Filibuster

“1. Preheat oven to 400 degrees F (200 degrees C). 2. In a bowl, combine apples, raisins, currants, cinnamon, sugar and bread crumbs. Stir well. 3. Spread several sheets of pastry generously with melted butter and lay them on atop the other on a baking sheet. Spread the fruit mixture evenly over the top sheet, then roll the sheets up to form a log shape. Brush with melted butter again. 4. Bake in preheated oven 30 minutes, until pastry is golden brown and fruit is tender.”

~ Chuck Schumer on Filibusters

“So THATS what my organic chemistry teacher was up to!”

~ Me on Filibusters

John Reid held that look for over six days setting one of the longest filibusters on record.

In a legislature or other decision making body, a filibuster is an attempt to obstruct a particular decision from being taken by using up the time available, typically through an extremely long speech.

The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose. The term comes from the early 17th century, where Buccaneers were known in England as filibusters. This term had evolved from the Spanish filibustero which had come from the French word flibustier, which again evolved from the Dutch vrijbuiter (freebooter).

A similar form of parliamentary obstruction practiced in the United States and other countries is called "slow walking". It specifically refers to the extremely slow speed with which legislators walk to the podium to cast their ballots. For example, in Japan this tactic is known as a "cow walk". In general it refers to the intentional delay of the normal business of the legislature [1].

Origin of the Word 'Filibuster'

Origami is a popular technique during the filibuster.

The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose. The term comes from the early 17th century, where Buccaneers were known in England as filibusters. This term had evolved from the Spanish filibustero which had come from the French word flibustier, which again evolved from the Dutch vrijbuiter (freebooter).

Languages change over time. What were once dialects of the same language may eventually diverge enough that they are no longer mutually intelligible. They have become separate languages.

One method to illustrate the relationship between such divergent yet related languages is to construct family trees, an idea pioneered by the 19th century historical linguist August Schleicher. The basis for the trees is the comparative method: languages presumed to be related are compared with one another, and linguists look for regular sound correspondences based on what is generally known about how languages can change, and use them to reconstruct the best hypothesis about the nature of the common ancestor language from which the attested languages are descended.

Use of the comparative method is validated by its application to languages whose common ancestor is known. Thus, when the method is applied to the Romance languages (which include French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Romanian), the reconstructed common ancestor language comes out rather similar to Latin - not the classical Latin of Horace and Cicero, but Vulgar Latin, the colloquial Latin spoken in various dialects in the late Roman Empire.

The comparative method can be used to reconstruct languages for which no written records exist, either because none were preserved or because the speakers were illiterate. Thus, the Germanic languages (which include German, Dutch, English, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Faroese, Icelandic, Yiddish, and the extinct Gothic) can be compared to reconstruct Proto-Germanic, a language that was probably contemporaneous with Latin and for which no records are preserved.

Germanic and Latin (more precisely, Proto-Italic, the ancestor of Latin and a few of its neighbors) are themselves related, being co-descended from Proto-Indo-European, spoken perhaps 5000 years ago. Scholars have reconstructed Proto-Indo-European on the basis of data from its nine surviving daughter branches, which are: Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Greek, Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, Armenian, Indo-Iranian, and from the two dead branches Tocharian and Anatolian.

The comparative method is used to distinguish true linguistic descent - that is, the passing of a language from parents to children, down through the generations - from accidental resemblance due to cultural contact. For example, c. 30% of the vocabulary of Persian is taken from Arabic, as a result of the Arab conquest of Iran in the 8th century and much subsequent cultural contact. Yet Persian is Indo-European, being a member of the Indo-Iranian branch that also includes Sanskrit and many of the languages of modern India. The clue that Persian is Indo-European is that its core vocabulary generally has Indo-European cognates (as in mâdar 'mother'), and its essential grammatical elements are likewise Indo-European (as in bûd 'was', which includes elements related to English "be" and the English past tense ending "-ed".)

The comparative method has been successfully used to reconstruct some very large language families, notably Austronesian (which includes Hawaiian, Tagalog, Javanese, and Malagasy) and Niger-Congo (the majority of the languages of modern Africa). Once the various changes in the daughter branches have been worked out, and a fair amount of the core vocabulary and grammar of the protolanguage are understood, then scholars will quite generally agree that a relationship of genetic relatedness has been proven.

Vastly more controversial are hypotheses about relatedness which are not supported by application of the comparative method. Scholars who attempt to probe deeper than the comparative method supports (for example, by tabulating similarities found by mass lexical comparison without setting up sound correspondences) are often accused of scholarly wishful thinking. The problem is that any two languages have a huge number of opportunities to resemble one another just by accident, so merely pointing out isolated resemblances has little evidentiary value. A famous example is the Persian word for "bad", which is pronounced (more or less) just like English "bad". It can be shown that the resemblance between these two words is completely accidental, and has nothing to do with the (rather remote) genetic connection between English and Persian. For further examples, see False cognate. The idea is that this linguistic "noise" may be reduced by comparing large amounts of words, which is exactly the point of mass lexical comparison. However, by ignoring known historical changes in the languages, mass lexical comparison incorporates known randomness, and therefore appears to be willfully inaccurate.

A democratic approach to the Bill problem was attempted in 1940. in USA with predictably poor results.,

Since supporting distant genetic relationships is so difficult, and the method for finding and proving such relationships is not well established (in the way that the comparative method is), the field of locating remote relationships is riven with scholarly controversy. Nevertheless, the temptation to pursue remote relationships remains a powerful lure to many scholars—after all, Proto-Indo-European must have seemed a rather wild hypothesis to many when it was first proposed.

This uncertainty also relates to estimates of how long it would take for languages to diverge completely. One commonly cited opinion is that if a group of people were sent to a distant galaxy, after 10,000 years they would be speaking a language that would be no more similar to their native language than any other language selected at random. This figure is based on glottochronology, using a simplified assumption of a constant 14% loss rate each millennium and a chance similarity rate of 5%. However, other work by Isidore Dyen[1] and Sergei Starostin indicates that in fact words have wildly differing expected life spans; thus, for instance, a specialized word like "goshawk" might on average last a mere millennium or two, whereas extremely common words like "I" and "you" often last so long that it is not possible to even estimate their life span without reconstructions going further back in time than those that are universally accepted.

The ultimate in remote reconstruction is the recovery of a Proto-World language. Not all scholars believe that such a language even necessarily existed. Moreover, it is difficult to reconcile Proto-World with what we know about prehistory. Joseph Greenberg has suggested that people coming out of northeast Africa around 50,000 BC spoke Proto-World. But that would violate the claim that no relationships would be recognizable after 10,000 years; if that figure is accurate, then if all languages are observably related, such a relationship must have somehow formed more recently.

Dené-Caucasian has also been postulated to include Na-Dené (North America), Sino-Tibetan, Ket (Siberia), Burushaski (Pakistan), Caucasian (Chechen, Dagestan languages), and Basque. This language family is extremely hypothetical.

The Nostratic hypothesis was proposed by a Dane named Holger Pedersen, in 1903. The hypothesis claims that the Nostratic grouping includes such widely ranging language families as Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Uralic, Altaic, Sumerian, Elamo-Dravidian, and Kartvelian. Others claim other sets of languages. Some have speculated that the Nostratics were refugees from a Black Sea Flood of around 5600 BC, and some think this is the origin of Noah's Flood from the Bible. However, linguists have reached no firm conclusion about the validity of the Nostratic hypothesis. Its proponents, unlike Greenberg, use the traditional comparative method; however, their comparisons are often accused of being far-fetched or involving too many semantic shifts, while some also accuse them of simply grouping together the language families most familiar to them and neglecting to compare each of them to language families further afield.

A similar form of parliamentary obstruction practiced in the United States and other countries is called "slow walking". It specifically refers to the extremely slow speed with which legislators walk to the podium to cast their ballots. For example, in Japan this tactic is known as a "cow walk". In general it refers to the intentional delay of the normal business of the legislature [2].

Filibuster in the U.S. Senate

Overview

Under Senate rules, the speech need not be relevant to the topic under discussion, and there have been cases in which a senator has undertaken part of a speech by reading from a telephone directory. Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC) set a record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes, although the bill ultimately passed. Thurmond broke the previous record of 22 hours and 26 minutes set by Wayne Morse (I-OR) in 1953 protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation.

The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth, and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage, and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guarantied by the supreme law of the land are involved. It is therefore to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a state to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race.

In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott Case.

It was adjudged in that case that the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, were not included nor intended to be included under the word 'citizens' in the constitution, and could not claim any of the rights and privileges which that instrument provided for and secured to citizens of the United States; that, at time of the adoption of the constitution, they were 'considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant [163 U.S. 537, 560] race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them.' 17 How. 393, 404. The recent amendments of the constitution, it was supposed, had eradicated these principles from our institutions. But it seems that we have yet, in some of the states, a dominant race,-a superior class of citizens,-which assumes to regulate the enjoyment of civil rights, common to all citizens, upon the basis of race. The present decision, it may well be apprehended, will not only stimulate aggressions, more or less brutal and irritating, upon the admitted rights of colored citizens, but will encourage the belief that it is possible, by means of state enactments, to defeat the beneficent purposes which the people of the United States had in view when they adopted the recent amendments of the constitution, by one of which the blacks of this country were made citizens of the United States and of the states in which they respectively reside, and whose privileges and immunities, as citizens, the states are forbidden to abridge. Sixty millions of whites are in no danger from the presence here of eight millions of blacks. The destinies of the two races, in this country, are indissolubly linked together, and the interests of both require that the common government of all shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law. What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races, than state enactments which, in fact, proceed on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens? That, as all will admit, is the real meaning of such legislation as was enacted in Louisiana.

The sure guaranty of the peace and security of each race is the clear, distinct, unconditional recognition by our governments, national and state, of every right that inheres in civil freedom, and of the equality before the law of all citizens of the United States, without regard to race. State enactments regulating the enjoyment of civil rights upon the basis of race, and cunningly devised to defeat legitimate results of the [163 U.S. 537, 561] war, under the pretense of recognizing equality of rights, can have no other result than to render permanent peace impossible, and to keep alive a conflict of races, the continuance of which must do harm to all concerned. This question is not met by the suggestion that social equality cannot exist between the white and black races in this country. That argument, if it can be properly regarded as one, is scarcely worthy of consideration; for social equality no more exists between two races when traveling in a passenger coach or a public highway than when members of the same races sit by each other in a street car or in the jury box, or stand or sit with each other in a political assembly, or when they use in common the streets of a city or town, or when they are in the same room for the purpose of having their names placed on the registry of voters, or when they approach the ballot box in order to exercise the high privilege of voting.

Senate Rule XXII: Precedence of Motions

1.When a question is pending, no motion shall be received but

- To adjourn.

- To adjourn to a day certain, or that when the Senate adjourn it shall be to a day certain.

- To take a recess.

- To proceed to the consideration of executive business.

- To lay on the table.

- To postpone indefinitely.

- To postpone to a day certain.

- To commit.

- To amend.

Which several motions shall have precedence as they stand arranged; and the motions relating to adjournment, to take a recess, to proceed to the consideration of executive business, to lay on the table, shall be decided without debate.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting—then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more than one hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, the amendments thereto, and motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty of the Presiding Officer to keep the time of each Senator who speaks. Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be proposed after the vote to bring the debate to a close, unless it had been submitted in writing to the Journal Clerk by 1 o'clock p.m. on the day following the filing of the cloture motion if an amendment in the first degree, and unless it had been so submitted at least one hour prior to the beginning of the cloture vote if an amendment in the second degree. No dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and appeals from the decision of the Presiding Officer, shall be decided without debate.

After no more than thirty hours of consideration of the measure, motion, or other matter on which cloture has been invoked, the Senate shall proceed, without any further debate on any question, to vote on the final disposition thereof to the exclusion of all amendments not then actually pending before the Senate at that time and to the exclusion of all motions, except a motion to table, or to reconsider and one quorum call on demand to establish the presence of a quorum (and motions required to establish a quorum) immediately before the final vote begins. The thirty hours may be increased by the adoption of a motion, decided without debate, by a threefifths affirmative vote of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, and any such time thus agreed upon shall be equally divided between and controlled by the Majority and Minority Leaders or their designees. However, only one motion to extend time, specified above, may be made in any one calendar day.

If, for any reason, a measure or matter is reprinted after cloture has been invoked, amendments which were in order prior to the reprinting of the measure or matter will continue to be in order and may be conformed and reprinted at the request of the amendment's sponsor. The conforming changes must be limited to lineation and pagination.

No Senator shall call up more than two amendments until every other Senator shall have had the opportunity to do likewise.

Notwithstanding other provisions of this rule, a Senator may yield all or part of his one hour to the majority or minority floor managers of the measure, motion, or matter or to the Majority or Minority Leader, but each Senator specified shall not have more than two hours so yielded to him and may in turn yield such time to other Senators.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, any Senator who has not used or yielded at least ten minutes, is, if he seeks recognition, guaranteed up to ten minutes, inclusive, to speak only.

After cloture is invoked, the reading of any amendment, including House amendments, shall be dispensed with when the proposed amendment has been identified and has been available in printed form at the desk of the Members for not less than twenty four hours.

History

Early usage

In 1789, the First U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. In 1806, Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years (see M. Gold & D. Gupta, 28 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 205 at 215), and should be eliminated. The Senate agreed, and thus the potentiality for a filibuster sprang into being. Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

• If you can't stay close to the truth, try to be consistent across many articles. A good example is the Oprah conspiracy series. Despite the fact that it is entirely incoherent, it's incoherent across a large span of history. This is Good.

  Be sure your string of barely coherent prose does in fact contain at least one(1) degree of Celsius between each serving—or 1/6 of a "Kevin Bacon."

• Random humour can be funny if it is not seen as being serious. Keep in mind that not everyone will get the joke, and often get upset at those who write random humour. Things like Oscar Wilde dying from having someone cut off his head, and then later it grew back is random, but funny like found in The Most Quotable Smackdown of All Time.

• Be sure to check existing articles. Nothing is worse than writing a brilliantly clever piece only to find that the person or object in question is portrayed completely differently on numerous other pages. Research for a moment before adding. Of course, this inconsistency might stand on its own, but it's good to know that you're not plotzing up any large "sagas".

• However, this is Uncyclopedia, not Wikipedia. We're not writing "the Truth" (or "Neutral Point of View") here, so the important thing is whether a given individual article is entertaining/interesting in its own right, on a stand-alone, individual basis. In fact, it can be great to have, across different articles within a topic area, a different viewpoint in each article. It keeps the creative juices going for the introduction of fresh ideas and a variety of perspectives and approaches. As well, what's entertaining can vary from reader to reader. Maybe a reader who wouldn't find the first viewpoint on a topic area as expressed in Article 1 funny might find the second or subsequent viewpoints on that topic area in Articles 2, 3, etc. funny. Also, if you try to keep to one storyline across articles just for the sake of consistency, there's the possibility that some of the various linking articles in the series may become boring, unfunny articles that aren't interesting on an individual-article basis; instead of the linking articles, consider giving these details within the main article itself.

• Try to avoid writing over or spoiling any particular article that is otherwise a good article. If you're thinking of editing that particular article, try to be consistent in content and style with the existing content in that particular article. Otherwise, the article will begin to look like a messy, random, unfunny hodgepodge (although hodgepodges can be nice, in special cases). Thus, if you have a different viewpoint or different style from that already expressed in that particular article, you should move on and find a compatible article with your viewpoint or style or else start a new article (it's easy to do), rather than writing over or adding inconsistent content.

The 20th century and the emergence of cloture

In 1917 a rule allowing for the cloture of debate (ending a filibuster) was adopted by the Democrat-controlled Senate [3] at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson[4]. From 1917 to 1949, the requirement for cloture was two-thirds of those voting.

In 1946 Southern Democrats blocked a vote on a bill proposed by Dennis Chavez of New Mexico (S. 101) that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to prevent discrimination in the work place. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chavez was forced to remove the bill from consideration after a failed cloture vote even though he had enough votes to pass the bill. As civil rights loomed on the Senate agenda, this rule was revised in 1949 to allow cloture on any measure or motion by two-thirds of the entire Senate membership; in 1959 the threshold was restored to two-thirds of those voting. After a series of filibusters led by Southern Democrats in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Democrat-controlled Senate [5] in 1975 revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senate (usually 60 senators) could limit debate. Despite this rule, the filibuster or the threat of a filibuster remains an important tactic that allows a large minority to affect legislation.

1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 "When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a bright spot on his skin that may become an infectious skin disease, [a] he must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons [b] who is a priest. 3 The priest is to examine the sore on his skin, and if the hair in the sore has turned white and the sore appears to be more than skin deep, [c] it is an infectious skin disease. When the priest examines him, he shall pronounce him ceremonially unclean. 4 If the spot on his skin is white but does not appear to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest is to put the infected person in isolation for seven days. 5 On the seventh day the priest is to examine him, and if he sees that the sore is unchanged and has not spread in the skin, he is to keep him in isolation another seven days. 6 On the seventh day the priest is to examine him again, and if the sore has faded and has not spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only a rash. The man must wash his clothes, and he will be clean. 7 But if the rash does spread in his skin after he has shown himself to the priest to be pronounced clean, he must appear before the priest again. 8 The priest is to examine him, and if the rash has spread in the skin, he shall pronounce him unclean; it is an infectious disease.

9 "When anyone has an infectious skin disease, he must be brought to the priest. 10 The priest is to examine him, and if there is a white swelling in the skin that has turned the hair white and if there is raw flesh in the swelling, 11 it is a chronic skin disease and the priest shall pronounce him unclean. He is not to put him in isolation, because he is already unclean.

12 "If the disease breaks out all over his skin and, so far as the priest can see, it covers all the skin of the infected person from head to foot, 13 the priest is to examine him, and if the disease has covered his whole body, he shall pronounce that person clean. Since it has all turned white, he is clean. 14 But whenever raw flesh appears on him, he will be unclean. 15 When the priest sees the raw flesh, he shall pronounce him unclean. The raw flesh is unclean; he has an infectious disease. 16 Should the raw flesh change and turn white, he must go to the priest. 17 The priest is to examine him, and if the sores have turned white, the priest shall pronounce the infected person clean; then he will be clean.

18 "When someone has a boil on his skin and it heals, 19 and in the place where the boil was, a white swelling or reddish-white spot appears, he must present himself to the priest. 20 The priest is to examine it, and if it appears to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has turned white, the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is an infectious skin disease that has broken out where the boil was. 21 But if, when the priest examines it, there is no white hair in it and it is not more than skin deep and has faded, then the priest is to put him in isolation for seven days. 22 If it is spreading in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is infectious. 23 But if the spot is unchanged and has not spread, it is only a scar from the boil, and the priest shall pronounce him clean.

24 "When someone has a burn on his skin and a reddish-white or white spot appears in the raw flesh of the burn, 25 the priest is to examine the spot, and if the hair in it has turned white, and it appears to be more than skin deep, it is an infectious disease that has broken out in the burn. The priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an infectious skin disease. 26 But if the priest examines it and there is no white hair in the spot and if it is not more than skin deep and has faded, then the priest is to put him in isolation for seven days. 27 On the seventh day the priest is to examine him, and if it is spreading in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an infectious skin disease. 28 If, however, the spot is unchanged and has not spread in the skin but has faded, it is a swelling from the burn, and the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only a scar from the burn.

Current practice

Filibusters do not occur in legislative bodies in which time for debate is strictly limited by procedural rules, such as the United States House of Representatives. The House did not adopt rules restricting debate until 1842, and the filibuster was used in that body before that time.

In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits procedural filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if they so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can be just as powerful as an actual filibuster.

Budget bills are governed under special rules called "Reconciliation" which do not allow filibusters. Reconciliation theoretically only applies to bills that would reduce the budget deficit, but it has been used for bills that are only tangentially related to budget issues.

A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else to the agenda. Thurmond's attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.

According to a Historical Moments Essay on the U.S. Senate website, the Republican Party was the first to initiate a filibuster against a judicial nominee in 1968, forcing Democratic president Lyndon Johnson to withdraw the nomination of Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice.

In calculus, the integral of a function is a generalization of area, mass, volume, sum, and total. The process of finding integrals is integration, in its mathematical meaning. Unlike the closely-related process of differentiation, there are several possible definitions of integration, with different technical underpinnings. They are, however, compatible; any two different ways of integrating a function will give the same result when they are both defined.

The word "integral" may also refer to antiderivatives in a mild abuse of language. Though they are closely related through the fundamental theorem of calculus, the two notions are conceptually distinct. When one wants to clarify this distinction, an antiderivative integral is referred to as an indefinite integral, while the integrals discussed in this article are termed definite integrals.

Intuitively, the integral of a continuous, positive real-valued function f of one real variable x between a left endpoint a and a right endpoint b represents the area bounded by the lines x = a, x = b, the x-axis, and the curve defined by the graph of f. More formally, if we let

$S=\{(x,y)\in \mathbb {R} ^{2}:a\leq x\leq b,0\leq y\leq f(x)\},$

then the integral of f between a and b is the measure of S.

Leibniz introduced the standard long s notation for the integral. The integral of the previous paragraph would be written $\int _{a}^{b}f(x)\,dx$. The ∫ sign represents integration, a and b are the endpoints of the interval, f(x) is the function we are integrating, and dx is a notation for the variable of integration. Historically, dx represented an infinitesimal quantity, and the long s stood for "sum". However, modern theories of integration are built from different foundations, and the traditional symbols have become no more than notation.

As an example, if f is the constant function f(x) = 3, then the integral of f between 0 and 10 is the area of the rectangle bounded by the lines x = 0, x = 10, y = 0, and y = 3. The area is the width of the rectangle times its height, so the value of the integral is 30.

Integrals can be taken over regions other than intervals. In general, the integral over a set E of a function f is written ∫_Ef(x) dx. Here x need not be a real number, but, for instance, a vector in R³. Fubini's theorem shows that such integrals can be rewritten as an iterated integral. In other words, the integral can be calculated by integrating one coordinate at a time.

The filibuster today

In 2005, some Republican senators led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), responding to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush to prevent a vote on the nominations, floated the idea of eliminating filibusters on judicial nominees by declaring current Senate rules allowing such filibusters unconstitutional. Senator Trent Lott, the senior Republican senator from Mississippi, named this plan the nuclear option. Republican leaders later referred to the plan as the constitutional option, though opponents and some supporters of the plan continue to use the term nuclear option. The filibuster battle raged on the Senate floor for much of May 2005, with Republicans claiming that they wanted judicial nominees to have a clear-cut vote of either yes or no, and Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), claiming that such actions would erode traditional minority rights in government.

On May 23, 14 senators – seven Democrats and seven Republicans – led by John McCain (R-AZ) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) brokered a deal to allow three of Bush's nominees a vote on the Senate floor while leaving two others subject to a filibuster. The seven Democrats promised not to filibuster Bush's nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances," while the seven Republicans promised to oppose the nuclear option. Specifically, the Democrats promised to stop the filibuster on Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor, Jr., who had all been filibustered in the Senate before. In return, the Republicans would stop the effort to ban the filibuster for judicial nominees."Extraordinary circumstances" was not defined in advance. The term is open for interpretation but the Republicans and Democrats will have to agree on what it means if any nominee is to be blocked.

Filibuster in Canada

A unique form of filibuster was pioneered by the Ontario New Democratic Party in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in April 1997. To protest Progressive Conservative government legislation that would create the megacity of Toronto, Ontario, the small New Democratic caucus introduced 11,500 amendments to the megacity bill, created on computers with mail merge functionality. Each amendment would name a street in the proposed city, and provide that public hearings be held into the megacity with residents of the street invited to participate. The Ontario Liberal Party also joined the filibuster with a smaller series of amendments; a typical Liberal amendment would give a historical designation to a named street.

The filibuster began on April 2 with the Abbeywood Trail amendment and occupied the legislature day and night, the members alternating in shifts. On April 4, tired and often sleepy government members inadvertently let one of the NDP amendments pass, and the handful of residents of Cafon Court in Etobicoke were granted the right to a public consultation on the bill (the government subsequently nullified this with an amendment of their own). On April 6, with the alphabetical list of streets barely into the E's, Speaker Chris Stockwell ruled that there was no need for the 230 words identical in each amendment to be read aloud each time, only the street name. With a vote still needed on each amendment, Zorra Street was not reached until April 8. The Liberal amendments were then voted down one by one, eventually using a similar abbreviated process, and the filibuster finally ended on April 11.

• External link: archive of the amendment debates in the Provincial Hansard. The filibuster extends from section L176B of the archive to L176AE; the Cafon Court slip-up is in section L176H, Stockwell rules on the issue of repetition in L176N, and Zorra Street is reached in L176S.

45 USC 797c

(a) Register

(1) The Railroad Retirement Board (hereafter in this section referred to as the “Board”) shall prepare and maintain a register of persons separated from railroad employment after at least one year of completed service with a railroad who have declared their current availability for employment in the railroad industry. The register shall be subdivided by class and craft of prior employment and shall be updated periodically to reflect current availability.

(2) Each entry in the register shall include, or provide access to, basic information concerning the individual’s experience and qualifications.

(3) The Board shall place at the top of the register those former railroad employees entitled to priority under applicable provisions of law, including this chapter.

(b) Corporation employees

As soon as is practicable after August 13, 1981, the Corporation shall provide to the Board the names of its former employees who elect to appear on the register and who have not been offered employment with acquiring railroads.

(c) Vacancy notices; warning; civil penalty

(1) Each railroad shall timely file with the Board a notice of vacancy with respect to any position for which the railroad intends to accept applications from persons other than current employees of that carrier.

(2)

(A) As soon as the Board becomes aware of any failure on the part of a railroad to comply with paragraph (1), the Board shall issue a warning to such railroad of its potential liability under subparagraph (B).

(B) Any railroad failing to comply with paragraph (1) of this subsection after being warned by the Board under subparagraph (A) shall be liable for a civil penalty in the amount of $500 for each subsequent vacancy with respect to which such railroad has so failed to comply.

(d) Placement

The Board shall, through distribution of copies of the central register (or portions thereof) to railroads and representatives of classes or crafts of employees and through publication of employment information derived from vacancy notices filed with the Board, promote the placement of former railroad employees possessing requisite skills and experience in appropriate positions with other railroads.

(e) Employment applications

In addition to its responsibilities under subsections (a) through (d) of this section, the Board shall facilitate the filing of employment applications with respect to current vacancies in the industry by former railroad employees entitled to priority under applicable provisions of law, including this chapter.

(f) Expiration

The provisions of this section shall cease to be effective on the expiration of the 6-year period beginning on August 13, 1981.

(g) Resolution of disputes

Any dispute, grievance, or claim arising under this section, section 797b of this title, section 907 of this title, or section 1004 of this title shall be subject to resolution in accordance with the following procedures:

(1) Any employee with such a dispute, grievance, or claim may petition the Board to review and investigate the dispute, grievance, or claim.

(2) The Board shall investigate the dispute, grievance, or claim, and if it concludes that the employee’s rights under this section, section 797b of this title, section 907 of this title, or section 1004 of this title may have been violated, the dispute, grievance, or claim shall be subject to resolution in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 153 of this title.

(3) In the case of any violation of this section, section 797b of this title, section 907 of this title, or section 1004 of this title, the Adjustment Board (or any division or delegate thereof) or any other board of adjustment created under section 153 of this title shall, where appropriate, award such relief, including back pay, as may be necessary to enforce the employee’s rights.

Filibuster in UK Parliament

Procedural rules in the British House of Commons do not allow Members to speak on any subject, they must stick to the topic of the debate.

57. It is the responsibility of the Member, having regard to the rules of the House, to judge whether a pecuniary interest is sufficiently relevant to a particular debate, proceeding, meeting or other activity to require a declaration. The basic test of relevance should be the same for declaration as it is for registration of an interest; namely, that a pecuniary interest should be declared if it might reasonably be thought by others to influence the speech, representation or communication in question. A declaration should be brief but should make specific reference to the nature of the Member’s interest.

58. The House has endorsed the following advice on the occasions when such a declaration of interest should be made: “no difficulty should arise in any proceeding of the House or its Committees in which the Member has an opportunity to speak. Such proceedings, in addition to debates in the House, include debates in Standing Committees, the presentation of a Public Petition, and meetings of Select Committees at which evidence is heard. On all such occasions the Member will declare his interest at the beginning of his remarks ... it will be a matter of judgement, if his interest is already recorded in the Register, whether he simply draws attention to this or makes a rather fuller disclosure”.10 Any declaration “should be sufficiently informative to enable a listener to understand the nature of the Member’s pecuniary interest ...”.11

59. In a debate in the House the Member should declare an interest briefly, usually at the beginning of their speech. If the House is dealing with the Committee or Consideration stages of a Bill it will normally be sufficient for the Member to declare a relevant interest when speaking for the first time. In Standing Committee Members should declare relevant interests at the first meeting of the Committee or on the first occasion on which they address the Committee. It will not be necessary for a declaration to be repeated at subsequent meetings except when the Member speaks on an Amendment to which the interest is particularly relevant. When giving notice of an Amendment or a Motion (including a Motion for leave to introduce a “Ten Minute Rule” Bill), giving notice of the presentation of a Bill or adding a name to an Amendment or Motion, Members should declare any relevant interest in the appropriate manner (see paragraphs 60–63 below).

In 1983, Member of Parliament John Golding talked for over 11 hours during an all-night sitting at the committee stage of the British Telecommunications Bill. However, as this was at a standing committee and not in the Commons chamber, he was also able to take breaks for lunch and dinner. The all-time Commons record for non-stop speaking is six hours, set by Henry Brougham in 1828.

British Telecom's origins date back to the inception of the first telecommunications companies in the United Kingdom, starting with the introduction of the first commercial telegraph service in the early nineteenth century. As these companies amalgamated and were taken over or collapsed, the survivors were eventually transferred to state control under the Post Office and ultimately to the privatised British Telecommunications plc.

The United Kingdom telephone service in the early days was provided by the General Post Office (GPO) in competition with private sector companies such as the National Telephone Company. In 1896, the GPO took over the private sector trunk telephone service. In 1912, it became the monopoly supplier of the telephone service except in a few municipalities, including the city of Kingston-upon-Hull (where the local service is still provided by the city council today).

The idea of converting the Post Office into a nationalised industry was first raised as early as 1932 in a book published by Lord Wolmer called 'Post Office Reform'. Also in 1932, the Bridgeman Committee was formed 'to enquire and report as to whether any changes to the constitution, status or system of organisation of the Post Office would be in the public interest'. The Committee's report was rejected.

Further attention was given to the subject in 1961, but, as before, the proposals were ignored.

In March 1965, the Postmaster General of the time, Anthony Wedgewood-Benn, wrote to the Prime Minister proposing that studies be undertaken aimed at converting the Post Office into a nationalised industry. A working party was established to look into the advantages of such a change and to consider the problems which might arise. The findings were favourable enough for the Government to establish a 'Steering Group on the Organisation of the Post Office'. After some initial deliberations that the business should be divided into five divisions - Post, Telecommunications, Savings, Giro and National Data Processing Services - it was eventually decided that there should be one corporation split into two divisions: Post and Telecommunications. These events finally resulted in the introduction of the Post Office Act, 1969.

Under the Act, the Post Office ceased to be a government department and, on 1 October 1969, it became established as a public corporation. The Act gave the Post Office the exclusive privilege of running telecommunications systems with listed powers to authorise others to run such systems.

In 1977, the Carter Committee Report recommended a further separation of the two main services and for their relocation under two individual corporations. The findings contained in the report led to the renaming of Post Office Telecommunications as "British Telecom" in 1980, although it was still part of the Post Office. This was followed by the introduction of the British Telecommunications Act, 1981 and the creation of British Telecom as a distinct public corporation.

The British Telecommunications Act, 1981 transferred the responsibility for telecommunications services from the Post Office, thereby creating two separate corporations. At this time the first steps were taken to introduce competition into the UK telecommunications industry. In particular, the Act empowered the Secretary of State, as well as British Telecom, to license other operators to run telecommunications systems. Additionally, a framework was established which enabled the Secretary of State to set standards with the British Standards Institution (BSI) for apparatus supplied to the public by third parties, and had the effect of requiring British Telecom to connect approved apparatus to its systems.

The Secretary of State made use of these new powers and began the process of opening up to competition both the public switched telephone network and the apparatus supply market, where a phased programme of liberalisation was started in 1981. In 1982, a licence was granted to Cable & Wireless to run a public telecommunications network through its subsidiary, Mercury Communications.

On 19 July 1982, the Government formally announced its intention to privatise British Telecom with the sale of up to 51 per cent of the company's shares to private investors. This intention was confirmed by the passing of the Telecommunications Act, 1984, which received Royal Assent on 12 April of that year. The transfer to British Telecommunications plc of the business of British Telecommunications, the statutory corporation, took place on 6 August 1984 and, in November 1984, over 50 per cent of British Telecom shares were sold to the public.

The new legislation had to enable British Telecom to become more responsive to competition in the UK and to expand its operations globally. Commercial freedom granted to British Telecom allowed it to enter into new joint ventures and, if it so decided, to engage in the manufacture of its own apparatus.

The company's transfer into the private sector continued in December 1991 when the Government sold around half its remaining holding of 47.6 per cent of shares, reducing its stake to 21.8 per cent. Substantially all the government's remaining shares were sold in a third flotation in July 1993, raising 5 billion for the Treasury and introducing 750,000 new shareholders to the company.

The 1984 Act, in addition to providing for the company's privatisation, abolished its exclusive privilege of running telecommunications systems and established a framework to safeguard the workings of competition. This meant that British Telecommunications finally lost its monopoly in running telecommunications systems, which it had technically retained under the 1981 Act despite the Secretary of State's licensing powers, and now required a licence in the same way as any other telecommunications operator.

The principle licence granted to British Telecommunications laid down strict and extensive conditions affecting the range of its activities, including those of manufacture and supply of apparatus, and is still subject to close scrutiny and review by the Director General of Telecommunications who is also head of the Office of Telecommunications (OFTEL).

The next major development for British Telecommunications, and a move towards a more open market in telecommunications, occurred in 1991. On 5 March, the Government's White Paper Competition and Choice: Telecommunications Policy for the 1990s was issued. In effect, it ended the duopoly which had been shared by British Telecommunications and Mercury Communications in the UK since November 1983 and the build up to privatisation. The new, more open and fairer policy, enabled customers to acquire telecommunications services from competing providers using a variety of technologies. Independent 'retail' companies were permitted to bulk-buy telecommunications capacity and sell it in packages to business and domestic users.

The White Paper was endorsed by British Telecommunications, the new policy enabling the company to compete freely and more effectively by offering flexible pricing packages to meet the needs of different types of customer.

On 2 April 1991, the company unveiled a new organisational structure, the result of 12 months of reorganisation under the Project Sovereign initiative. The objective was to set up a commercial framework best suited to face the telecommunications challenges of the 1990s. The name Sovereign was selected as it reflected the company's commitment to meeting customers' needs - "The customer is King".

BT, the company's new trading name, now had an organisation which focused on specific market sectors to cater for the needs of different customers - the individual, the small business or the multinational corporation. A new corporate identity underlined the fundamental changes brought about by Project Sovereign. Together with a succession of strategic alliances with telecommunications companies worldwide, these changes gave BT the means to expand into overseas markets.

The next major development took place in June 1994 when BT and MCI Communication Corporation, the second largest carrier of long distance telecommunications services in the US, launched Concert Communications Services, a $1 billion joint venture company. This alliance gave BT and MCI a global network for providing end-to-end connectivity for advanced business services. Concert was the first company to provide a single source, broad portfolio of global communications services for multinational customers. As part of the alliance, BT acquired a 20 per cent holding in MCI. The joint venture was developed by BT and MCI into a leading supplier of global services to 3,000 multinational companies with more than $1.5 billion in revenue under contract by the end of 1996.

This strategic alliance progressed further with the announcement on 3 November 1996 that BT and MCI had entered into a merger agreement to create a global telecommunications company called Concert plc, to be incorporated in the UK with headquarters in both London and Washington DC. The merger proposals subsequently met with approval from the European Commission, the US Department of Justice and the US Federal Communications Commission.

Nevertheless, following US carrier WorldCom's rival bid for MCI on 1 October 1997, BT ultimately decided, in November, to sell its stake in MCI to WorldCom for $7 billion. WorldCom's offer, which was followed on 15 October by an unsuccessful counter bid from GTE, America's largest US based local telecommunications company, was made after BT and MCI had renegotiated the terms of the planned merger following a profits warning from MCI in July. The deal with WorldCom resulted in a profit of over $2 billion on BT's original investment in MCI, with an additional $465 million severance fee for the break up of the proposed merger.

In July 1998, BT announced the formation of a 50:50 global venture with AT&T to serve the needs of multinational companies and the international calling needs of individuals and businesses. The venture underwent a thorough regulatory approval process and, in November 1999, BT and AT&T formally launched the new company, called Concert, with financial closure in January 2000.

Following a downturn in the global telecommunications market, BT underwent a thorough review of its activities, and it was announced in October 2001 that BT and AT&T were to unwind Concert, returning its businesses, customer accounts and networks to the two parent companies.

In April 2000, BT announced plans to begin operating via six distinct businesses: BT Retail - serving UK fixed-line customers; BT Wholesale - running the UK network; BT Global Services - a data-centric broadband IP business focused on corporate and wholesale markets; BT Openworld - a mass market Internet access business focused increasingly on broadband services; BT Wireless - an international mobile business emphasising mobile data and next generation services; and Yell - an international directories and e-commerce business, which included the Yellow Pages brand.

In May 2001, as part of a restructuring and debt reduction programme, BT announced a 3 for 10 rights issue to raise £5.9 billion - the UK's largest ever rights issue - and the sale of Yell for £2.14 billion pounds. In November that year, BT Wireless - BT's mobile business, re-branded as mmO2 - was demerged from BT on a one for one share basis: 16 November 2001 was the last day of trading in BT shares, and, on 19 November, mmO2 plc and the new BT Group plc shares commenced trading separately.

The new BT is structured so that BT Group plc provides a holding company for the separately managed businesses which make up the group. These are BT Retail, BT Wholesale, BT Openworld and BT Global Services, each of which has the freedom to focus on its own markets and customers. By understanding their customers better, they can move quickly to seize opportunities and meet challenges. These businesses are supported by BT Exact, BT's research and development organisation.

This structure combines the strength of the BT Group as a whole with the speed and responsiveness of the individual business units, each of which has specialised knowledge of the markets in which it operates and the customers it serves. BT Group has re-focused its core activities on voice and data customers primarily based in the UK and elsewhere in Europe - a fiercely competitive market but one in which BT's businesses have a wealth of expertise on which to build.

The Honorable Elijah Muhammad teaches us that as it was the evil sin of slavery that caused the downfall and destruction of ancient Egypt and Babylon, and of ancient Greece, as well as ancient Rome, so it was the evil sin of colonialism (slavery, nineteenth-century European style) that caused the collapse of the white nations in present-day Europe as world powers. Unbiased scholars and unbiased observers agree that the wealth and power of white Europe has rapidly declined during the nineteen-year period between World War II and today.

So we of this present generation are also witnessing how the enslavement of millions of black people in this country is now bringing White America to her hour of judgment, to her downfall as a respected nation. And even those Americans who are blinded by childlike patriotism can see that it is only a matter of time before White America too will be utterly destroyed by her own sins, and all traces of her former glory will be removed from this planet forever.

The Honorable Elijah Muhammad teaches us that as it was divine will in the case of the destruction of the slave empires of the ancient and modern past, America's judgement and destruction will also be brought about by divine will and divine power. Just as ancient nations paid for their sins against humanity, White America must now pay for her sins against twenty-two million "Negroes." White America's worst crimes her hypocrisy and her deceit. White America pretends to ask herself: "What do these Negroes want?" White America knows that four hundred years of cruel bondage has made these twenty-two million ex-slaves too (mentally) blind to see what they really want.

White America should be asking herself: "What does God want for these twenty-two million ex-slaves?" Who will make White America know what God wants? Who will present God's plan to White America? What is God's solution to the problem caused by the presence of twenty-two million unwanted slaves here in America? And who will present God's solution?

We, the Muslims who follow The Honorable Elijah Muhammad, believe whole-heartedly in the God of justice. We believe in the Creator, whose divine power and laws of justice created and sustain the universe. We believe in the all-wise Supreme Being: the great God who is called "Jehovah" by the monotheistic Hebrews. We do not believe in the Trinity (or "plurality of gods") as advocated by the Polytheistic Christians. We who are Muslims call God by his true name: Allah, the great God of the Universe, the Lord of all the worlds, the Master of the Day of Judgement. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad teaches us that Allah is the true name of the divine Supreme Being, and that Islam is an Arabic word which means complete submission to God's will, or obedience to God's guidance.

Filibuster in the Japanese Parliament

The Japanese Filibuster

The Japanese have a long tradition of settling their political differences with a test of honor. Before the US carpet bombed the parliament in WWII, arguments were settled by the katana. Decisions were quick, decisive, and quite bloody.

The Japanese have revived this form of discourse in modern times. Facing certain defeat in the ballot box, in June 1954 Bu-kichi Miki did not come to parliament dressed in a badass kimono. Rather he wore an even more badass combat fatigues and army boots. He and his party, although outnumbered almost in 2:1 ratios, proceeded to kick the $%& out of the Liberal pansys that day.

Needly to say, the bill was interrupted for quite some time.

Fictional representations of filibuster

The 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington climaxes with a young senator named Jefferson Smith, played by Jimmy Stewart, astonished to discover the corruption of his mentor, staging a filibuster to prevent his expulsion from the chamber long enough to expose the corruption.

JEFFERSON*: *Well, the gentlemen are in a pretty tall hurry to get me outta here. And the way the evidence is piled up against me, I can't say that I blame them much. And I'm willing to go, sir...when they vote it that way. But, before that happens, I've got a few things I want to say to this body. I tried to say them once before and I got stopped colder than a mackerel. Well, I'd like to get them said this time, sir. And as a matter of fact, I'm not going to leave this body until I do get them said.

PAINE*: *Mr. President! Will the Senator yield?

PRESIDENT*: *Will Senator Smith yield to...

JEFFERSON*: *No, sir! I'm afraid not! No sir, I yielded the floor once before, if you can remember and was practically never heard of again. No, sir. And we might as well get on this yielding business right off the bat now. I had some pretty good coaching last night and I find that if I yield for only a question or a point of order or a personal privilege, I find that I can hold this floor almost until doomsday. In other words, I've got a piece to speak and blow hot or cold, I'm gonna speak it.

PAINE*: *Will the Senator yield?

PRESIDENT*: *Will Senator Smith yield to...

JEFFERSON*: *Yield how, sir?

PAINE*: *Yield for a question.

JEFFERSON*: *For a question, all right.

PAINE*: *I wish to ask my junior colleague this 'piece' he intends to speak, does it concern Section Forty of that bill or dam or Willet Creek?

JEFFERSON*: *It does!

PAINE*: *Every aspect of this matter, the gentleman's attack on that section, everything was dealt with in Committee hearing.

JEFFERSON*: *Mr. President?

PAINE*: *I wish to ask my distinguished colleague, has he one scrap of evidence to add now, to the defense he did not give and could not give at that same hearing?

JEFFERSON*: *I have no defense against forged papers.

PAINE*: *Committee ruled otherwise. The gentleman stands guilty, as charged. And I believe I speak for every member when I say that no one cares to hear what a man with his condemned character has to say about any section of any legislation before this house.

SENATORS*: *Yeah! Right you are.

PRESIDENT*: *Order, gentlemen.

JEFFERSON*: *Mr. President. I stand guilty as framed! Because Section Forty is graft. And I was ready to say so. I was ready to tell you, that a certain man in my state...a Mr. James Taylor wanted to put through this dam for his own profit. A man who controls a political machine and controls everything else worth controlling in my state. Yes, and a man even powerful enough to control congressmen and I saw three of 'em in his room, the day I went up to see him.

(01:35:08) **

PAINE*: *Will the Senator yield?

JEFFERSON*: *No sir, I will not yield. And this same man, Mr. James Taylor came down here and offered me a seat in this Senate for the next twenty years if I voted for a dam that he knew, and I knew was a fraud. But if I dared to open my mouth against that dam, he promised to break me in two. All right, I got up here and started to open my mouth and the long and powerful arm of Mr. James Taylor reached into this sacred chamber and grabbed me by the scruff of the neck...

PAINE*: *Mr. President? A point of order.

JEFFERSON*: *Mr. President.

PRESIDENT*: *Senator Paine will state it.

PAINE*: *It was I who rose in this chamber to accuse him. He's saying that I was cutting out criminal orders on falsified evidence.

JEFFERSON*: *No, Mr. President.

PAINE*: *He has imputed to make conduct unworthy a Senator. And I demand that he be made to yield the floor.

JEFFERSON*: *Mr. President I did not say that Senator Paine was one of the congressmen in that room.

PAINE*: *I was in that room!

PRESIDENT*: *Order gentlemen.

PAINE*: *I accuse this man, by his tone, by his careful denials, he is deliberately trying to plant damaging impressions of my conduct. I'll tell you why we were in that room. Because Mr. Taylor, a respected citizen of our state, had brought with him the evidence against this man, and we were urging him to resign. Why? To avoid bringing disgrace upon a clean and honorable state. But he refused.

JEFFERSON*: *Mr. President, have I the floor?

PAINE*: *We knew there was only one answer to a man like him. The truth. Which I rose and gave to this body. Mr. President, he is trying to blackmail this Senate as he tried to blackmail me. To prevent his expulsion he'll probably even try to hold up this deficiency bill, vital to the whole country which must be passed immediately, today.

JEFFERSON*: *Have I the floor?

PAINE*: *Gentlemen, I have lost all patience with this brazen character. I apologize to this body for his appointment. I forget I ever knew him. I am sick and tired of this contemptual young man and I refuse to stay here and listen to him any longer. I hope every member of this body feels as I do.

SENATORS*: *Yield the floor.

PRESIDENT*: *Gentlemen. Gentlemen. Please address the chair.

AGNEW*: *Mr. President, what does the gentleman want with this body?

JEFFERSON*: *I'll tell you what I want, sir. I want a chance to talk to people who will believe me. The people of my state. They know me and they know Mr. Taylor. And when they hear my story they'll rise up and they'll kick Mr. Taylor's machine to kingdom come. Now I want one week to go back there and bring you proof that I am right. And in the mean time, I want the Senate's promise that I will not be expelled and that the Deficiency Bill will not be passed.

AGNEW*: *Will the Senator yield?

JEFFERSON*: *For a question.

AGNEW*: *Has the gentleman the affrontery to stand there convicted and in disgrace and try to force postponement of the Deficiency Bill?

JEFFERSON*: *For one week.

SENATOR 1*: *Mr. President, I appeal to the Senator. Is he fully aware that this bill has been months in both houses, delayed and delayed. Why, millions will be without food and shelter, public works will be at a standstill.

SENATOR 2*: *Are we gonna keep relief from the country?

JEFFERSON*: *The people of my state need permanent relief from crooked men riding their backs.

SENATOR 3*: *Mr. President, if the Senate yields to this sort of blackmail at this time, from this man, it'll become a laughing stock.

AGNEW*: *It is an insult to this body to have to listen. An insult to out colleague, Senator Paine. I for one, will follow the Senator's example, and refuse to remain in this chamber as long as that man holds the floor.

PRESIDENT*: *Order gentlemen.

JEFFERSON*: *Alright sir, I guess I'll just have to speak to the people of my state from right here. And I'll tell your one thing, that wild horses aren't gonna drag me off this floor until those people have heard everything I have got to say, even if it takes all winter.

PRESS*: *Filibuster.

JEFFERSON*: *Well, Mr. President, we seem to be alone. I-I'm not complaining for social reasons, it's just I-I think it'd be a pity if these gentlemen missed any of this and...and uh...I-I call the chairs attention to...rule five of the Standing Rules of the Senate, Section Three. If it shall be found that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present, and that looks like me, uh-uh, may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request and if necessary compel the attendance of the absence Senators. Well, Mr. President, I so direct.

PRESIDENT*: *The absence of a quorum being suggested, ring the call to quorum.

(01:40:00) **

CAUSHIN*: *Call to quorum.

PAGEBOYS*: *Quorum call. Calling quorum.

JEFFERSON*: *It's no hurry Mr. President. I've got plenty of time.

PAGEBOYS*: *Quorum call. All Senators wanted on the floor.

PRESIDENT*: *Clerk will call the roll.

CLERK*: *Mr. Agnew.

AGNEW*: *Here.

CLERK*: *Mr. Albert.

ALBERT*: *Here.

CLERK*: *Mr. Alford.

ALFORD*: *Here.

CLERK*: *Mr. Ashpin.

ASHPIN*: *Here.

DIZ*: *Hello, Joe. Yeah, get this. Smith got the floor and is holding it. Yeah, just as they were about to kick him out.

SAUNDERS*: *He did it, Diz! He did it! It's wonderful.

DIZ*: *Isn't it terrific! A filibuster. This is the miracle I wanted. What a...

SAUNDERS*: *Darrel, just get everything he's saying back to that home state, will ya'.

DARREL*: *Honey, it's my pleasure.

DIZ*: *Sweetheart, they're going to hear this in Patagonia. In protest, the whole Senate body rose and walked out.

SAUNDERS*: *No, not that straight stuff. Now listen. Kick it up. Get on his side. Fight for him. Understand?

DIZ*: *You love this monkey, don't ya'?

SAUNDERS*: *What do you think? Now listen, go to work and do as I tell you.

DIZ*: *Okay. Throw out that last, take this. This is the most Titanic battle of modern times. A David without even a slingshot rises to do battle against the mighty Goliath, the Taylor machine, allegedly crooked inside and out. Yeah, and for my money you can cut out the allegedly.

TAYLOR ASSISTANT*: *We're bringing everybody up from state headquarters.

TAYLOR*: *Alright, where are they? Come on get these telefaxes moving. Did you get Hendricks?

TAYLOR ASSISTANT 2*: *They're looking for him.

TAYLOR*: *They're looking for him, an editor. Why isn't he at his desk, where he belongs? Joe, don't you think you'd better go back into that Senate?

PAINE*: *Jim, the boy's talking to that straight. If he can raise public opinion against us, if any part of this sticks...

TAYLOR*: *Nah, he'll never get started. I'll make public opinion out there within five hours. I've done it all of my life. I'll blacken this punk so, that he'll...You leave public opinion to me. Now Joe, I think you better go back into the Senate and keep those Senators lined up.

PAINE*: *I hit him from the floor with everything I knew. Besides I haven't got the stomach for it anymore.

TAYLOR*: *If he even starts to convince those Senators you might as well blow your brains out, you know that, don't ya'? This is the works, Joe. Either we're out of business or we're bigger than we ever were before. We can't miss a trick. We can't stop at anything until we've smashed this yokel and buried him alive...

TAYLOR ASSISTANT*: *...Jackson City, Hendricks on the phone.

TAYOR*: *Go ahead back to the Senate, will you Joe. Hello, Hendricks. Well, the chips are down. I want you to keep everything that Smith says or any other pro-Smith stuff coming from Washington out of all of our newspapers, do you understand? And out of all the others you can line up in the state. Yeah. And those broken-down opposition papers, that cockeyed crusading bunch that don't want to play ball with us, I want you to tie up for twenty-four hours. Uh, stall their deliveries, push 'em off the streets, I don't care what you do, just bury 'em for twenty- four hours. That'll give me plenty of time. And you? Well you defend the machine, hit this guy. Oh, the usual thing. Criminal and blocking a relief bill and starving the people. Joe, will you get back into that Senate. Hendricks, get the hoipaloi excited, have 'em send protests, letters, wires, anything you like. And buy up every minute you can get get of every two-bit radio station you can get in the state and keep them spouting against Smith. I don't care what it costs, pay out! Come on, get moving! Get the whole state moving!

HEADLINES READ*: *Smith Disgraces State...in vicious attack on beloved Senator Paine Smith stops relief, Blocks Deficiency Bill. Jailbird Defies Nation, The Poor Starve...

RADIO ANNOUNCER 1*: *This filibuster is a cowardly attempt to turn you attention from the true facts which have been established beyond question.

RADIO ANNOUNCER 2*: *Jefferson Smith was caught red-handed, stealing from boys.

RADIO ANNOUNCER 3*: *Relief will be stopped. Men will be thrown out of jobs.

SENATOR 1*: *I've seen filibustering but...

AGNEW*: *Ah, Smith can't go on, it's ridiculous.

SENATOR 2*: *Henry, we've got to get this man off the floor.

PRESIDENT*: *Boys, as long as Mr. Smith holds that floor legitimately he's gonna continue to hold it. If you ask me, that young fella is making a whole lotta sense.

PAINE*: *Sense? You call blackmail "sense", Henry?

MARTIN*: *Now look, Joe, I didn't like this boy from the beginning. But most of us feel that no man who wasn't sincere could stage a fight like this, against these impossible odds.

PAINE*: *Well, I'm very glad to know that Martin. After twenty years work with you fellas I am very glad to know that your ready to take his word against mine. That's fine.

MARTIN*: *Oh, ridiculous.

PAINE*: *Oh yes, that's what it means. If he is just that much right then I am wrong.

SENATOR 3*: *Joe, listen. Can't we work out some deal to pull that Willet Dam out and let the Deficiency Bill go through?

PAINE*: *It isn't a question of Willet Dam. It's a question of my honor an reputation. And the integrity of the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The integrity of the Senate itself. If you want to throw out Section 40, go ahead. I'll resign, we'll have the whole thing over with.

SENATORS*: *Wait a minute.

SENATOR 4*: *Wait, wait, wait a minute. This is a lot of nonsense. Joe is right. A deal is impossible. We've go to go on as we've been doing and break him. Keep him talking, no relief, maintain a quorum in relays. Is that how you feel, John?

JOHN*: *For once I agree with you. Gentlemen, it's time to relieve the men on the floor.

SENATOR*: *How a man as green as that knows as much as he does...

SENATOR*: *It can't go on much longer.

JEFFERSON*: *...and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of...it looks like the night shift is coming on.

PRESIDENT*: *The Senate will please suspend until order is restored in the chamber.

(01:45:06) **

H.B.COLTONBOR*: *This is H.B. Coltonbor speaking. Half of official Washington is here to see democracy's finest Joe, a filibuster. The right to talk your head off. The American privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form. The least man in that chamber, once he gets and holds that floor by the rules, can hold it, and talk as long as he can stand on his feet. Providing always, first that he does not sit down, second that he does not leave the chamber or stop talking. The galleries are packed. In the diplomatic gallery are the envoys of two dictator powers, they have come here to see what they can't see at home- Democracy in action.

JEFFERSON*: *...Ah, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. And to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the government, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. How am I doing?

TAYLOR*: *Now quit stalling and move.

TAYLOR ASSISTANT 1*: *Phone, Jim.

TAYLOR*: *Hello.

TAYLOR ASSISTANT 2*: *Mr. Taylor.

TAYLOR*: *Wait a minute. Well, talk to Paine about it.

TAYLOR ASSISTANT 2*: *Yes, sir.

TAYLOR*: *Hello, Clark. This is Jim Taylor in Washington. Now, about this Smith filibuster. Your chain of newspapers in the Southwest must realize that this bill he is trying to block will affect your section as well as any. It's the patriotic duty of every newspaper in the country. Hello, wait a minute. Yes?

SECRETARY*: *Jackson city calling.

TAYLOR*: *Hold 'em. We've got to keep Henry at this man until we smash him.

JEFFERSON*: *I always get a great kick out of that part of the Declaration of Independence. Now, your not gonna a country that can make these kinds of rules work, if you haven't got men that have learned to tell human rights from a punch in the nose.

DIZ*: *That's good for a headline.

JEFFERSON*: *It's the funny thing about men, ya' know. They all start life being boys. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some of these Senators were boys once. That's why it seemed like a pretty good idea to me to get the boys out of crowded cities, and stuffy basements for a couple of months out of the year. And build their bodies and minds for man size jobs because those boys are gonna be behind these desks some of these days. It seemed like a pretty good idea. Getting boys from all over the country, boys of all nationalities and ways of living. Getting them together. Let them find out what makes different people tick the way they do. Because I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if behind them they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary everyday kindness and a little looking out for the other fellow, too. That's pretty important, all that. It's just the blood and bone and sinew of this democracy that some great men handed down to the human race, that's all. But of course, if you've got to build a dam where that boys camp ought to be, to get some graft to pay off some political army or something, well that's a different thing. Oh no, if you think I'm going back there and tell those boys in my state, and say, "Look, now fellas forget about it, forget all this stuff I've been telling you about this land you live in, is a lot of hooey. this isn't your country, it belongs to a lot of James Taylors". Oh, no. Not me. And anybody here that thinks I'm gonna do that they got another thing coming. That's alright, I just wanted to find out whether you still had faces. I'm sorry gentlemen, I know I'm being disrespectful to this honorable body, I know that, I...a guy like me should never be allowed to get in here in the first place, I know that. And I hate to stand here and try your patience like this but... either I'm dead right or I'm crazy.

SENATOR 1*: *You wouldn't car to put that to a vote, would you Senator?

SENATOR 2*: *Would the Senator yield for a question?

JEFFERSON*: *I yield.

SENATOR 2*: *In view of the gentleman's touching concern for the Senators, and in view of the fact that he has been talking for seven and one half hours and must be very, very tired, would he permit a motion to recess until the morning? At which time, he may be better able to continue with his profound babblings.

SAUNDERS*: *No, no, don't. Don't. Ask him. Ask, ask him.

JEFFERSON*: *Uh, Mr. President, what happens to me in the morning? I mean about my having this floor, to go on with my babblings?

PRESIDENT*: *If the Senator permits this motion for recess, he won't have the floor in the morning to babble with or anything else. Unless he is recognized first.

JEFFERSON*: *Uh, huh. As I was saying gentlemen, I'm either dead right or I'm crazy. And I feel fine. What do ya' got, Dick?

DICK*: *Miss Saunders.

JEFFERSON*: *Oh.

(01:50:00) **

BOOK INSCRIPTION Jeff- You're wonderful. Press boys all with you - Read them Constitution next very slow. Diz says I'm in love with you. He's right.

SENATOR*: *Is the Senator yielding the floor?

JEFFERSON*: *Yield the... Oh no, oh no. Hey, I feel fine. The Constitution of the United States. Page one, top left hand corner. We the People of the United States in order to form a more perfect union...

TAYLOR*: *Yeah, well buy it or wreck it.

DIZ*: *...column two! Holy smokes.

SAUNDERS*: *What's the matter Diz?

DIZ*: *You're kidding. This is murder. You gotta call him off. He's getting nowhere.

SAUNDERS*: *What are you talking about?

DIZ*: *Not one word of what he's saying is being printed in that state.

SAUNDERS*: *Oh, no Diz.

DIZ*: *Taylor has practically every paper in the state lined up and he's feeding them doctored up junk.

SAUNDERS*: *One man muzzling a whole state?

DIZ*: *And how?

SAUNDERS*: *Freedom of the press. Wait a minute. I've got an idea. Come on. Jeff has a paper there, Boys Stuff, right?

DIZ*: *Terrific.

SAUNDERS*: *Well, look. They aren't letting what Jeff says get printed in the state. Now if I give you a raft of it over the phone right now,(To Diz)Write me a front page raft, will ya' Diz, can you print it up and spread a billion copies of it? Swell. Get ready to take it down, will ya' Mrs. Smith? Alright.

MRS.SMITH*: *Boys, everything about Jeff, get pencils and paper quick.

SAUNDERS*: *Alright, here we go.

MRS.SMITH*: *All ready, Clarissa.

SAUNDERS*: *She called me Clarissa. Okay, Ma. Jeff Tells Truth. Shows Up Taylor.

TAYLOR*: *I want the whole morning edition. A blast to push him off the floor. ...campaign for protest. Yeah, wire it.

SAUNDERS*: *Willet Dam is a fraud to line the pockets of the Taylor machines.

TAYLOR*: *Here's your front page editorial, wait a minute. A convicted thief representing you, holds the floor of the United States Senate.

MRS. SMITH*: *Alright boys, hurry up.

BOYS*: *Come on!

BOY 1*: *Come on, bring on the bacon.

JEFFERSON*: *...charity, wanteth not itself, is not puffed up. And now, abide us faith, hope charity. Of these three, the greatest of these is ""charity".

BOY 2*: *Read about Jeff.

BOY 3*: *...Jell, maam.

TAYLOR WORKER*: *Boyscout circulation. Peddled by nine million kids.

MCGANN*: *What are you standing there for? Get the boys out. Kill it.

TAYLOR WORKER*: *Yes, sir.

BOY 4*: *Jeff'll never stop fellas.

TAYLOR WORKER*: *Come on boys, get these papers out of here.

NEWSPAPER PEDDLER*: *Read all about it. Jeff Smith lies in Senate.

TAYLOR PUBLICITY ANNOUNCER*: *Wire Congress. Wire Congress. Wire Congress. Wire Congress. Wire Congress. Wire Congress.

KENNETH ALLEN*: *Are we gonna let a man like that murder Joe Paine?

CONSTITUENTS*: *No!

KENNETH ALLEN*: *Are you for Joe Paine?

CONSTITUENTS*: *Yes!

BOY 5*: *Hurray for Jeff Smith!

(01:55:10) **

MRS. SMITH*: *Children hurt all over the city. Tell Jeff to stop!

SAUNDERS*: *Yes. Yes, alright. Yes, goodbye.

H.B. COLTONBOR*: *Senator Smith has now talked for twenty three hours and sixteen minutes. It is the most unusual and spectacular thing in the Senate anals. One lone and simple American holding the greatest floor in the land. What he lacked in experience, he's made up in fight. But those tired, Boy Ranger legs are buckling, bleary eyed, voice gone, he can't go on much longer. And all official Washington is here to be in on the kill.

JEFFERSON*: *There's no compromise with truth. That's all I got up from this floor to say. When was it? A year ago it seems like.

SAUNDERS*: *Diz, I'm afraid terrible things are happening, I've got to stop it.

DIZ*: *They are listening to him. Anything might happen now.

JEFFERSON*: *Just get up off the ground. That's all I ask. Get up there with that lady that's up on top of this capital dome. That lady that stands for Liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something. And you won't just see scenery. You'll see the whole parade of what man's carved out for himself after centuries of fighting. And fighting for something better than just jungle law. Fighting so he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent. Like it was created. No matter what his race, color or creed. That's what you'd see. There's no place out there for graft, or greed or lies. Or compromise with human liberties. If that's what the grownups have done with this world that was given to them, then we'd better get those boys camps started fast and see what the kids can do. And it's not too late. Because this country is bigger than the Taylors, or you or me or anything else. Great principles don't get lost once they come to light. They are right here. You just have to see them again.

PAINE*: *Mr. President. Will the Senator yield for a question?

PRESIDENT*: *Will Senator Smith yield to his colleague?

JEFFERSON*: *I yield for a question.

PAINE*: *The Senator has said repeatedly that he is speaking to the people of his state. He has been waiting, as he so fancifully puts it, for them to come marching here in droves. Would the gentleman be interested in knowing what those people have to say?

SAUNDERS*: *Here it comes, Diz.

JEFFERSON*: *Yes, sir. You bet I would.

PAINE*: *Mr. President. Have I permission to bring into this chamber evidence of the response from my state?

MR. PRESIDENT*: *Is there objection? You may proceed, Senator.

PAINE*: *Pageboys.

SENATOR*: *Come on boys. On your feet. All of you.

SAUNDERS*: *I can't stand it, Diz. I can't stand to see him hurt like this.

JOURNALIST*: *Public opinion-made to order.

DIZ*: *Yeah, Taylor-made.

PAINE*: *There it is. There's the gentleman's answer. Telegrams. Fifty thousand of them. Demanding that he yield this floor. I invite the Senate to read them. I invite my colleague to read them. The people's answer to Mr. Jefferson Smith.

SAUNDERS*: *Stop Jeff! Stop!

(02:00:12) **

JEFFERSON*: *I guess this is just another lost cause, Mr. Paine. All you people don't know about lost causes. Mr. Paine does. He said once they were the only causes worth fighting for. And he fought for them once. For the only reason any man ever fights for them. Because of just one plain, simple rule. Love thy neighbor. And in this world today, full of hatred, a man who knows that one rule has a great trust. You know that rule Mr. Paine. And I loved you for it just as my father did. And you know that you fight for the lost causes harder than any for any others. Yes, you even die for them. Like a man we both knew, Mr. Paine. You think I'm licked. You all think I'm licked. Well I'm not licked and I'm gonna stay right here and fight for this lost cause. Even if this room gets filled with lies like these. And the Taylor's and all their armies come marching into this place. Somebody'll listen to me. Some...

• * *

On the TV show The West Wing, on episode #39 "The Stackhouse Filibuster" (Second Season, aired March 14, 2001), the Senator Howard Stackhouse filibusters a health care bill for over eight hours on a Friday afternoon and evening. The resolution of the filibuster, when the West Wing staff uncover the reason behind it, constitutes the climax of the episode. [3].

On the TV Show Mister Sterling episode #9 "Final Passage" Senator Bill Sterling (Josh Brolin) stages a filibuster to block an education bill from passing without an amendment for prisoners education.

On the TV Show Due South (Due South) Episode #130 "One Good Man" (Series 2, first aired February 8, 1996, in Canada), Canadian Mountie Benton Fraiser stages a filibuster to block the eviction by a slum lord of himself and his fellow tenants. This is an homage to the above mentioned Frank Capra film. After viewing this film on numerous occasions, as it was apparently the local Reverend's favourite film, Fraser fights for his belief that one good man can make a difference.

See also

• Insanity
• Redundant
• Redundancy

References

• Filibuster: Not Like It Used to Be, Newsweek, Nov. 24, 2003.
• The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy. 1997, Daniel Lazare.
• Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment Senate Website
• "MP's marathon speech sinks bill" at BBC News, 2 December 2005
• Japan: From the Cow-Walk to the Brawl Time, Friday, Jul. 05, 1963

External links

• Time Magazine: The Filibuster Formula
• Famous filibusters
• BBC News article on UK Filibustering