Talk:Upper house

constitutions

Under "powers", it says "The British House of Lords is sometimes seen as having a special role of safeguarding the constitution...". This is not strictly speaking correct because the UK doesn't have a consititution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.138.246.89 (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's got an uncodified one, so if the lower house tried to pass something that overrode long established precedent, that could be considered screwing with the "constitution". 69.142.2.68 11:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

If constitution means "a fundamental law that the legislature cannot alter", then indeed the UK has none. But a more literal meaning of constitution is "how the state is constituted", i.e. its structure and the laws defining that structure — such as the Acts of Union, the various Parliament Acts and HoL Acts .... —Tamfang (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

House of Lords Common?

Unter the common titles heading, it says that 'House of Lords' Is common, despite the fact that only one exists. Am I mistaken?

Historically there have been a few "Houses of Lords", but now the British on is the only one Keeperoftheseal 01:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging

The Second Chamber should be merged into this article. Now there's a redirect from Second chamber (lower c) to here. The same with First Chamber, but here the redirect has the capital C. --Hu Totya 12:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I agree, the two should be merged. --Kevin 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. it must be merged. Superzohar Talk 17:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree as well. Merge them! Salt 03:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am merging both Second Chamber and First Chamber to the correct articles now. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unique title?

How can Seanad Éireann (Irish senate) be an unique title? --89.97.35.70 (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, obviously the exact word 'Senate' doesn't appear in the names of most assemblies when written in their native language, but the English translation is likely to be Senate. I see no reason why the Seanad Éireann has been specially singled out. PaddyUniv (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no disagreement on this point, I'll remove it. —Tamfang (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange Article, No Refs, Much Vagueness

There is something very strange about this article. The term upper house is almost exclusive used by people to describe the legislatures of other countries, no one calls parts of their own legislature upper house. The name upper house is sometimes applied to institutions as different from each other as the US Senate (elected by the people), the British House of Lords (appointed by monarch, hereditary, etc.) and the German Bundesrat (members of state administrations). It is a useless term, often used, but no one knows what it means. Note that the article does not cite a single reference, which means that according to WP guidelines, almost every single sentence in it should be removed. CuriousOliver (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Upper house" is a common noun, and of course it's a useful abstraction. Certainly there are no countries where this is the official name, but the official names tend to differ, while meaning essentially the same - a legislative body with more prestige than the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.72.132 (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

Where do the terms "upper" and "lower" house originate from? --70.142.41.253 (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just read an old CNN article that says that "The House of Representatives met on the ground floor. The Senate met on the floor above and became known as the "upper chamber," as it is still called today." This was regarding the United States Congress first meeting place in Federal Hall in New York City. CNN.com - Symbolic site for Congress to meet - September 5, 2002 Jason McHuff (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if that is the true origin, I'd say the terms stuck because they were understood as referring to degrees of dignity; it's generally harder to get into the upper house. —Tamfang (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is NO Upper House or Lower House in the U.S. Congress. Both chambers have equal legisalative powers, unlike in a typical parliamentarian system. The Senate is not the upper house! I am changing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.198.98 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The official website of the United States senate has many references to itself as the "upper house". Mediatech492 (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Photos

I think it's too bad that photo of the Canadian Senate Chamber features only a couple of chairs and desks - it is truly a beautiful room, as a wider shot would have shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.25.44 (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible specific characteristics

The above-entitled section is a grammatical mess. The first item is especially obscure:

• Given less power than the lower house, with special reservations, e.g. only when seizing a proposal by evocation, not on the budget, nor the house of reference for majority assent.

Is this one example or three? What does "seizing ... by evocation" mean? What does "house of reference" mean? —Tamfang (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh. Guess I'll have to remove that item to get someone's attention. —Tamfang (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Possible specific characteristics"

Is it not absurd to list eleven items, and then say that "at least one applies", "usually"? It proves that there is no generally accepted meaning of the term "upper house". It seems to be nothing more than a term that has been in use in some places (e.g. United Kingdom), but not in others. Those who keep trying to identify an upper house in every bicameral legislative system should stop and concede that, for example the Senate of the United States, or the Bundesrat of Germany, are not generally considered upper houses. CuriousOliver (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Imperial Council of Lords - Empire of Endesia

I'm pretty sure "Imperial Council of Lords - Empire of Endesia" doesn't exist. -- Citizen127 (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Right. I've removed it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

hereditary history

In the past, some upper houses had seats that were entirely hereditary, such as in the British House of Lords until 1999 ...

Doesn't it still have a few seats that are "entirely hereditary"? I seem to remember that the Duke of Norfolk is guaranteed a seat (ex officio as Earl Marshal, but that office is hereditary).

If the sentence means that all seats (the entirety of the House) were hereditary, I don't think that was ever true. Nearly all peerages created since 1963 (not 1999) are for life only, not hereditary. Even before then, the House of Lords included most bishops of the Church of England. —Tamfang (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Unique titles

In "Unique titles", what does the gray background on some cells indicate? --Ungulates (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

And why do both lines for India list names that are specifically mentioned as common terms (and shared with other countries) in the section immediately above. And National Assembly is used by two countries in that table, so not unique and should be under Common terms instead.

(Actually, checking the history, grey background used to mean a historical term not used by the current government of that nation. Somewhere along the line the key to that info got removed, without removing the highlighting itself. That was probably an error...) 82.24.247.127 (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upper_house&diff=926168044&oldid=922385607 and the changes around it did a bit of damage, and only some of those changes were reverted a few days later. 82.24.247.127 (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)