first cut at a fix: [13] TJRC (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It makes sense now. Dirac66 (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Restrictions

Are there restrictions on filibusters? Eating, drinking, sitting down, going to the bathroom, standing without talking, etc. 192.115.100.11 17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically, in old fashioned filibusters, you must both stand and continue speaking to continue holding the floor, but there are ways around this. A member can yield to another member for a question, or a parliamentary question to the chair, and is then not required to stand without yielding the floor. While the other member is asking the question, or while the parliamentary question is being decided, the filibustering member still has the right of recognition. Justanotherguyonwiki (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster" -- source/discussion?

In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.

I'm wondering if there is an actual source for this, or OTOH if a source is not necessary. It may be common sense; it may be obvious from Senate Rule 22. But the issue has been raised, after a fashion, by Senate Majority Leader Reid's office and reported on by Ryan Grim in the Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html.

The article says less than I've seen people make of it. At first glance, including the headline, it suggests that the Majority Leader cannot actually force a "traditional" filibuster. But all the Reid memo states, apparently, is that the Majority Leader cannot force a "talking" filibuster, although that is the dramatic "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (or perhaps "Mr. Thurmond Stays in Washington") version. It does not appear to dispute that the Majority Leader can simply force a "traditional" filibuster by, for example, refusing to refer any new business to the floor until cloture is invoked.

In any event, I'd appreciate more discussion, or a reference, to the idea that the Majority Leader can require a traditional filibuster at his/her discretion.

Any help with this? Thanks. JBJD (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Breaking filibusters trivial?

From these statements in the article

the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses

and

While in a filibuster the senator talking must remain in the same spot and is only allowed to filibuster twice in a legislative day.

and

A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else.

it seems to me that the majority party can trivially defeat any filibuster threat: first demand a traditional filibuster, and then simply wait until it runs out. What's the problem with that strategy? AxelBoldt (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S. Senate, the goal (and threat) of a filibuster is to keep a bill in debate until the senate adjourns from session (for the year or for extended holidays like Christmas). At that point, any bills still in debate are nullified. By nullified, I mean discarded - an entirely new bill on the issue has to be written and presented when the senate returns to session the following year. As such, it is opportunity for the minority to not just vote down legislation, but utterly destroy it.

I actually came here hoping to read about the intricacies of this process and was surprised to see it's not even mentioned in the article (much less elaborated upon). What I explained above is just what I recall from my government class many years ago. There are other obscure rules of the process that can be invoked to combat the process (ie. the majority leader can call a 'special session' to prevent senate adjournment and the success of a filibuster) and I was hoping to read up on them.

Looks like I'll have to start studying the moldy tomes of senate procedure and incorporate the information into the article myself. I suppose it'll be worth it though - it really is a fascinating process that should be explained here.
--K10wnsta (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

For more info, try this report from the CRS. -- JPMcGrath 01:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPMcGrath (talk • contribs)

Question about US "Filibuster-Proof"

The article states:

"In the United States Senate, the Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless 3/5ths of the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators elected and sworn), brings debate to a close by invoking cloture."

In the recent U.S. Senate History Section:

"As of August 2009 the Democrats were one vote short of a filibuster-proof supermajority, due to the August 25 death of Senator Ted Kennedy. However, on September 24, 2009, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick named Paul Kirk as interim Senator for the state of Massachusetts giving back the Democrats a supermajority in the United States Senate."

The article seems to imply that the democrats had "filibuster proof" control after Deval named Paul Kirk an interim senator. However if what the article states is true, they wouldn't because he wasn't "elected and sworn". Does the bottom section not imply the democrats had filibuster proof control? Or is the wording in the top section innaccurate in that it does not need to be an elected senator to vote to break a filibuster?

Mistahmilla (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Senate Rule XXII uses the phrase "duly chosen and sworn", which would include appointed Senators such as Kirk. I have changed the wording in the article. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Canada

The article has a separate section for Canada, with one example from the Ontario legislature, but has other Westminster democracies such as New Zealand and Australia being in a sub-section of the United Kingdom one. This creates an inconstancy which might be confusing. Canada is a Westminster democracy of the British Empire tradition and this article would seem to suggest otherwise in the way it is organized. The question then is what to do about it? Merge Canada into the "Other Westminster systems" section or move the others out? I realize that Canada has the longest in terms of wordage non-British Westminster example, but that does not in of itself justify it to be the only Westminster system with its own category. In case you are wondering I am Canadian (and a New Zealand citizen by descent as well). Comments? Comrade Graham (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I am not very familiar with the political workings of the UK, Canada, etc., but assuming that "Westminster Democracies" is a sensible categorization, I would think that it woould make sense to organize the article thus:

Westminster Democracies

United Kingdom

Canada

Other

United States

France

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The deed is done, thank you for your feedback. Comrade Graham (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What specifically allows Filibustering?

The actual Senate Rule 22 talks a lot about cloture (in the Procedure section) but I haven't found any sentence or phrase that says specifically that a lone Senator (or a minority of the Senate) may speak or hold up business forever. (Unless it's in the Motions and Pending Questions section of SR22 but I don't see it there either.) It's probably in another rule but I can't find it (unless it's SR19 -- "No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent...").

I'd appreciate it if anyone could explain to me what rule (and its interpretation) allows Senators to filibuster in the first place. Cloture is the procedure they now use to shut debate down. Where is the rule or rules that forces the Senate to consider debate endlessly, unless they resort to cloture? Shouldn't it be in the article? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no rule specifically provides for a filibuster, and I believe the word "filibuster" does not even appear in the rules. But Senate Rule XIX specifies the rules for speaking:

The Presiding Officer is to recognize the Senator who shall first address him. No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent, and to obtain such consent he shall first address the Presiding Officer, and no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.

This allows any Senator to speak uninterrupted, with few limitations. A filibuster is the taking advantage of this rule so as to prevent progress on a bill that a Senator opposes.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK then what are these "few limitations"? Is there anything else besides "his consent"? Must the original speaker remain standing in the Senate chamber (without bathroom breaks)?

I'm really thinking about Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I seem to remember that Jimmy Stewart could only yield the floor for a question or point of order. But maybe that only applies to single senators attempting filibusters. If you had two or more senators, they could yield to each other unequivocally, without the original speaker being present. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - somehow I missed your post.

Rule 19 provides that "no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day", so they cannot tag-team indefinitely. Note that a "legislative day" is not the same thing as a calendar day; the legislative day ends when the Senate adjourns. It can, however, "recess", which continues the legislative day into the next day.

But still, with every Senator getting to speak twice, and each time they can speak for as long as they can hold out, it is possible for a group of Senators to drag things out for a very long time. However, in order to hold the floor, the Senator has to remain there and speak continously (bathroom breaks are not allowed), so there are limits. There are also other rules and tactics that affect the process, such as quorum calls and yielding for questions.

For all the gory details, see the report Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate from the Congressional Research Service.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Prolific speeches?

The phrase "one of his characteristically prolix speeches" was changed to "one of his characteristically prolific speeches". I don't know enough about Cato to know how to describe his speeches, but "prolific" certainly seems wrong. Something is prolific if it produces abundant fruit or offspring, so I wonder how that would apply to his speeches. The original word, "prolix", means unduly long, which seems to fit, although I do not know if Cato was known for unduly long speeches. Does anyone know why this was changed? -- JPMcGrath (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Prolific" may be used about speeches if they engender a lot more speeches on the same topic. However, "prolix" was added by PassionoftheDamon on Feb 17, 2009, when he introduced the whole section about Ancient Rome. I think he knew the meaning of words he was using: Cato was known to be excessively wordy. Being bold, I have substituted the more-common word "long-winded" in place of prolix/prolific. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to split off United States section into its own article

I notice that the article is labeled as one which "might have an extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions." I tend to agree, as the United States section is quite long, being the only one that includes a History subsection. I propose creating a new article named something like Filibuster (United States Senate). That article would have a brief definition of Filibuster (linking back to the main Filibuster article) and all of the current contents of the Filibuster#United States section, together with the history. The new article would also incorporate relevant pieces from the information listed above in section Talk:Filibuster#From Nuclear Option (filibuster).

The current Filibuster article would be left with the introductory United States text up to the point where Procedural filibusters are introduced, and the solo paragraph in "Procedural filibuster" simply be incorporated as the final paragraph of the US section (removing the "Procedural filibuster" heading). The United States section would also have "Main article" link pointing to the newly created Filibuster (United States Senate). The structure would therefore be:

Ancient Rome

Westminster Democracies

United Kingdom

Australia and New Zealand

Canada

Other

United States

France

I think this would be a worthy edit, and one that could also open a small can of worms fixing links in the myriad other pages that presently point to Filibuster but that may need to be changed to point to Filibuster (United States Senate). Not quite bot-worthy (wouldn't want to mess up links that should legitimately point to Filibuster), and something that I think would settle by itself over time anyway.

I'd love to read your thoughts on this matter.

—ShinyG 18:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I was planning to propose the exact same thing, so needless to say, I agree. However, I think the new article should be Filibuster (United States). There is a small amount of material on the United States House of Representatives that should be moved to the article, so the title is more appropriate. And naming it Filibuster (United States Senate) would suggest that there might be a Filibuster (United States House) article, which is certainly not needed.

While looking into this, I found that there are some very specific requirements for the content of edit summaries when splitting an article. For details, see WP:SPLIT.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the name being Filibuster (United States), as Senate is redundant (and possibly confusing!) in this regard.

We would of course follow all the necessary edit summary requirements. We would also use the Copied template to make sure the text is all correctly attributed and that the chain of contributions doesn't get obliterated. —ShinyG 21:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am placing a Split section message on the main page to foster further discussion. If there is no considerable opposition to the split voiced here by the end of Friday, 5 March 2010, I'll go ahead and split off the section on that weekend. —ShinyG 21:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The filibuster is quite different in the parliamentary system, and I believe that English readers deserve an article about respective nations' filibuster protocol and experiences. --152.65.94.125 20:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Miyomiyo1050 decided to be bold and jumped the gun by one whole week on this split effort. So it is done. I'm doing some patch-up work, inserting the necessary {{Template:Copied}} notices in the talk pages, as well as making dummy edits to comply the edit summary requirements in WP:SPLIT. —ShinyG 00:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have also removed the {{Project Congress}} box, since the relevant article is now Filibuster (United States) —ShinyG 02:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

confusing!

QUOTE "This term was applied at the time to American adventurers, mostly from Southern states, who sought to overthrow the governments of the Northern and Central states. This is not a reference to the American Civil War, but rather, to adventurers from the southern United States in Central and South America." ENDQUOTE

So... the "Northern and Central states" in the first sentence is the same thing as the "Central and South America" in the second sentence? Who refers to countries in Central and South America as "Northern and Central"? Wheatonna (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

The common use of the label of "filibuster" for this parliamentary technique would seem to be significantly later than the mid-19th century date that Online Etymology gives for the first use. A 1921 Collier's Encyclopedia article ( Reynolds, Francis J., ed. (1921). "Filibuster" . Collier's New Encyclopedia. New York: P. F. Collier & Son Company.) doesn't even mention this use of the term. So I think a reference as to when the term came into common use to label this technique would help this article, and a more specific citation of the first use would also be helpful. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Safire's Political Dictionary notes that its first use in the sense of legislative bloviation came in 1853, and (without pinning a year on it) that its acquisition of its precise modern connotation came "quickly" thereafter. Loc. cit. at 244 (2008). The upper limit on that process is the 1890s, see Jameson, Dictionary of United States History 234 (1897) (noting the use of the term in its modern sense). Comparable works from the 1870s use the term in a slightly broader sense, encompassing all dilatory legislative tactics, see, e.g., Bartlett, Dictionary of Americanisms 215 (1877); 7 American Cyclopaedia 185 (Ripley & Dana, eds. 1874), so I think one can safely infer that the word's modern sense is a product of a mid-19th century trend which settled in the 1880s. Of course, to say any of this in the article would be a WP:SYNTH problem.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Procedure"?

The description in the opening sentence of filibuster as a 'procedure' rather than, say, a 'practice' seems dubious, given that it is not generally an 'official' activity defined or sanctioned by the rules of the body in which it occurs, but rather a sort of 'gaming' of the rules. Bitbut (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Filibuster in the House of Representatives

Currently, the article states: "In the United States House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842". Yet it also says: "The term in its legislative sense was first used in 1854 when opponents tried to delay the Kansas-Nebraska Act in the U.S. Congress" - namely, in the very same House of Representatives which supposedly had given up such a practice a dozen years before. Evidently, our current discrepancy has to be explained better. Maybe that ban on filibusters had been revoked, it was ineffective, or representatives just broke their own rules. --Oop (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the section has no citations, so we can't refer to them in going back and rewriting from the sources. If we fix the sourcing problem, I think we'll see a clearer path to fixing the content problem. I don't have time to check into it right now so I've tagged the section as needing attention.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

United States v. Ballin

Reading the article linked by United States v. Ballin, I am under the impression that the case is far from dispositive as to the legality of the filibuster, although it's been argued as such. The reason is that in the Ballin case, the Senate did pass the legislation in question, and claimed to do so. But when something is being filibustered, the bill is held up from passing. Ballin simply noted that the bill was duly passed by a majority of the quorum. I believe these doubts, provided that they can be sourced, should be added to avoid misleading readers. Comments? Ngchen (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

¶ The case of US v. Ballin, mentioned for the US Senate, had nothing to do with the US Senate and nothing to do with filibusters. It dealt with the method used by the House of Representatives to establish the presence of a quorum. The mention of US v. Ballin in this article is a mistake. Sussmanbern (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

¶ On the other hand, I would very much like to know about the recent (2011??) change to the Senate Rules that enables a Senator to get the result of a filibuster just by rising and mentioning a filibuster and then immediately sitting down or leaving or falling asleep. Sussmanbern (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Some content seems biased/irrelevant

"This is called the constitutional option by proponents, and the nuclear option by opponents, who insist that rules do remain in force across sessions." Not only is this unattributed, but it is irrelevant to an objective understanding of the meaning and history of the filibuster, per se. I am sure there are many names that advocates and opponents of eliminating the filibuster in the US senate have for rules changes, just not sure why anyone should care nor what place it has on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe5pack (talk • contribs) 05:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Australia

While there are talking time limits in Australian parliament, if you look at question time the opposition attempt to stop votes from happening by constantly calling "Point of Order" or calling for votes of no confidence (this seems to be the tactic of the Liberal/National coalition opposition at the time of writing this).

Could this be considered a form of filibustering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.91.94 (talk) 11 April 2013

Along with suspension of standing orders and the abuse of indulgence yesterday (27/03/13) on rules of points of indulgence, I believe the answer is yes. I'm adding the issues of abuse on suspension of standing order to this article. Anyone who would like to expand on my edits and particularly on points of order, please feel free to contribute. --123.211.211.100 (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nonsensical

The sentence "The term in its legislative sense was first used by Democratic congressman Albert G. Brown of Mississippi in 1853, referring to Abraham Watkins Venable's speech against "filibustering" intervention in Cuba.[5]" seems to not make sense or be badly written in terms of who's being quoted. If the term was first used by Albert G. Brown, then how was he referring to a speech about filibustering, surely if it was the subject of someone else's speech, then someone used it first? Unless there is an implication (and that's why it's in " ") that Mr. Brown invented the term to describe the topic if the speech, in which case it's a bit tenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.211.220 (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Etymology - a curious coincidence at the very least.

I know the accepted etymology of this word is from the Dutch vrijbuiter, "privateer, pirate, robber", but I find it more than strange that the first recorded filibuster in history is in Plato's "Philebus" circa 400BC. In fact a filibuster is the foundation of the book's premise.

"... we teased you and threatened that we would not let you go home until the issue had been concluded and brought to a satisfactory limit. You agreed and gave yourself to us for this purpose." and later "Please will you let me go or will you keep me here till midnight?"

Given that the newspaper editors of the time when the word first appeared in print would have been far more familiar with the classics than we are today surely it is possible that at the least they were engaging in a little word play. Ggrundy (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Attempt to pass of a US only usage of a word as "world English"

This article is a blatant attempt to pass off American English as "world English", as is clearly indicated by the Oxford English Dictionary's definition and etymology for the word.

- Filibuster (verb) [14]

- Filibuster (noun) [15]

In both cases, etymology and current usage are US only, in particular the context under which this article was written.

This article should be re-written to fall into line with the the accepted etymology for the word.

122.217.63.70 (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

OED says, "An act of obstruction in a legislative assembly. Chiefly U.S." And says the word derives from the Dutch. Which is what this article says. Rjensen (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Filibuster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130307230045/http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/standing_orders/a00.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/standing_orders/a00.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130307230053/http://www.aph.gov.au/House/pubs/standos/chapter1.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/House/pubs/standos/chapter1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130307230448/http://politics.canada.com/2011/06/ndp-filibuster-cost-canadians/ to http://politics.canada.com/2011/06/ndp-filibuster-cost-canadians/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Structure Edit

Shouldn't the Sections in the article be numbered the same as the index? I would make it easier to follow the organization of the topics while reading. SquashEngineer (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Filibuster. 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/20110604123717/http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=963fa80f-2996-46c4-8696-6df2034365f8&sponsor= to http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=963fa80f-2996-46c4-8696-6df2034365f8&sponsor=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604123721/http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=04f4ea3b-6cdd-4cca-8aba-78710c4a8733 to http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=04f4ea3b-6cdd-4cca-8aba-78710c4a8733
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604123728/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=90e06005-f60c-4f46-b668-6015e7fffebc to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=90e06005-f60c-4f46-b668-6015e7fffebc

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Purpose of a Filibuster

A filibuster's purpose is given here as "allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote" but that doesn't explain the underlying reason. How does it prevent a vote? A filibuster might be used to delay until a deadline is reached (e.g, end of the legislative session), or until new information is brought forward, or even until the majority loses interest and the minority can then vote to override the majority. None of these reasons are given here, and they would add to the explanation of why anyone would start a filibuster. Whbjr (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Poorly Written Sentence

"As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House had acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes." - This sentence needs improvement. It is confusing, to say the least. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This Article does not feel like a "B-Class" quality article

I would rate it more as a C-. It's not very well written, and poorly constructed. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Filibuster. 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/20090519190937/http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=157300 to http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=157300

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Filibuster. 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/20060927154735/http://www.gpoaccess.gov//riddick/282-334.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/riddick/282-334.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Filibuster. 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/20160814222938/http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/fury-as-retaliatory-evictions-bill-talked-out-of-commons/7007119.article to http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/fury-as-retaliatory-evictions-bill-talked-out-of-commons/7007119.article
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/24/john-ivison-time-stands-still-in-the-house-of-commons-as-ndp-filibuster-drags-on/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606044507/http://www.thestar.com/article/111918 to https://www.thestar.com/article/111918
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.thetelegram.com/news/local/2017/3/14/liberal-government-filibusters-its-own-budget-debate.amp.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)