A repeal is the removal or reversal of a law. There are two basic types of repeal, a repeal with a re-enactment (or replacement) of the repealed law, or a repeal without any replacement.

Removal of secondary legislation is normally referred to as revocation rather than repeal in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Under the common law of England and Wales, the effect of repealing a statute was "to obliterate it completely from the records of Parliament as though it had never been passed."[1] This, however, is now subject to savings provisions within the Interpretation Act 1978.

In parliamentary procedure, the motion to rescind, repeal, or annul is used to cancel or countermand an action or order previously adopted by the assembly.

Partial or full repeals

A partial repeal occurs when a specified part or provision of a previous Act is repealed but other provisions remain in force. For example, the Acts of Union 1800, providing for the union between the formerly separate kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland as the United Kingdom, was partially repealed in 1922, when (as a consequence of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty), twenty-six of the thirty-two counties of Ireland were constituted as the Irish Free State, and ceased to form part of the United Kingdom.

A full repeal occurs where the entire Act in question is repealed.

Repeal with or without re-enactment

A typical situation where an Act is repealed and re-enacted is where the law in the area is being updated but the law being repealed needs to be replaced with one suitable for the modern era. Re-enactment can be with or without amendment, although repeal and re-enactment without amendment normally occurs only in the context of a consolidation bill (a bill to consolidate the law in a particular area).

For example, the repeal of the Poor Laws in England in 1948 reflected their replacement by modern social welfare legislation.

A repeal without replacement is generally done when a law is no longer effective, or it is shown that a law is having far more negative consequences than were originally envisioned.

If a campaign for the repeal of a particular law gains particular momentum, an advocate of the repeal might become known as a "repealer". The Repeal Association in 19th-century Ireland advocated Irish independence through repeal of the Acts of Union 1800.

Many repeals without replacement are the result of significant changes in society. Major examples include:

Express or implied repeal

The repeal of a statute may be either express or implied.[2]

Express repeal occurs where express words are used in a statute to repeal an earlier statute. They are now usually included in a table in a schedule to the statute, for reasons of convenience.

In the United States, when a bill is passed by the House and Senate and signed by the president, or Congress overrides a presidential veto, the various provisions contained within the newly enacted law are rearranged according to their policy content and cataloged in the United States Code—a compilation of the general and permanent federal laws of the United States. To repeal any element of an enacted law, Congress must pass a new law containing repeal language and the codified statute's location in the U.S. Code (including the title, chapter, part, section, paragraph and clause). In this way, Congress (and the president) must follow the same rules and procedures for passing any law. When statutes are repealed, their text is simply deleted from the Code and replaced by a note summarizing what used to be there. Once deleted, the repealed statute no longer has the force of law. All repeals of parts of the US Code are, therefore, express repeals.

Implied repeal occurs where two statutes are mutually inconsistent. The effect is that the later statute repeals the earlier statute pro tanto (in so far as it is inconsistent).[2] As past and future parliaments are equally sovereign, later parliaments can carry out implied repeal of earlier statute by passing an inconsistent statute, but inconsistency needs to be established before implied repeal can occur.[3]

Repeals with or without savings

Repeals can be with or without savings.

A repeal without savings eliminates the repealed statute completely.

A repeal with savings preserves the effect of the repealed statute for limited purposes, such as acts already done or in hand, or regulations made under the repealed Act are continued in force. In England and Wales, sections 15 to 17, and section 19(2), of the Interpretation Act 1978 set out general savings and similar provisions exist in the law of Ireland and other common law countries.

Parliamentary procedure

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR)

Rescind, repeal, or annul or Amend something previously adopted (RONR)
ClassMotion that brings a question again before the assembly
In order when another has the floor?No
Requires second?Yes
May be reconsidered?Negative vote only
Vote requiredMajority with notice; or two-thirds; or majority of entire membership

In meetings of a deliberative assembly, the motions to rescind (or "repeal" or "annul") and amend something previously adopted are used to change action that was taken. They are two forms of the same incidental main motion and they follow the same rules.[4] A motion to postpone an event or action previously scheduled is a particular case of the motion to amend something previously adopted.[5]

Under Robert's Rules of Order, the rules for this motion protect against instability arising from small variations in attendance from one meeting to the next. For this reason, the requirements for changing a previous action are greater than those for taking the action in the first place.[6] A motion to rescind, repeal, annul or amend something already adopted requires a two-thirds vote, a majority vote with previous notice, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, any one of which would suffice.[7] Demeter's Manual imposes a similar requirement.[8]

When this motion is used in a committee, RONR requires a two-thirds vote unless all committee members who voted for the motion to be rescinded or amended are present or have received ample notice; in which case a majority vote is required.[7]

The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (TSC)

Under The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, a repeal or amendment of something already adopted requires only the same vote (usually a majority) and notice that was needed to adopt it in the first place.[9] This book states, "As a general rule, fewer than a majority should not be authorized to decide anything, and more than a majority should not be required for most decisions"; the book further states that the problem with situations in which a supermajority is required is that "the minority, not the majority, controls."[10]

Legislative use

In legislative bodies, the motion to rescind is used for much the same purpose as the motion to reconsider; many court decisions treat the two motions as one motion. However, in legislative contexts, it is not the same as a motion to repeal. The difference between rescind and reconsider is that the motion to rescind is ordinarily applied to actions that have been taken and are already in effect. It has been described as being in the nature of a motion to amend by striking out the entire proposal and leaving nothing remaining. It is not in order when the question can be reached by a motion to reconsider. Once legislation has been actually enacted, it is too late to rescind. The vote required to rescind is the same as would be required to repeal the act which it sought to rescind (usually a majority).[11]

Rescind and expunge from the minutes

The motion to rescind and expunge from the minutes is used to express the strongest disapproval about action previously taken by a deliberative assembly. Using Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, this motion requires a vote of a majority of the entire membership.[12] Using The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, the motion to expunge requires a majority vote (of those voting). The secretary does not erase the expunged motion, but draws a line around it, marks it "expunged by order of this assembly," gives the date of the expunging, and signs the notation.[12] The expunged motion is not included in any minutes published thereafter.[9]

See also


  1. ^ Kay v. Goodwin (1830) 6 Bing. 576, per Tindal C.J.
  2. ^ a b Vauxhall Estates, Ltd. v. Liverpool Corporation [1932] 1 KB 733
  3. ^ Ellen Street Estates v. Minister of Health [1934] 1 KB 590
  4. ^ Robert, Henry M.; et al. (2011). Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press. p. 305. ISBN 978-0-306-82020-5.
  5. ^ Robert 2011, p. 180
  6. ^ Robert 2011, p. li
  7. ^ a b Robert 2011, pp. 306–307
  8. ^ Demeter, George (1969). Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure, Blue Book, p. 165
  9. ^ a b Sturgis, Alice (2001). The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, 4th ed., p. 43 (TSC)
  10. ^ TSC, p. 130
  11. ^ National Conference of State Legislatures (2000). Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, 2000 ed., p. 321–323
  12. ^ a b Robert 2011, p. 310
2008 California Proposition 8

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 California state elections. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage (Proposition 22, 2000) unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

Proposition 8 countermanded the 2008 ruling by adding the same provision as in Proposition 22 to the California Constitution, providing that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", thereby superseding the 2008 ruling. As an amendment, it was ruled constitutional by the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton, in 2009, on the grounds that it "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause"; in his dissent, Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote that exceptions to the equal protection clause could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority.

Legal challenges to Proposition 8 were presented by opponents quickly after its approval. Following affirmation by the state courts, two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the initiative in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger (later Hollingsworth v. Perry). In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis. The official proponents' justifications for the measure were analyzed in over fifty pages covering eighty findings of fact. The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law. The ruling was stayed pending appeal by the proponents of the initiative. On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2–1 decision, reached the same conclusion as the district court, but on narrower grounds. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for California to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, only to take them away shortly after. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court.On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on the appeal in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruling that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court, either to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The decision left the district court's 2010 ruling intact. On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit, on remand, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dissolved their previous stay of the district court's ruling, enabling Governor Jerry Brown to order same-sex marriages to resume.The passage of Proposition 8 received widespread media coverage over the amendment's effect on the concurrent 2008 presidential and congressional elections, as well as the pre-election effects Proposition 8 had on California's reputation as a historically LGBT-friendly state and the same-sex marriage debate that had started after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts through a 2004 court decision. After the results were certified and same-sex marriages ceased, supporters of the initiative were targeted by opponents with actions ranging from some opponents publicly shaming supporters by disclosing their names and addresses online, causing many individual supporters to lose their jobs, and boycotting proponents' businesses and employers to others threatening supporters with murder and vandalizing their homes and property. The actions against supporters of Proposition 8 became the focus after the election due to a full page opinion ad paid for by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appearing in The New York Times. The piece accused the LGBT community of backlash, "mob veto," and urged violence against the supporters to cease. The opinion ad was signed by 13 men who represented various Christian and Jewish groups.

2018 California Proposition 6

California Proposition 6 was a measure that was submitted to California voters as part of the November 2018 election. The ballot measure proposed a repeal of the Road Repair and Accountability Act (a fuel tax), which is also known as Senate Bill 1 (SB 1). The measure failed with about 57% of the voters against and 43% in favor.

American Health Care Act of 2017

The American Health Care Act of 2017 often shortened to the AHCA, or nicknamed Trumpcare, was a bill in the 115th United States Congress. The bill, which was passed by the United States House of Representatives but not by the United States Senate, would have partially repealed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Republican Party leaders had campaigned on the repeal of the ACA since its passage in 2010, and the 2016 elections gave Republicans unified control of Congress and the presidency for the first time since the ACA came into effect. Upon the start of the 115th Congress, Congressional Republicans sought to pass a partial repeal of the ACA using the reconciliation process, which allows legislation to bypass the Senate filibuster and pass with a simple majority in the Senate. With the support of President Donald Trump, House Republicans introduced the AHCA in early 2017, and the bill passed the House in a close vote on May 4, 2017. All House Democrats, along with several members of the centrist Tuesday Group and some other House Republicans, voted against the AHCA. The bill would have repealed the individual mandate and the employer mandate, dramatically cut Medicaid spending and eligibility, eliminated tax credits for healthcare costs, abolished some taxes on high earners, and altered rules concerning pre-existing conditions and essential health benefits.

Senate Republicans initially sought to pass the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 (BCRA), a healthcare bill containing provisions largely similar to those of the AHCA. The BCRA was never voted on in its original form due to opposition from several Republican senators. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell instead sought to pass the Health Care Freedom Act (HCFA), which was colloquially referred to as a "skinny repeal" since it would only repeal the individual mandate and the employer mandate. On July 27, the Senate rejected the HCFA in a 51-to-49 vote, with Republican senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and John McCain joining with all Senate Democrats in voting against it. In September 2017, some Republican senators pushed a renewed effort to repeal the ACA, but their bill never received a vote in the Senate. The 115th Congress ultimately did not pass an ACA repeal bill, though it did pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which repealed the individual mandate.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that the AHCA would have increased the number of uninsured people by 23 million over 10 years, but would have decreased the federal budget deficit by $119 billion over the same period. Polling consistently showed that the AHCA was deeply unpopular with the American populace during and after its evaluations in Congress. Business Insider stated that the AHCA was "the least popular major bill in decades", and major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, strongly condemned the bill and excoriated its supporters in Congress. AHCA's unpopularity may have contributed to Republican losses in the 2018 elections.

Corn Laws

The Corn Laws were tariffs and other trade restrictions on imported food and grain ("corn") enforced in Great Britain between 1815 and 1846. The word "corn" in the English spoken in nineteenth century Britain denotes all cereal grains, such as wheat and barley. They were designed to keep grain prices high to favour domestic producers, and represented British mercantilism. The Corn Laws imposed steep import duties, making it too expensive to import grain from abroad, even when food supplies were short.

The Corn Laws enhanced the profits and political power associated with land ownership. The laws raised food prices and the costs of living for the British public, and hampered the growth of other British economic sectors, such as manufacturing, by reducing the disposable income of the British public.The laws became the focus of opposition from urban groups who had far less political power than rural Britain. The first two years of the Irish famine of 1845–1852 forced a resolution because of the urgent need for new food supplies. Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel, a Conservative, achieved repeal with the support of the Whigs in Parliament, overcoming the opposition of most of his own party.

Economic historians see the repeal of the Corn Laws as a decisive shift toward free trade in Britain.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (H.R. 2965, S. 4023) is a landmark United States federal statute enacted in December 2010 that established a process for ending the Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) policy (10 U.S.C. § 654), thus allowing gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to serve openly in the United States Armed Forces. It ended the policy in place since 1993 that allowed them to serve only if they kept their sexual orientation secret and the military did not learn of their sexual orientation.

The Act established a process for ending the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Act:

Provided for repeal of the current Department of Defense (DOD) policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, to be effective 60 days after the Secretary of Defense has received DOD's comprehensive review on the implementation of such repeal, and the President, Secretary, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) certify to the congressional defense committees that they have considered the report and proposed plan of action, that DOD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by such repeal, and that implementation of such policies and regulations is consistent with the standards of military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and military recruiting and retention.

The Act did not ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the military, as provided for in the proposed Military Readiness Enhancement Act.

President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen provided the certification required by the Act to Congress on July 22, 2011. Implementation of repeal was completed 60 days later, so that DADT was no longer policy as of September 20, 2011.

Don't ask, don't tell

"Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was the official United States policy on military service by gays, bisexuals, and lesbians, instituted by the Clinton Administration on February 28, 1994, when Department of Defense Directive 1304.26 issued on December 21, 1993, took effect, lasting until September 20, 2011. The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. This relaxation of legal restrictions on service by gays and lesbians in the armed forces was mandated by United States federal law Pub.L. 103–160 (10 U.S.C. § 654), which was signed November 30, 1993. The policy prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability".The act prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing their sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specified that service members who disclose that they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct should be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces". Since DADT ended in 2011, persons who are openly homosexual and bisexual have been able to serve.The "don't ask" part of the DADT policy specified that superiors should not initiate investigation of a service member's orientation without witnessing disallowed behaviors, though credible evidence of homosexual behavior could be used to initiate an investigation. Unauthorized investigations and harassment of suspected servicemen and women led to an expansion of the policy to "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass".Beginning in the early 2000s, several legal challenges to DADT were filed, and legislation to repeal DADT was enacted in December 2010, specifying that the policy would remain in place until the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that repeal would not harm military readiness, followed by a 60-day waiting period. A July 6, 2011, ruling from a federal appeals court barred further enforcement of the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members. President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen sent that certification to Congress on July 22, 2011, which set the end of DADT to September 20, 2011.

Glass–Steagall legislation

The Glass–Steagall legislation describes four provisions of the United States Banking Act of 1933 separating commercial and investment banking. The article 1933 Banking Act describes the entire law, including the legislative history of the provisions covered here.

As for the Glass–Steagall Act of 1932, the common name comes from the names of the Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass and Representative Henry B. Steagall.The separation of commercial and investment banking prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits, and commercial Federal Reserve member banks from:

dealing in non-governmental securities for customers,

investing in non-investment grade securities for themselves,

underwriting or distributing non-governmental securities,

affiliating (or sharing employees) with companies involved in such activities.Starting in the early 1960s, federal banking regulators' interpretations of the Act permitted commercial banks, and especially commercial bank affiliates, to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities. Congressional efforts to "repeal the Glass–Steagall Act", referring to those four provisions (and then usually to only the two provisions that restricted affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms), culminated in the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), which repealed the two provisions restricting affiliations between banks and securities firms.By that time, many commentators argued Glass–Steagall was already "dead". Most notably, Citibank's 1998 affiliation with Salomon Smith Barney, one of the largest US securities firms, was permitted under the Federal Reserve Board's then existing interpretation of the Glass–Steagall Act. In November 1999, President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate".Some commentators have stated that the GLBA's repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the financial crisis of 2007–2008. Nobel Prize in Economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz argued that the effect of the repeal was "indirect": "[w]hen repeal of Glass-Steagall brought investment and commercial banks together, the investment-bank culture came out on top". Economists at the Federal Reserve, such as Chairman Ben Bernanke, have argued that the activities linked to the financial crisis were not prohibited (or, in most cases, even regulated) by the Glass–Steagall Act.

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the Southeast Asia Resolution, Pub.L. 88–408, 78 Stat. 384, enacted August 10, 1964, was a joint resolution that the United States Congress passed on August 7, 1964, in response to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

It is of historic significance because it gave U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of conventional military force in Southeast Asia. Specifically, the resolution authorized the President to do whatever necessary in order to assist "any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty". This included involving armed forces.

It was opposed in the Senate only by Senators Wayne Morse (D-OR) and Ernest Gruening (D-AK). Senator Gruening objected to "sending our American boys into combat in a war in which we have no business, which is not our war, into which we have been misguidedly drawn, which is steadily being escalated". (Tonkin Gulf debate 1964) The Johnson administration subsequently relied upon the resolution to begin its rapid escalation of U.S. military involvement in South Vietnam and open warfare between North Vietnam and the United States.

Implied repeal

The doctrine of implied repeal is a concept in constitutional theory which states that where an Act of Parliament or an Act of Congress (or of some other legislature) conflicts with an earlier one, the later Act takes precedence and the conflicting parts of the earlier Act becomes legally inoperable. This doctrine is expressed in the Latin phrase "leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant".

Implied repeal is to be contrasted with the express repeal of legislation by the legislative body.

Under United States law, "implied repeal" is a disfavored doctrine. That is, if a court can reconcile the two statutes with any reasonable interpretation, that interpretation is preferred to one that treats the earlier statute as invalidated by the later one.

Magnuson Act

The Magnuson Act, also known as the Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943, was an immigration legislation proposed by U.S. Representative (later Senator) Warren G. Magnuson of Washington and signed into law on December 17, 1943 in the United States. It allowed Chinese immigration for the first time since the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and permitted some Chinese immigrants already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens. However, the Magnuson Act provided for the continuation of the ban against the ownership of property and businesses by ethnic Chinese. In many states, Chinese Americans (including US citizens) were denied property-ownership rights either by law or de facto until the Magnuson Act itself was fully repealed in 1965.This act is first legislation since 1870, which relaxed racial and national immigration barriers in the United States and started the way to the completely non-racial immigration legislation and policy of the late 1960s.

The Magnuson Act was passed on December 17, 1943, two years after China became an official allied nation of the United States in World War II. Although considered a positive development by many, it was particularly restrictive of Chinese immigrants, limiting them to an annual quota of 105 new entry visas. The quota was supposedly determined by the Immigration Act of 1924, which set immigration from qualifying countries at 2% of the number of people who were already living in the United States in 1890 of that nationality. However, the arrived-at number of 105 per annum granted to the Chinese was disproportionately low. (The quota should have been 2,150 per annum, as official census figures place the population of ethnic Chinese living in the USA in 1890 at 107,488 persons.) Regardless of the method of calculation, the number of Chinese immigrants allowed into the USA was disproportionately low in ratio to the sanctioned immigration of other nationalities and ethnicities. Chinese immigration later increased with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which abolished direct racial barriers and later by Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the National Origins Formula.

Massachusetts Automatic Gas Tax Increase Repeal Initiative

The Massachusetts Automatic Gas Tax Increase Repeal Initiative, Question 1 was on the November 4, 2014 statewide ballot. Approved by voters, the measure repeals a 2013 law that would automatically adjust gas taxes according to inflation, allowing for automatic annual increases in the state's gas tax.The law that this initiative repeals would also have put a minimum cap on gas taxes to prevent gas tax decreases in the case of deflation. The tax increase was part of a transportation funding package that was vetoed by Governor Deval Patrick (D) because he wanted an even greater tax increase. Patrick's veto was overruled by a House vote of 123 to 33 and a Senate vote of 35 to 5.Tank the Gas Tax, an organization supporting the initiative, stated that they collected at least 18,500 signatures by June 9, 2014. They turned in the signatures on June 18, 2014 in an attempt to qualify the initiative for the ballot. The measure was certified for the 2014 ballot on July 2, 2014.The question passed with 53% of voters in favor.

Massachusetts Casino Repeal Initiative

The Massachusetts Casino Repeal Initiative was an unsuccessful initiative voted on in the Massachusetts general election held on November 4, 2014. It was one of four 2014 ballot measures put to public vote.

Massachusetts State Income Tax Repeal Initiative

The State Income Tax Repeal, also known as Massachusetts Question 1, was one of the 2008 ballot measures that appeared on the November 4, 2008 ballot in the U.S. state of Massachusetts. Voters were asked whether or not they approved of the proposed measure which, if it had passed, would have ended the 5.3% income tax in Massachusetts on wages, interest, dividends and capital gains. Ultimately, Massachusetts voters defeated Question 1 by a wide margin, with approximately 70% opposed versus 30% in favor.

NARAL Pro-Choice America

NARAL Pro-Choice America () is a 501(c)(4) organization in the United States that engages in political action and advocacy efforts to oppose restrictions on abortion and expand access to abortion. NARAL is often used as a short form of the name. The organization was formerly known as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, then the National Abortion Rights Action League, and later the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.

NARAL has an associated 501(c)(3) organization, the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, and an associated political action committee, the NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC. Founded in 1969, NARAL is the oldest abortion rights advocacy group in the United States.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), often shortened to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or nicknamed Obamacare, is a United States federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 amendment, it represents the U.S. healthcare system's most significant regulatory overhaul and expansion of coverage since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.The ACA's major provisions came into force in 2014. By 2016, the uninsured share of the population had roughly halved, with estimates ranging from 20 to 24 million additional people covered during 2016. The increased coverage was due, roughly equally, to an expansion of Medicaid eligibility and to major changes to individual insurance markets. Both involved new spending, funded through a combination of new taxes and cuts to Medicare provider rates and Medicare Advantage. Several Congressional Budget Office reports said that overall these provisions reduced the budget deficit, that repealing the ACA would increase the deficit, and that the law reduced income inequality by taxing primarily the top 1% to fund roughly $600 in benefits on average to families in the bottom 40% of the income distribution. The law also enacted a host of delivery system reforms intended to constrain healthcare costs and improve quality. After the law went into effect, increases in overall healthcare spending slowed, including premiums for employer-based insurance plans.The act largely retains the existing structure of Medicare, Medicaid, and the employer market, but individual markets were radically overhauled around a three-legged program. Insurers in these markets are made to accept all applicants and charge the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions or sex. To combat resultant adverse selection, the act mandates that individuals buy insurance and insurers cover a list of "essential health benefits". However, a repeal of the individual tax mandate, passed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, became effective on January 1, 2019. To help households between 100–400% of the Federal Poverty Line afford these compulsory policies, the law provides insurance premium subsidies. Other individual market changes include health marketplaces and risk adjustment programs.

Since being signed into law in 2010, the PPACA has faced strong political opposition, calls for repeal (from Republicans) and numerous legal challenges; its enactment is considered to be a catalyst for the Tea Party movement. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that states could choose not to participate in the ACA's Medicaid expansion, although it upheld the law as a whole. The federal health exchange,, faced major technical problems at the beginning of its rollout in 2013. In 2017, a unified Republican government attempted but failed to pass several different partial repeals of the ACA. The law spent several years opposed by a slim plurality of Americans polled, although its provisions were generally more popular than the law as a whole, and the law gained majority support by 2017.

Prohibition in the United States

Prohibition in the United States was a nationwide constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages from 1920 to 1933.

During the nineteenth century, alcoholism, family violence, and saloon-based political corruption prompted prohibitionists, led by pietistic Protestants, to end the alcoholic beverage trade to cure the ill society and weaken the political opposition. One result was that many communities in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries introduced alcohol prohibition, with the subsequent enforcement in law becoming a hotly debated issue. Prohibition supporters, called "drys", presented it as a victory for public morals and health.

Promoted by the "dry" crusaders, the movement was led by pietistic Protestants and social Progressives in the Prohibition, Democratic, and Republican parties. It gained a national grass roots base through the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. After 1900, it was coordinated by the Anti-Saloon League. Opposition from the beer industry mobilized "wet" supporters from the Catholic and German Lutheran communities. They had funding to fight back, but by 1917–18 the German community had been marginalized by the nation's war against Germany, and the brewing industry was shut down in state after state by the legislatures and finally nationwide under the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1920. Enabling legislation, known as the Volstead Act, set down the rules for enforcing the federal ban and defined the types of alcoholic beverages that were prohibited. For example, religious use of wine was allowed. Private ownership and consumption of alcohol were not made illegal under federal law, but local laws were stricter in many areas, with some states banning possession outright.

Criminal gangs were able to gain control of the beer and liquor supply for many cities. By the late-1920s a new opposition mobilized nationwide. Wets attacked prohibition as causing crime, lowering local revenues, and imposing "rural" Protestant religious values on "urban" United States. Prohibition ended with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment on December 5, 1933. Some states continued statewide prohibition, marking one of the last stages of the Progressive Era.

Research shows that prohibition reduced overall alcohol consumption by half during the 1920s, and consumption remained below pre-Prohibition levels until the 1940s, suggesting that Prohibition did socialize a significant proportion of the population in temperate habits, at least temporarily. Rates of liver cirrhosis "fell by 50% early in Prohibition and recovered promptly after Repeal in 1933." Criticism remains that Prohibition led to unintended consequences such as a century of Prohibition-influenced legislation and the growth of urban crime organizations, though some scholars have argued that violent crime did not increase dramatically, while others have argued that crime during the Prohibition era was properly attributed to increased urbanization, rather than the criminalization of alcohol use. As an experiment it lost supporters every year, and lost tax revenue that governments needed when the Great Depression began in 1929.

Repeal Association

The Repeal Association was an Irish mass membership political movement set up by Daniel O'Connell in 1830 to campaign for a repeal of the Acts of Union of 1800 between Great Britain and Ireland.

The Association's aim was to revert Ireland to the constitutional position briefly achieved by Henry Grattan and his patriots in the 1780s—that is, legislative independence under the British Crown—but this time with a full Catholic involvement that was now possible following the Act of Emancipation in 1829, supported by the electorate approved under the Reform Act of 1832. On its failure by the late 1840s the Young Ireland movement developed.

Repealer candidates contested the 1832 United Kingdom general election in Ireland. Between 1835 and 1841, they formed a pact with the Whigs. Repealer candidates, unaffiliated with the Whig Party, contested the 1841 and 1847 general elections.

Repeal of Prohibition in the United States

The repeal of Prohibition in the United States was accomplished with the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution on December 5, 1933.

Sodomy laws in the United States

Sodomy laws in the United States, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, were inherited from colonial laws in the 1600s. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes as well, sometimes also acts between married persons.

Through the 20th century, the gradual liberalization of American sexuality led to the elimination of sodomy laws in most states. During this time, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. However, in 2003, the Supreme Court reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining 14 states (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri (statewide), North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia).

Major concepts
Subsidiary motions
Privileged motions
Incidental motions
Motions that bring a question
again before the assembly
Legislative procedures
Disciplinary procedures
Parliamentary authorities

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.