text:
Merchant Marine Act of 1920

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is a United States federal statute that provides for the promotion and maintenance of the American merchant marine. Among other purposes, the law regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports. Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act is known as the Jones Act  and deals with cabotage (coastwise trade). It requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on ships that have been constructed in the United States and that fly the U.S. flag, are owned by U.S. citizens, and are crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. The act was introduced by Senator Wesley Jones. The law also defines certain seaman's rights.

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 has been revised a number of times; the most recent revision in 2006 included recodification in the U.S. Code.

Many economists and other experts have argued for its repeal, while military and U.S. Department of Commerce officials have spoken in favor of the law on protectionist grounds. Opponents of this legislation argue it reduces domestic trade via waterways (relative to other forms of trade) and increases consumer prices.

The Jones Act is not to be confused with: the Death on the High Seas Act (another U.S. maritime law that does not apply to coastal and in-land navigable waters), or the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (which regulates passenger vessels, including cruise ships).

History
Laws similar to the Jones Act date to the early days of the United States. In the First Congress, on September 1, 1789, Congress enacted Chapter XI, "An Act for Registering and Clearing Vessels, Regulating the Coasting Trade, and for other purposes", which limited domestic trades to American ships meeting certain requirements. Such laws served the same purpose as—and were loosely based on—England's Navigation Acts, which were repealed in 1849.

The laws requiring that vessels transporting cargo domestically be U.S.-built, owned, and crewed, were temporarily suspended during World War I. The Jones Act of 1920 reinstated those ideas into law, and expanded restrictions regarding vessels used for cabotage in the United States.

1920 law
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 was introduced by Senator Wesley Jones, Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. He stated that the act was, "an earnest effort to lay the foundation of a policy that will build up and maintain an adequate American merchant marine in competition with the shipping of the world."

The intention of Congress was to develop a merchant marine for reasons of national defense and of growth of foreign and domestic commerce, as stated in the preamble to the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 as originally enacted:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is necessary for the national defense and for the proper growth of its foreign and domestic commerce that the United States shall have a merchant marine of the best equipped and most suitable types of vessels sufficient to carry the greater portion of its commerce and serve as a naval or military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency, ultimately to be owned and operated privately by citizens of the United States; and it is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to do whatever may be necessary to develop and encourage the maintenance of such a merchant marine, and, in so far as may not be inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act, the United States Shipping Board shall, in the disposition of vessels and shipping property as hereinafter provided, in the making of rules and regulations, and in the administration of the shipping laws keep always in view this purpose and object as the primary end to be attained."

The U.S. Congress adopted the Merchant Marine Act in early June 1920 as, and it was signed into law on June 5, 1920 by President Woodrow Wilson.

1936 law
The Merchant Marine Act of 1936 was a major update to the law. Its purpose is "to further the development and maintenance of an adequate and well-balanced American merchant marine, to promote the commerce of the United States, to aid in the national defense, to repeal certain former legislation, and for other purposes."

Specifically, it established the United States Maritime Commission, and required a United States Merchant Marine that:

 * can carry all domestic water-borne commerce,
 * can carry a substantial portion of foreign commerce,
 * can serve as a naval auxiliary in time of war or national emergency,
 * is owned and operated under the U.S. flag by U.S. citizens "insofar as may be practicable,"
 * is composed of the best-equipped, safest, and most suitable types of vessels,
 * consists of vessels constructed in the United States, and
 * consists of vessels crewed with a trained and efficient citizen personnel.

The Act restricted the number of aliens allowed to work on passenger ships, requiring that, by 1938, 90 percent of the crew members were U.S. citizens. Although about 4,000 Filipinos worked as merchant mariners on U.S. ships, most of these seamen were discharged in 1937 as a result of the law. The Act also established federal subsidies for the construction and operation of merchant ships. Two years after the Act was passed, the U.S. Merchant Marine Cadet Corps, the forerunner to the United States Merchant Marine Academy, was established.

U.S. Representative Schyler O. Bland of Virginia was known as the "father of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936."

Law revisions
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 has been further revised a number of times. In 1940, Congress expanded the Jones Act to cover towing vessels. In 1988, Congress specified that waterborne transport of valueless material, such as dredge spoil or municipal solid waste, requires the use of a Jones Act-qualified vessel.

The revision of the law in 2006 included recodification in the U.S. Code.

Cabotage
Cabotage is the transport of goods or passengers between two points in the same country, alongside coastal waters, by a vessel or an aircraft registered in another country. Originally a shipping term, cabotage now also covers aviation, railways, and road transport. Cabotage is "trade or navigation in coastal waters, or the exclusive right of a country to operate the air traffic within its territory". In the context of "cabotage rights", cabotage refers to the right of a company from one country to trade in another country. In aviation terms, for example, it is the right to operate within the domestic borders of another country. Most countries enact cabotage laws for reasons of economic protectionism or national security; 80% of the UN's member states with coastlines have cabotage law.

The cabotage provisions relating to the Jones Act restrict the carriage of goods or passengers between United States ports to U.S.-built and flagged vessels. It has been codified as portions of 46 U.S.C. Generally, the Jones Act prohibits any foreign-built, foreign-owned or foreign-flagged vessel from engaging in coastwise trade within the United States. A number of other statutes affect coastwise trade and should be consulted along with the Jones Act. These include the Passenger Vessel Services Act,, which restricts coastwise transportation of passengers, and , which restricts the use of foreign vessels to commercially catch or transport fish in U.S. waters. These provisions also require at least three-fourths (75 percent) of the crew members to be U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Moreover, the steel of foreign repair work on the hull and superstructure of a U.S.-flagged vessel is limited to ten percent by weight. This restriction largely prevents Jones Act ship-owners from refurbishing their ships at overseas shipyards.

Seamen's rights
The U.S. Congress adopted the Merchant Marine Act in early June 1920, formerly and codified on October 6, 2006 as. The act formalized the rights of seamen. "From the very beginning of American civilization, courts have protected seamen whom the courts have described as 'unprotected and in need of counsel; because they are thoughtless and require indulgence; because they are credulous and complying; and are easily overreached. They are emphatically the wards of admiralty.'"

The Jones Act allows injured sailors to make claims and obtain damages from their employers for the negligence of the ship owner, including many acts of the captain or fellow members of the crew. It operates simply by extending similar legislation already in place that allowed for recoveries by railroad workers and providing that this legislation also applies to sailors. Its operative provision is found at, which provides:

"Any sailor who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right to trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply...."

The law allows U.S. seamen to bring actions against ship owners based on claims of unseaworthiness or negligence, rights not afforded by common international maritime law.

The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Chandris, Inc., v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 115 S.Ct. 2172 (1995), has set a benchmark for determining the status of any employee as a "Jones Act" seaman. Workers who spend less than 30 percent of their time in the service of a vessel on navigable waters are presumed not to be seaman under the Jones Act. The Court ruled that any worker who spends more than 30 percent of his time in the service of a vessel on navigable waters qualifies as a seaman under the act. Only maritime workers who qualify as a seaman can file a suit for damages under the Jones Act.

An action under the Jones Act may be brought either in a U.S. federal court or in a state court. The right to bring an action in state court is preserved by the "savings to suitors" clause, 28 U.S.C. § 1333. The seaman-plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial, a right which is not afforded in maritime law absent a statute authorizing it.

Seamen have three years from the time the accident occurred to file a lawsuit. Under the Jones Act, maritime law has a statute of limitations of three years, meaning that seamen have three years from the time the injury occurred to file a lawsuit. If an injured seaman does not file a case within that three-year period, the seaman's claim may be dismissed as time-barred.

Effects
The Jones Act prevents foreign-flagged ships from carrying cargo between the contiguous U.S. and certain noncontiguous parts of the U.S., such as Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam. Foreign ships inbound with goods cannot stop at any of these four locations, offload goods, load contiguous-bound goods, and continue to U.S. contiguous ports, although ships can offload cargo and proceed to the contiguous U.S. without picking up any additional cargo intended for delivery to another U.S. location.

Puerto Rico
In June 2012, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York indicated that the Jones Act may hinder economic development in Puerto Rico, although a Government Accountability Office report found the effect of repealing or loosening is uncertain, with possible tradeoffs.

In March 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a study of the effect of the Jones Act on Puerto Rico that noted "[f]reight rates are set based on a host of supply and demand factors in the market, some of which are affected directly or indirectly by Jones Act requirements." The report further concludes, however, that "because so many other factors besides the Jones Act affect rates, it is difficult to isolate the exact extent to which freight rates between the United States and Puerto Rico are affected by the Jones Act." The report also addresses what would happen "under a full exemption from the Act, the rules and requirements that would apply to all carriers would need to be determined." The report continues that "[w]hile proponents of this change expect increased competition and greater availability of vessels to suit shippers' needs, it is also possible that the reliability and other beneficial aspects of the current service could be affected." The report concludes that "GAO's report confirmed that previous estimates of the so-called 'cost' of the Jones Act are not verifiable and cannot be proven."

U.S. shipbuilding
Because the Jones Act requires all transport between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-built ships, proponents of the Jones Act claim that it supports the domestic U.S. shipbuilding industry. Shipyards that build Jones Act vessels are needed to build smaller but important government vessels like auxiliary ships, cutters, and research vessels. Jones Act requirements creates additional work for these shipyards in between government orders. Proponents state that by keeping the industrial base working, the Jones Act ensures that the Navy and Marine Corps can spin up shipbuilding without relying on other nations. The defense think tank CSBA, in a 2020 study on the maritime industry, warned that without the Jones Act, the shipbuilding industry would face dire impacts, up to and including the inability of the government to purchase any auxiliary ships domestically.

Critics of the act describe it as protectionist, harming the overall economy for the sake of benefiting narrow interests. A 2014 report by The Heritage Foundation argues that the Jones Act is an ineffective way to promote U.S. shipbuilding, claiming it drives up shipping costs, increases energy costs, stifles competition, and hampers innovation in the U.S. shipping industry. A 2019 Congressional Research Service report stated that U.S. shipbuilding has declined in competitiveness since the law's passage.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimated in 2019 that repealing the Jones Act would boost shipbuilding output by more than $500 million (~$ in ).

National security
One of the primary impetuses for the law was the situation that occurred during World War I when the belligerent countries withdrew their merchant fleets from commercial service to aid in the war effort. This left the US with insufficient vessels to conduct normal trade impacting the economy. Later when the U.S. joined the war there were insufficient vessels to transport war supplies, materials, and ultimately soldiers to Europe resulting in the creation of the United States Shipping Board. The U.S. engaged in a massive ship building effort including building concrete ships to make up for the lack of U.S. tonnage. The Jones Act was passed in order to prevent the U.S. from having insufficient maritime capacity in future wars.

Homeland Security
The Jones Act includes dredging and salvage operations. Because the Jones Act creates a domestic dredging and salvage industry in the United States, it prevents the United States from depending on foreign companies to dredge naval facilities, which could create opportunities for sabotage or the depositing of underwater surveillance equipment.

Additionally, the requirement that ships in the domestic fleet be crewed by U.S. citizens or permanent residents reduces the likelihood foreign ships and mariners will illegally gain access to America's inland waterways and associated infrastructure. A 2011 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found there are approximately 5 million maritime crew entries into the United States each year, and "the overwhelming majority of seafarers entering U.S. ports are aliens." The study also showed that 80% of those seafarer aliens are working on passenger ships that are covered by the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 rather than the Jones Act. The GAO said that while there are no known examples of foreign seafarer involvement in terrorist attacks and no definitive evidence of extremists infiltrating the United States on seafarer visas, "the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) considers the illegal entry of an alien through a U.S. seaport by exploitation of maritime industry practices to be a key concern."

Importation of liquefied natural gas
Because of the lack of Jones Act-compliant liquefied natural gas tankers, the Northeast of the U.S. imported liquefied natural gas from Russia in order to avoid shortages in 2018.

Restrictions on offshore wind farms
The Jones Act has been used by opponents of offshore wind farms to prevent foreign vessels from constructing and maintaining wind farms near the American coast. There are no active Jones Act-compliant wind turbine installation vessels and only one under construction, increasing costs and construction times for offshore wind projects that must use compliant barges to transfer parts to installation ships. A shortage of such vessels was a cause of the cancellation of the Ocean Wind projects.

Support
Supporters of the Jones Act maintain that the legislation is of strategic economic and wartime interest to the United States. The act, they say, protects the nation's sealift capability and its ability to produce commercial ships. In addition, the act is seen as a vital factor in helping maintain a viable workforce of trained merchant mariners for commerce and national emergencies. Supporters also argue that allowing foreign-flagged ships to engage in commerce in domestic American sea lanes would undermine U.S. wage, tax, safety, and environmental standards.

According to the Lexington Institute, the Jones Act is also vital to national security and plays a role in safeguarding America's borders. The Lexington Institute stated in a June 2016 study that the Jones Act plays a role in strengthening U.S. border security and helping to prevent international terrorism.

Protectionism
Critics claim the Jones Act is protectionist, and point to a 2002 report by the United States International Trade Commission that estimated the savings for the U.S. economy that would result from the repeal or amendment of the Jones Act. Critics contend that the Act results in higher costs for moving cargo between U.S. ports, particularly for Americans living in Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

A 2019 study by the OECD estimated that the economic gains to the U.S. economy from the repeal of Jones Act would range from an added $19 billion up to $64 billion.

Failure to accomplish stated purpose
Another criticism of the Jones Act is that as of 2023, it has already failed in its stated purpose of protecting the American merchant marine: "The Jones Act fleet has dropped from around 250 ships in the 1980s to just 91 today. No use protecting something that's already dead."

The Jones Act lacks any mechanism to force shippers to always use Jones Act ships over all other modes of transport irrespective of price or to force other modes to not compete against Jones Act ships. As a result, the Jones Act fleet is used only where shippers have no choice: for moving large quantities of cargo over the ocean between noncontiguous parts of the United States. It is not used for moving cargo along coastal routes in the contiguous United States. In other words, the coastwise trade (called short-sea shipping by Europeans) is virtually nonexistent in the United States, while most of the 130 million Americans who live near a coastline must put up with road and rail networks jammed with domestic cargo which almost anywhere else in the world would have been routed to short-sea shipping.

Repeal and reform movement
Legislative efforts to repeal the Jones Act have been repeatedly introduced in Congress since 2010 when the Open America's Waters Act was championed by Senator John McCain, who co-sponsored S. 3525 before the 111th United States Congress, then by Utah Senator Mike Lee, without passing to become law.

In 2019, and again in 2021, Representative Ed Case (Hawaii) introduced three reform Acts: H.R. Bill 298, the Noncontiguous Shipping Competition Act; H.R.299, the Noncontiguous Shipping Reasonable Rate Act; and H.R.300, the Noncontiguous Shipping Relief Act, to Congress.

H.R. Bill 8996, the Jones Act Repeal Act, was introduced by U.S. Representative Justin Amash (Michigan) on December 17, 2020, during the 116th United States Congress. Open America's Waters Act to repeal restrictions on coastwise trade was again submitted, as S. Bill 1646 by Senator Lee on May 13 2021, during the 117th United States Congress.

Amid calls for repeal, advocacy for reform, rather than repeal, of the Act also emerged, notably by the Cato Institute, Niskanen Center, Mercatus Center and Heritage Institute.

Waivers
Requests for waivers of the Act and its provisions are reviewed by the Department of Homeland Security on a case-by-case basis, and can only be granted based on interest of national defense. Historically, waivers have only been granted in cases of national emergencies or upon the request of the Secretary of Defense.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff temporarily waived the coastwise laws for foreign vessels carrying oil and natural gas from September 1 to 19, 2005.

In order to conduct an emergency shipment of gasoline from Dutch Harbor, Alaska, to Nome in January 2012, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano granted a waiver to the Russian ice class marine tanker Renda.

The Secretary of Homeland Security issued a temporary conditional waiver of the Jones Act for the shipment of petroleum products, blending stocks and additives from Gulf Coast Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PADD 3) to the New England and Central Atlantic Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADDs 1 a and 1 b, respectively) for 12 days from November 2 to 13, 2012, following widespread fuel shortages caused by Hurricane Sandy.

On September 8, 2017, the Jones Act was simultaneously suspended for both Hurricane Harvey, which hit Texas fourteen days prior, and Hurricane Irma, which hit Florida on that day. In the same month, the Act was waived, after two days of debate, for Puerto Rico in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria.

Requests for waivers of certain provisions of the act are reviewed by the United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) on a case-by-case basis. Waivers have been granted for example, in cases of national emergencies or in cases of strategic interest. For example, in June, 2006, declining oil production prompted MARAD to grant a waiver to operators of the 512-foot Chinese vessel Tai An Kou to tow an oil rig from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska. The jackup rig will be under a two-year contract to drill in the Alaska's Cook Inlet Basin. The waiver to the Chinese vessel is said to be the first of its kind granted to an independent oil-and-gas company.

Pressure exerted by 21 agriculture groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, failed to secure a Jones Act waiver following Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico. The groups contended that farmers would be adversely affected without additional shipping options to transport grains and oilseeds.

title: Merchant Marine Act of 1920


text:
Mount Tamalpais State Park

Mount Tamalpais State Park is a California state park, located in Marin County, California. The primary feature of the park is the 2571 ft Mount Tamalpais. The park contains mostly redwood and oak forests. The mountain itself covers around 25000 acre. There are about 60 mi of hiking trails, which are connected to a larger, 200 mi network of trails in neighboring public lands. The park received 564,000 visitors. Muir Woods National Monument is surrounded by the state park.

From the peak of the mountain, visitors can see up to 25 mi, in a view that encompasses San Francisco, most of the North and East Bay, and the Farallon Islands. Occasionally, the Sierra Nevada are visible, 125 mi away.

Cushing Memorial Amphitheatre
The Cushing Memorial Theater, also known as the Mountain Theater, is an open-air theater built in the 1930s. The natural-stone amphitheater seats 4,000 people and features the Mountain Play each spring, produced every year since 1913. In the summer, monthly astronomy programs are held in the theater for free to the public.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Mount Tamalpais State Park


text:
Jones–Shafroth Act

The Jones–Shafroth Act – also known as the Jones Act of Puerto Rico, Jones Law of Puerto Rico, or as the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act of 1917 – was an Act of the United States Congress, signed by President Woodrow Wilson on March 2, 1917. The act superseded the Foraker Act and granted U.S. citizenship to anyone born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899. It also created the Senate of Puerto Rico, established a bill of rights, and authorized the election of a Resident Commissioner (previously appointed by the President) to a four-year term. The act also exempted Puerto Rican bonds from federal, state, and local taxes regardless of where the bondholder resides.

Impetus
The impetus for this legislation came from a complex of local and mainland interests. Puerto Ricans lacked internationally recognized citizenship, but the local council was wary of "imposing citizenship." Luis Muñoz Rivera, the Resident Commissioner in Washington, argued against US citizenship, giving several speeches in the House of Representatives. On 5 May 1916 he demanded:

"Give us now the field of experiment which we ask of you... It is easy for us to set up a stable republican government with all possible guarantees for all possible interests. And afterwards, when you... give us our independence... you will stand before humanity as a great creator of new nationalities and a great liberator of oppressed people.

... as you know, the final aspiration of my party is nationalism with or without American protectorate, and as the Puerto Rican people understand it, the granting of (US) citizenship will interfere with their aspirations for independence."

Rep. William Atkinson Jones, (D-Virginia), chairman of the House Committee on Insular Affairs, and Sen. John Shafroth, (D-Colorado), chairman of the Committee on Pacific Islands and Puerto Rico, sponsored the legislation which bears their names.

Major features
This Act made all citizens of Puerto Rico U.S. citizens and reformed the system of government in Puerto Rico. In some respects, the governmental structure paralleled that of a state of the United States. Powers were separated among executive, judicial, and legislative branches. The law also recognized certain civil rights through a bill of rights to be observed by the government of Puerto Rico (although trial by jury was not among them).

Citizenship
According to Public Law 414 of June 27, 1952 SEC.302: §1402. Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899

All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or another territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth. (June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, §302, 66 Stat. 236.) The Act abolished racial restrictions found in United States immigration and naturalization statutes going back to the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1952 Act retained a quota system for nationalities and regions. Eventually, the Act established a preference system that determined which ethnic groups were desirable immigrants and placed great importance on labor qualifications. The Act defined three types of immigrants: immigrants with special skills or who had relatives of U.S. citizens, who were exempt from quotas and who were to be admitted without restrictions; average immigrants whose numbers were not supposed to exceed 270,000 per year; and refugees.

It expanded the definition of the "United States" for nationality purposes, which already included Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, to add Guam. Persons born in these territories on or after December 24, 1952, acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States.

Residents of the island were granted United States citizenship and allowed to reject it voluntarily within six months of the act being established. Of the almost 1.2 million residents on the island, only 288 rejected it.

Presently, Puerto Rico lacks voting representation in Congress, and residents of the island aren't qualified to participate in general elections but can only vote in primaries. Puerto Ricans residing on the U.S. mainland, however, have the option to register and vote in their respective states.

Legislators
The Act created a bicameral local legislature composed of a Senate with 19 members and a House of Representatives with 39 members. The legislature was to be elected by universal male suffrage for a term of four years. Bills passed by the legislature could be vetoed by the governor, but his veto could be overridden by a two-thirds vote, in which case the President of the United States would make the final decision.

Matters relating to franchises and concessions were vested in a Public Service Commission, consisting of the heads of the executive departments, the auditor, and two elected commissioners. A Resident Commissioner representing Puerto Rico as a non-voting delegate of the U.S. House of Representatives was elected by popular vote to a four-year term.

Executive branch
Under the Act, six executive departments were constituted: Justice, Finance, Interior, Education, Agriculture, Labor, and Health. The governor, the attorney-general, and the commissioner of education were appointed by the President with the approval of the U.S. Senate; the heads of the remaining departments were appointed by the governor of Puerto Rico, subject to the approval of the Puerto Rican Senate.

The Governor of Puerto Rico was to be appointed by the President of the United States, not elected. All cabinet officials had to be approved by the United States Senate, and the United States Congress had the power to veto any law passed by the Puerto Rican Legislature. Washington maintained control over fiscal and economic matters and exercised authority over mail services, immigration, defense, and other basic governmental matters. Puerto Rico was not given electoral votes in the election of U.S. President, because the Constitution of the United States of America allows only full-fledged states to have electoral votes.

Triple tax exemption
Section 3 of the act also exempted Puerto Rican bonds from federal, state, and local taxes regardless of where the bondholder resides. This has made Puerto Rican bonds extremely attractive to municipal investors as they may inure from holding a bond issued by a state or municipality different from the one where they reside. This is because municipal bonds that enjoy triple tax exemption are typically granted such exemption solely for bondholders that reside in the state that issues them.

Conscription
Before the Jones–Shafroth Act, insular Puerto Ricans were not citizens of the United States. Subsequent to the Act, they immediately became U.S. citizens. The act also extended almost all U.S. laws to have the same force and effect in Puerto Rico as in the United States (the only laws excepted were those concerning internal revenues) including the National Defense Act of 1916 which established the composition of the U.S. military. Two months after Congress passed the Jones–Shafroth Act, that same Congress enacted the Selective Service Act of 1917 which based conscription "upon liability to military service of all male citizens." Through its passage, the Jones–Shafroth Act – via a combination of citizenship and the expansion of U.S. laws to Puerto Rico, including the aforementioned National Defense Act – imposed mandatory conscription into the U.S. military on Puerto Ricans, precisely at the moment that the United States entered World War I. As a result, around 20,000 Puerto Ricans served in the U.S. armed forces during World War I, and 65,000 fought in World War II.

Migration
The Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917 spurred significant migration to the U.S. mainland, particularly to New York State, as it granted citizenship. Around 42,000 Puerto Ricans relocated to the U.S. throughout the 1920s.

Subsequent legislation
Portions of the Jones Act were superseded in 1948, after which the Governor was popularly elected. In 1948, U.S. Congress mandated Puerto Rico to draft its own Constitution which, when ratified by the electorate and implemented in 1952, provided greater autonomy as a territorial Commonwealth.

title: Jones–Shafroth Act


text: Category:Ventriloquism

title: Category:Ventriloquism


text:
Handheld electronic game

Handheld electronic games are interactive electronic games, often miniaturized versions of video games, that are played on portable handheld devices, known as handheld game consoles, whose controls, display and speakers are all part of a single unit. Rather than a general-purpose screen made up of a grid of small pixels, they usually have custom displays designed to play one game. This simplicity means they can be made as small as a smartwatch, and sometimes are. The visual output of these games can range from a few small light bulbs or LED lights to calculator-like alphanumerical screens; later these were mostly displaced by liquid crystal and vacuum fluorescent display screens with detailed images and in the case of VFD games, color. Handhelds' popularity was at its peak from the late 1970s into the early 1990s before declining. They are the precursors to the handheld game console.

History
Early handheld games used simple mechanisms to interact with players, often limited to illuminated buttons and sound effects. Early handheld games include Mattel Auto Race (1976) and Mattel Electronic Football (1977), which have simple red-LED displays; gameplay involves pressing buttons to move a car or quarterback icon (represented by a bright dot) to avoid obstacles (represented by less bright dots).

In 1978 the Milton Bradley Company entered the handheld market with Simon, a simple color-and-sound-matching game. Simon had no dedicated display, but featured four colored, lighted buttons; the original version was large enough to be used as a tabletop game or a handheld; later versions became increasingly smaller. The same year, Parker Brothers also released Merlin, a more sophisticated handheld which could play six different games using an array of 11 buttons with integrated LEDs. Despite their relative simplicity, each of these early games was highly successful.

The initial success of Mattel and Parker Brothers' entries spawned a wave of similar handheld devices which were released through the early 1980s. Notable among these were a series of popular 2-player "head-to-head" games from Coleco. Other games were miniaturized versions of popular arcade video games.

In 1979, Gunpei Yokoi, traveling on a bullet train, saw a bored businessman playing with an LCD calculator by pressing the buttons. Yokoi then thought of an idea for a watch that doubled as a miniature game machine for killing time, a game watch. Starting in 1980, Nintendo began to release a series of electronic games designed by Yokoi called the Game & Watch games. Taking advantage of the technology used in the credit-card-sized calculators that had appeared on the market, Yokoi designed the series of LCD-based games to include a digital time display in the corner of the screen. For later, more complicated Game & Watch games, Yokoi invented a cross shaped directional pad or "D-pad" for control of on-screen characters. Yokoi also included his directional pad on the Famicom game console's controllers, and the cross-shaped thumb controller soon became standard on game console controllers and ubiquitous across the video game industry as a replacement for the joystick.

During the 1980s, LCDs became inexpensive and largely replaced LED displays in handheld games. The use of custom images in LCD and VFD games allows them to have greater detail and avoid the blocky, pixellated look of console screens, but not without drawbacks. All graphics are fixed in place, so every possible location and state of game objects has to be preset (and are usually visible when resetting a game), with no overlap. Illusion of movement is created by sequentially flashing objects between their possible states. Backgrounds for these games are static drawings, layered behind the "moving" graphics which are transparent when not in use. Partly due to these limitations, the gameplay of early LCD games was often even more crude than for their LED antecedents.

Some of the more well-known handheld games of the LCD era are the Game & Watch series by Nintendo and the games by Tiger Electronics, and many titles from other companies were also popular, especially conversions of arcade games. New games are still being made, but most are based on relatively simple card and board games.

Bandai LCD Solarpower
In 1982, the Bandai LCD Solarpower series were the first solar-powered gaming devices. Some of its games, such as the horror-themed game Terror House, featured two LCD panels, one stacked on the other, for an early 3D effect. In 1983, Takara Tomy's Tomytronic 3D series simulated 3D by having two LED panels that were lit by external light through a window on top of the device, making it the first dedicated home video 3D hardware.

The LCD Solarpower series are handheld electronic games powered by solar energy made by Bandai in 1982. The games in the Double Panel series feature two LCD panels stacked on top of each other. This allows these games to progress in 2 stages for more variation in game play.

Games
It comprises the following games:

First series:

 * Invaders of the Mummy's Tomb (謎のピラミッド), ref. 16265 and 16813 for the re-release
 * Escape from the Devil's Doom (天国と地獄), ref. 16264
 * Sub Attack (激戦Ｕボート) / (Sub Patrol in UK), ref. 16280
 * Break Out (大脱走), ref. 16282
 * Shark Island (恐怖の無人島), ref. 16281
 * Nazo No Chinbotsusen (謎の沈没船), ref. 16288, released in Japan only

Second series (Double Panel):

 * Amazone (秘境アマゾン), ref. 16815
 * Terror House (悪霊の館), ref. 16814
 * Frankenstein (ミスターフランケン), ref. 16817
 * Airport Panic (エアポートパニック), ref. 16818

Other handheld games were built as flipcases and had two or even three LCDs with different foreground and background scenes, offering some variety in the gameplay.

Handhelds today
Despite the increasing sophistication of handheld consoles such as the Nintendo Switch, dedicated handhelds continue to find a niche. Among technophilic gamer subcultures like Akiba-kei, unique control schemes like that of the 2008 Tuttuki Bako have been proven salable due to novelty, but dedicated handhelds such as this are uncommon. Adult fads such as blackjack, poker, and Sudoku also spawn dozens of original and knockoff handheld games.

The Chinese/Russian Brick Game, popular in the early 1990s, include games using a 10 × 20 block grid as a crude, low resolution dot matrix screen. Such devices often have many variations of Tetris and sometimes even other kinds of games like racing, Breakout or even shoot 'em up, such as those resembling Galaga or Battle City, where one block projects blocks at the "enemy" blocks. The most advanced of these designs usually have 26 distinct games sorted in alphabetical letters and feature multi-channel sound, voice synthesis or digital sounds samples, and internal CMOS memory which can save the current game progress and high scores when the system is turned off. Many of these handhelds with a dozen such games are marketed as having hundreds or even thousands of games (e.g. "9999 in 1"), though the vast majority are just different speed and difficulty settings. The most basic can now be sold as low as $1.

At the lowest end of handheld game sophistication, there is also the "avoid/catch the falling objects" game. These games are controlled with 2 movement buttons, and sport a screen with a column of player positions, and rows of projectiles to animate towards the player. The player and projectiles could be any picture, from tanks dodging missiles to a dog catching sausages.

title: Handheld electronic game


text:
Talk:RoboSapien

Untitled
"without recourse to wheels on within its feet" - is that even English? If so, what does it mean? Sounds like a typo... Vocaro 09:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The wiki article ´Biomorphic robotics´ says:

´a Biomorphic robot is a subdicipline of robotics focused upon emulating the mechanics, sensor systems, computing structures and methodologies used by animals. In short, it is building robots inspired by the principles of biological systems.´

Robosapien though does not emulate human movement. The way it walks is a completely different chain of movements than in walking animals or humans. Therefore it can not be called biomorphic, sorry. The construction also does not ´focus´ on emulating human movement. Alex, T. May 31, 2006

Recommend re-adding Biomorphic robotics, based on three points:

1) Tilden has claimed that the Robosapien is a biomorphic robot in interviews and in the book Robosapien Companion.

2) Biomorphics is not about duplicating biological designs but rather designing around biological principles. As Joe Jones of iRobot put it, "Mimic functionality, not implementation -- the Wright brothers used the shape of a wing, but didn't make it flap."

3) Tilden built the prototype Robosapien, BIO Droid, at the Telluride Neuromorphic Engineering Workshop. It was used to demonstrate biomorphic/neuromorphic ideas.

J. W. Goerlich, 08 June 2006

Apparently someone wants this page deleted, but doesn't want to let anyone know about it.

Here is my vote:

There is also a unprogramable plagiat out named "Roboactor"
 * 1) Keep.  This is not some promotion, I have seen it before.  Just because you have not seen it that does not mean that it isn't worthy of an article.  Besides, you do not know what kind of potential this article might have nor the potential of the toy itself.  Additionally, there is nothing in this article that seems out of line with NPOV.  There are no statements such as, "This is the best toy ever! Everyone should go out and buy one!" Moogle 05:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep.  Although a previous version did sound like an advertisment, this version is not.  No reason to delete current article.  - Aknorals 01:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep

Removing 'Other Uses' Section
I am not sure if there is a correlation between the 'Robosapien' toy and the mentioned soccer match. I do not think they're related, and I'd recommend we remove this section. What're some other editors' thoughts? BBFanToys (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Should fakes be added to this page?
i know i already added some as you can see, but should i remove it or keep it there? to me, it makes sence but i really dont know if i should keep it up or take it down, a mention of it was here before so i guess it's ok???? vote what you think about my edit, is it good, or bad?

RedGreenAndBlue (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)RGB

title: Talk:RoboSapien


text:
Talk:The Hindenburg (film)

Moved
Moved in accordance with naming conventions ("movie" isn't part of the title, so don't capitalize it). Everyking 05:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

plagarism
large section of this article have been lifted word for word from IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.70.60 (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

wrong credits
Joe Spah* (miscredited or erroneously credited in other sources as Joe Spahn)

The correct name is Joseph Späh (Spaeh) with an Umlaut! 217.111.104.103 (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

removal of last two survivors
Shouldn't the following be edited to reflect that they were the last two survivors alive (and presumably that there is now one survivor alive) rather than removed completely?
 * He was one of two remaining survivors of the crash as of May 2012. The other being Werner Doehner, who was 8 at the time of the disaster.

sheridan (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Graf Zeppelin II error?
The article claims in the fake newsreel footage at the film's beginning, a shot of the Graf Zeppelin II has been erroneously inserted where the narrator is talking about the GZ I. I have watched this footage over and over and don't see any shot of an airship christening. All references to the GZ I that I see do indeed show the correct airship.

title: Talk:The Hindenburg (film)


text:
User talk:Hardworkingeditor

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 05:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

link spam
Please stop spamming articles with links to EB1911 articles at encyclopedia.jrank.org. --Joy [shallot]   23:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hardworkingeditor


text:
Almodis of La Marche

Almodis de la Marche (c. 1020 – 16 October 1071) was a French noble famed for her marriages. She and her third husband, Ramon Berenguer I, Count of Barcelona, with whom she committed double bigamy in 1053, were excommunicated by the Pope.

Life
Almodis was the daughter of Count Bernard I of Marche and wife Amélie. She married Hugh V of Lusignan around 1038 and they had two sons and one daughter. Almodis and Hugh of Lusignan divorced due to consanguinity. She later, with Hugh's assistance, married Count Pons of Toulouse in 1040. Almodis was still Pons' wife in April 1053, when she was abducted by Count Ramon Berenguer I of Barcelona. He kidnapped her from Narbonne with the aid of a fleet sent north by his ally, the Muslim emir of Tortosa. They married immediately (despite the fact both of her previous husbands were still alive) and they appear with their twin sons in a charter the next year. Pope Victor II excommunicated Almodis and Ramon for this illegal marriage until 1056.

Almodis maintained contact with her former husbands and many children, and in 1066/1067 she traveled to Toulouse for her daughter's wedding. A few years before, in 1060, Hugh V of Lusignan had revolted against his lord, Duke William VIII of Aquitaine, in support of Almodis' son William IV of Toulouse. Her sons supported one another in military campaigns; Hugh VI of Lusignan, Raymond IV of Toulouse, and Berenguer Ramon II of Barcelona all took the Cross.

Her third husband Ramon was married to her niece, Isabela Trencavel, the daughter of Rangearde de la Marche. Their son, Peter Raymundi, was Ramon's original heir. Peter Raymundi resented Almodis' influence and was concerned she was trying to replace him with her own two sons, his consanguineous nephews, both who had claims through their father, Count La Marche. He murdered her in October 1071. William of Malmesbury reflected that she was, "sad, [of] unbridled lewdness".

Pere-Ramon was disinherited and exiled for his crime and fled the country. When his father died in 1076, Barcelona was split between Almodis' sons, Berenguer Ramon and Ramon Berenguer. The family history of murder did not end with Pere-Ramon, as Berenguer Ramon earned his nickname "The Fratricide" when he killed his own twin brother.

Family
She married Hugh V of Lusignan around 1038 and they had two sons and one daughter:
 * Hugh VI of Lusignan (c. 1039–1101)
 * Jordan de Lusignan
 * Mélisende de Lusignan (b. bef. 1055), married before 1074 to Simon I "l'Archevêque", Vidame de Parthenay

Almodis and Hugh of Lusignan divorced due to consanguinity, and Hugh arranged for her to marry Count Pons of Toulouse in 1040. Together they produced several children, including:
 * William IV of Toulouse
 * Raymond IV of Toulouse
 * Hugh, Abbot of Saint-Gilles
 * Almodis of Toulouse, married Count Pierre of Melgueil

In 1053, she married Ramon Berenguer I, Count of Barcelona. Together they produced four children:
 * Berenguer Ramon II, Count of Barcelona
 * Ramon Berenguer II, Count of Barcelona
 * Agnes of Barcelona, married Count Guigues II of Albon
 * Sancha of Barcelona, married Count Guillermo Ramon I of Cerdagne

In literature
Almodis is the subject of Almodis the Peaceweaver by Tracey Warr.

title: Almodis of La Marche


text:
Unparliamentary language

Parliaments and legislative bodies around the world impose certain rules and standards during debates. Tradition has evolved that there are words or phrases that are deemed inappropriate for use in the legislature whilst it is in session. In a Westminster system, this is called unparliamentary language and there are similar rules in other kinds of legislative systems. This includes, but is not limited to, the suggestion of dishonesty or the use of profanity. Most unacceptable is any insinuation that another member is dishonourable. So, for example, in the British House of Commons any direct reference to a member as lying is unacceptable, even if the allegation is substantively true. A conventional alternative, when necessary, is to complain of a "terminological inexactitude".

Exactly what constitutes unparliamentary language is generally left to the discretion of the Speaker of the House. Part of the speaker's job can be to enforce the assembly's debating rules, one of which is that members may not use "unparliamentary" language. That is, their words must not offend the dignity of the assembly. In addition, legislators in some places are protected from prosecution and civil actions by parliamentary immunity which generally stipulates that they cannot be sued or otherwise prosecuted for anything spoken in the legislature. Consequently, they are expected to avoid using words or phrases that might be seen as abusing that immunity.

Like other rules that have changed with the times, speakers' rulings on unparliamentary language reflect the tastes of the period. The Table, the annual journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Commonwealth Parliaments, includes a list of expressions ruled unparliamentary that year in the national and regional assemblies of its members.

Australia
In the Australian Senate, the words "liar" and "dumbo" were ordered to be withdrawn and deemed unparliamentary during a session in 1997.

Profanity is almost always considered unparliamentary language in both houses of the Australian Parliament, and in all other Australian legislatures. Hence, the words fuck and cunt are almost always avoided. However, other words such as shit and bullshit are more commonly used, but are still generally considered unparliamentary.

Queensland
In the Queensland Parliament, utterances found to be unparliamentary include:

 * "He is so arrogant and out of touch and thinks himself so great that he is the only member in this House who could polish the chandeliers with his nose, because he is constantly looking over and out above everybody."
 * "The scab nurses' union and the scab ambulance union did not stand up for their supposed members..."
 * "...as opposed to the member for Maryborough, who not only looks like a clown but sounds like one and behaves like one."
 * "Bugger. I was on a roll. Sorry."
 * "...and said the team's main KPI was to provide media which would 'give the Labor minister a stiffy'."
 * barely more respectable than that of a warlord
 * "We get the balance of power, very simply that means that we have the testicles of the Government in our hand at every given stage" [quoting from a source]
 * Steve then went on to use three angry emojis and two swearing emojis
 * They were exciting times in my household during that era because my son very proudly was the "arse of the ass"
 * the entire LNP front bench—was a conga line of suckholes sucking up to Malcolm Turnbull and Queenslanders
 * You were the biggest peanut there
 * "They can't. They're muppets" and "I take that interjection. They are muppets"
 * Pantomime man. You goose.
 * ... we cannot even get the Premier and certainly the Treasurer to mention the c-word [reference to coal].
 * Of course, she is coming as a jellyfish, because they do not have a spine
 * ...the Premier more or less told me to bugger off
 * ...a councillor who was a bit of a dropkick
 * Fruit loop [in reference to the National Party backbench]
 * You goose!
 * We have a Treasurer who is a goose an absolute goose
 * Apparatchik... owned by the RTBU, the ETU and AFULE...
 * Suck up to her union mates
 * "You're a dog."
 * "WTF?" The State of Origin is not culturally significant to Queensland?
 * I referred to the Leader of the Opposition as the Eeyore of Queensland politics.
 * Treated us all like mushrooms—kept us all in the dark and fed us crap.
 * Bullshit
 * It is a bloody disgrace
 * I was asked to sit down and give you the opportunity to jump because you were sooking.
 * I withdraw the comment that the Treasurer is a "tossing" Treasurer and say that he is a "coin-flipping Treasurer"
 * You nitwit
 * You knucklehead
 * In the words of the Prime Minister, this budget is crap
 * It is my belief that the member for... is too lazy to read the amendments. He must have had his head in a chaff bag to not have even considered this.
 * Like bloody hell!
 * It is always interesting following the female fascist from Nanango.
 * My view is this: if you lie down with corrupt dogs, you get up with corrupt fleas
 * Maggot!
 * You're the one that buggered it up... you're a hypocrite.
 * He has a bit of trouble with his medication at times.
 * He has wind coming out both ends.
 * ... is the hairy-nosed wombat of environment ministers across Australia.
 * I hope there are no drunks using light poles.
 * you gutless wonders
 * Far Knuth
 * He knew he was in for a pizzling—sorry.
 * ... the troglodytes over there in the LNP
 * You are spivs and scumbags.

Belgium
In Belgium, there is no such thing as unparliamentary language. A member of parliament is allowed to say anything they wish when inside parliament. This is considered necessary in Belgium to be able to speak of a democratic state and is a constitutional right. Nevertheless, when on 27 March 2014, Laurent Louis called the Prime Minister Elio Di Rupo a pedophile, the other members of parliament left the room in protest. This immunity that manifests itself in an absolute freedom of speech when in parliament does not exist when outside of parliament. In that case, prosecution is possible when and if the majority of parliament decides so.

Canada
These are some of the words and phrases that speakers through the years have ruled "unparliamentary" in the Parliament of Canada, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, the National Assembly of Québec, and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

 * Parliamentary pugilist (1875)
 * a bag of wind (1878)
 * inspired by forty-rod whisky (1881)
 * coming into the world by accident (1886)
 * blatherskite (1890)
 * the political sewer pipe from Carleton County (1917)
 * lacking in intelligence (1934)
 * a dim-witted saboteur (1956)
 * liar (1959, 2022)
 * devoid of honour (1960)
 * joker in the house (1960)
 * ignoramus (1961)
 * scurrilous (1961)
 * to hell with Parliament attitude (1961)
 * trained seal (1961)
 * evil genius (1962)
 * demagogue (1963)
 * Canadian Mussolini (1964)
 * sick animal (1966)
 * pompous ass (1967)
 * crook (1971)
 * does not have a spine (1971)
 * fuddle duddle (1971)
 * pig (1977)
 * jerk (1980)
 * sleazebag (1984)
 * racist (1986, 1997 and 2020)
 * absolute fraud (1986)
 * lying scum (1987)
 * scuzzball (1988)
 * traitor (1992)
 * son of a bitch (1997)
 * modern‑day Klansmen (2002)
 * weathervane (2007)
 * Il Duce (2007)
 * you piece of shit (2011)
 * he doesn't give a fuck (2018)
 * “The only thing that I regret about Margaret Thatcher’s death is that it happened probably 30 years too late.” (2020)
 * crap (2021)
 * wacko (2024)

Fiji
In the Parliament of Fiji, there has been debate over what is considered unparliamentary language. In 2021, then-Speaker Ratu Epeli Nailatikau ruled that the word "imbecile" was not considered unparliamentary language.

Hong Kong
The President of the Legislative Council ordered out for using the following phrases:
 * 臭罌出臭草 ("foul grass grows out of a foul ditch"), when referring to some of the members (1996).

The following phrases have been deemed unparliamentary by the President of the Legislative Council:
 * 仆街 (literally "stumble on street", loosely translated as "go die" or "go to hell") widely considered by Hong Kongers as unacceptable language in civil settings (2009).

India
In 2012, the Indian Parliament published a book of words and phrases that were considered to be unparliamentary:

"Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, bad man, badmashi, bandicoot, blackmail, blind, deaf and dumb, bluffing, bribe, bucket of shit, communist, confused mind, dacoit, darling (said to a female MP), deceive, double-minded, double-talk, downtrodden, goonda, lazy, liar, loudmouth, lousy, nuisance, racketeer, radical extremist, rat, ringmaster, scumbag, thief, thumbprint (to an illiterate MP)"In July 2022, the Lok Sabha Secretariat came up with a booklet of unparliamentary words with an additional list of the following: "abused, ahankaar, anarchist, apmaan, asatya, ashamed, baal buddhi, bechara, behri sarkar, betrayed, bloodshed, bloody, bobcut, chamcha, chamchagiri, cheated, chelas, childishness, corrupt, Covid spreader, coward, criminal, crocodile tears, daadagiri, dalal, danga, dhindora peetna, dictatorial, disgrace, dohra charitra, donkey, drama, eyewash, foolish, fudge, gaddar, ghadiyali ansu, girgit, goons, hooliganism, hypocrisy, incompetent, Jaichand, jumlajeevi, kala bazaari, kala din, Khalistani, khareed farokht, khoon se kheti, lie, lollypop, mislead, nautanki, nikamma, pitthu, samvedanheen, sexual harassment, Shakuni, Snoopgate, taanashah, taanashahi, untrue, vinash purush, vishwasghat."

Ireland
In Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas (Irish parliament), the chair (Ceann Comhairle or replacement) rules in accordance with standing orders on disorderly conduct, including prohibited words, expressions, and insinuations. If the chair rules that an utterance is out of order, then typically the member withdraws the remark and no further action occurs. The relevant words are retained in the Official Report transcription despite being formally withdrawn. The chair cannot rule if they did not hear the words alleged to be unparliamentary. A member who refuses to withdraw a remark may be suspended and must leave the chamber. A periodically updated document, Salient Rulings of the Chair, lists past rulings, ordered by topic, with reference to the Official Report. Rulings superseded by subsequent changes to standing orders are omitted. It is disorderly for one Teachta Dála (TD; deputy) to "call another Deputy names", specifically including:

"brat, buffoon, chancer, communist, corner boy, coward, fascist, gurrier, guttersnipe, hypocrite, rat, scumbag, scurrilous speaker, or yahoo;"

or to insinuate that a TD is lying or drunk. The word "handbagging" is unparliamentary "particularly with reference to a lady member of the House". Allegations of criminal or dishonourable conduct against a member can only be made by a formal motion. Conduct specifically ruled on includes selling one's vote, violation of cabinet confidentiality, and doctoring the Official Report. Charges against a member's political party are allowed; the chair decides whether an allegation is "personal" or "political". Members may not refer to the Dáil or its proceedings as a:

"circus, farce, slander machine."

During a December 2009 debate, Paul Gogarty said, "With all due respect, in the most unparliamentary language, fuck you Deputy [Emmet] Stagg." He immediately apologised and withdrew the remark. The debate's temporary chairman at the time lacked the Ceann Comhairle's power to suspend disorderly members; in any case, once Gogarty withdrew the remark he was not out of order, although his words led to general disorder in the chamber. Gogarty's apology noted ("rather tenuously" ) that the word fuck was not explicitly listed in the Salient Rulings. Ensuing calls for tougher sanctions led the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges (CPP) to refer the matter to a subcommittee, which said the correct response was for the CPP to issue a formal rebuke, as had in fact been done to Gogarty.

After heated interruptions to a November 2012 debate, Ceann Comhairle Seán Barrett said "This is not a shouting match, like gurriers on a street shouting at each other." A spokesperson said gurriers was not out of order since it was not addressed at an individual.

Italy
In Italian history, the unparliamentarian language was the only limit to free speech of a deputy. So it was claimed by Giacomo Matteotti in his last discourse in the Chamber of Deputies: "I ask to speak not prudently, nor imprudently, but parliamentarianly"

- Giacomo Matteotti

In addition, during the Republic, the use of foul language in Parliament produced jurisprudence by the constitutional court, which has implemented the libel suits.

New Zealand
The Parliament of New Zealand maintains a list of words, and particularly phrases, that the Speaker has ruled are unbecoming, insulting, or otherwise unparliamentary. These include:
 * Members hated the sight of khaki (1943)
 * I would cut the honourable gentleman's throat if I had the chance (1946)
 * idle vapourings of a mind diseased (1946)
 * his brains could revolve inside a peanut shell for a thousand years without touching the sides (1949)
 * Member not fit to lick the shoes of the Prime Minister (1959)
 * energy of a tired snail returning home from a funeral (1963)
 * Could go down the Mount Eden sewer and come up cleaner than he went in (1974)
 * Intestinal fortitude (1974)
 * Racist (1977)
 * The Arapawa Goat (1980)
 * Ditch the bitch (1980)

The Parliament also maintains a list of language that has been uttered in the House, and has been found not to be unparliamentary; this includes:
 * commo (meaning communist, 1969)
 * scuttles for his political funk hole (1974)

Norway
In 2009, a member of the Progress Party was interrupted during question period by the Speaker for calling a minister a "highway bandit".

Singapore
On 11 July 2023, PAP MP Tan Chuan-Jin made a public apology to WP MP Jamus Lim after a clip of him using "unparliamentary language" during a 17 April parliamentary sitting was shared on Reddit. As Speaker of Parliament, Tan was heard saying "fucking populist" shortly after Lim had finished a 20-minute speech urging the PAP government to further help lower-income groups and to establish an official poverty line. Lim accepted his apology.

United Kingdom
In the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, the following words have been deemed unparliamentary over time: bastard, blackguard, coward, deceptive, dodgy, drunk, falsehoods, git, guttersnipe, hooligan, hypocrite, idiot, ignoramus, liar, misled, pipsqueak, rat, slimy, sod, squirt, stoolpigeon, swine, tart, traitor, and wart.

In addition, accusations of "crooked deals" or insinuation of the use of illicit drugs by a member are considered unparliamentary language (all attributable to Dennis Skinner). An accusation that an MP's presence in the house has "been bought" is also unparliamentary.

The word 'dodgy' when used by Ed Miliband, was not however, found to be unparliamentary. Coventry South MP, Zarah Sultana had used the word "dodgy" against transport secretary Grant Shapps and fellow cabinet member Jacob Rees-Mogg.

In 2019, in the run up to the Conservative leadership election, SNP leader Ian Blackford accused Boris Johnson of being a racist. Asked to withdraw the term by the speaker, Blackford confirmed that he had informed Johnson about his intention to use it and qualified his statement. The speaker then allowed it to stand. In the following week he accused Johnson of being a liar ("has made a career out of lying"). No request was made by the speaker to withdraw this statement.

In 2021, Labour MP Dawn Butler was ejected from the Commons for accusing Boris Johnson of lying repeatedly to the House. When asked by the deputy speaker to "reflect on her words" after the first statement, Butler replied "It's funny that we get in trouble in this place for calling out the lie, rather than the person lying" whereupon she was ordered to withdraw from the House.

It is not unparliamentary to accuse an MP of lying if the accusation forms the basis of a substantive motion in the House. This allowed, for example, John Profumo to be censured by the House in 1963 after he had been found to have lied to the police as part of the Profumo affair, and Boris Johnson in 2023 after the Committee of Privileges found he had repeatedly lied to Parliament regarding his knowledge of illegality during the Partygate affair.

The mention of the word "batshit" by the Shadow Home Secretary in November 2023 was not regarded as unparliamentary in that no intervention was made by the Speaker during the debate. It also wasn't raised in any of the points of order soon after. Search of House of Commons Hansard reveals a number of occasions involving the word "shit" that have gone without intervention in recent times including mention by Boris Johnson as Prime Minister in September 2019. Although the Mirror newspaper called this "very unparliamentary", the Speaker did not in fact intervene. As regards euphemisms, the word "effing" was criticized as unparliamentary by the Speaker during one of the Brexit debates but the mention of the phrase "eff business" by Keir Starmer during a more recent session of Prime Minister's Questions did not cause intervention.

Northern Ireland
The Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, William Hay, gave a ruling in the chamber on 24 November 2009 on unparliamentary language. In essence rather than making judgements on the basis of particular words or phrases that have been ruled to be unparliamentary in the Assembly or elsewhere the Speaker said that he would judge members' remarks against standards of courtesy, good temper and moderation which he considered to be the standards of parliamentary debate. He went on to say that in making his judgement he would consider the nature of members' remarks and the context in which they were made. In 2013, Hay ruled that insinuation of MLAs being members of proscribed organizations was unparliamentary language.

Wales
In the National Assembly for Wales the Presiding Officer has intervened when the term "lying" has been used. In December 2004, the Presiding Officer notably sent Leanne Wood out of the chamber for referring to Queen Elizabeth II as "Mrs Windsor".

United States
In the US, representatives were censured for using unparliamentary language in the House of Representatives throughout its history. Other levels of government have similar disciplinary procedures dealing with inappropriate words spoken in the legislature.

Avoiding unparliamentary language
It is a point of pride among some British MPs to be able to insult their opponents in the House without using unparliamentary language. Several MPs, notably Sir Winston Churchill, have been considered masters of this game.

Some terms which have evaded the Speaker's rules are:

 * Terminological inexactitude (lie)
 * Being economical with the truth (lying by omission), since used on the floor of the house as an insult or taunt.
 * Tired and emotional, a euphemism for intoxicated

Clare Short implicitly accused the Employment minister Alan Clark of being drunk at the dispatch box shortly after her election in 1983, but avoided using the word, saying that Clark was "incapable". Clark's colleagues on the Conservative benches in turn accused Short of using unparliamentary language and the Speaker asked her to withdraw her accusation. Clark later admitted in his diaries that Short had been correct in her assessment. In 1991, Speaker Bernard Weatherill adjudged that usage of the word "jerk" by Opposition leader Neil Kinnock, who had applied that epithet to Robert Adley, was not unparliamentary language.

title: Unparliamentary language