can citizens in washington dc vote for president

In the United States House of Representatives, the District is represented by a delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the House floor but can vote on procedural matters and in congressional committees. D.C. residents have no representation in the United States Senate. The Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1961, entitles the District to the same number of electoral votes as that of the least populous state in the election of the President and Vice President of the United States.

District of Columbia voting rights

Voting rights of citizens in the District of Columbia differ from the rights of citizens in each of the 50 U.S. states. The United States Constitution grants each state voting representation in both houses of the United States Congress. As the U.S. capital, the District of Columbia is a special federal district, not a state, and therefore does not have voting representation in Congress. The Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District in "all cases whatsoever".

The District's lack of voting representation in Congress has been an issue since the capital's founding. Numerous proposals have been introduced to change this situation, including legislation and constitutional amendments, returning the District to the state of Maryland, and making the District into a new state. All proposals have been met with political or constitutional challenges and there has been no change in the District's representation in Congress.

In 1783, a crowd of disbanded Revolutionary War soldiers angry about not having been paid gathered to protest outside the building where the Continental Congress was meeting. The soldiers blocked the door and initially refused to allow the delegates to leave. Despite requests from the Congress, the Pennsylvania state government declined to call out its militia to deal with the unruly mob, and so Congress was forced to abruptly adjourn to New Jersey. This led to the widespread belief that Congress needed control over the national capital. As Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 43, "Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy." This belief resulted in the creation of a national capital, separate from any state, by the Constitution's District Clause.[1]

The "District Clause" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution states:

[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.

In 1788, the land on which the District is formed was ceded by Maryland. In 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act placing the District on the Potomac River between the Anacostia and Connogochegue with the exact location chosen by President Washington. His selection was announced on January 24, 1791, and the Residence Act was amended to include land that Virginia had ceded in 1790. That land was returned to Virginia in 1847. The Congress did not officially move to the new federal capital until the first Monday in December 1800. During that time the District was governed by a combination of a federally appointed Board of Commissioners, the state legislatures and locally elected governments.[2]

On February 27, 1801, only a few months after moving to the District, Congress passed the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 and incorporated the new federal District under its sole authority as permitted by the District Clause, making Congress the supreme source of all local laws. Since the District of Columbia ceased being part of any state and was not a state itself, the District's residents lost voting representation in Congress, the Electoral College, and in the Constitutional amendment process â€” consequences that did not go without protest.[3] In January 1801, a meeting of District citizens was held which resulted in a statement to Congress noting that as a result of the impending Organic Act "we shall be completely disfranchised in respect to the national government, while we retain no security for participating in the formation of even the most minute local regulations by which we are to be affected. We shall be reduced to that deprecated condition of which we pathetically complained in our charges against Great Britain, of being taxed without representation."[2] The following year, the Board of Commissioners was abolished, the city of Washington was incorporated and a local government consisting of a locally elected 12-member council and a Mayor appointed by the President was put in place.[2]

In 1812, the District was given greater home rule when the Mayor became an elected official, chosen from among the group of 12 elected council members and 8 aldermen, and in 1820 the Mayor became directly elected. Small modifications were made over the years, but in 1871 the District government was again dramatically modified, this time getting a government more similar to that of the territories. Under this new government, the Governor of the District was again appointed by the President, as were all members of one house of the District legislature. The Congress abolished the territorial government in 1874 and replaced it with a presidentially appointed council.[2]

In 1878, the District was given a permanent government, still consisting of a three-member council appointed by the President. It was later decided that this congressional act constituted the District's Constitution, making the District the only territory that had not been allowed to write its own Constitution.[2]

In the 1950s, as part of the larger Civil Rights Movement, interest emerged in giving DC full representation. As a compromise, the Twenty-third Amendment was adopted in 1961, granting the District a number of votes in the Electoral College in measure to their population, but no more than the smallest state. This right has been exercised by DC residents since the presidential election of 1964.

The District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 devolved certain congressional powers over the District to a local government administered by an elected mayor, currently Muriel Bowser, and the thirteen-member Council of the District of Columbia. However, the Congress retains the right to review and overturn any of the District's laws.[4] Each of the city's eight wards elects a single member of the council, and five members, including the chairman, are elected at large.[5]

In 1978, Congress submitted the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment to the states for ratification. It would have given the District full congressional representation, full participation in presidential elections, and the authority of a state regarding amending the Constitution.[6]

In 1980, District voters approved the call of a constitutional convention to draft a proposed state constitution,[7] just as U.S. territories had done prior to their admission as states. The proposed constitution was ratified by District voters in 1982 for a new state to be called "New Columbia", but the Congress has not granted statehood to the District.[8]

Pursuant to that proposed state constitution, the District still selects members of a shadow congressional delegation, consisting of two shadow Senators and a shadow Representative, to lobby the Congress to grant statehood. These positions are not officially recognized by the Congress. Additionally, until May 2008, the Congress prohibited the District from spending any funds on lobbying for voting representation or statehood.[9]

On December 29, 2003, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States concluded that the United States is violating the District of Columbia's rights under Articles II and XX of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man by denying District of Columbia citizens an effective opportunity to participate in the Congress. The Commission reiterated the following recommendation to the United States: "Provide the Petitioners with an effective remedy, which includes adopting the legislative or other measures necessary to guarantee to the Petitioners the effective right to participate, directly or through freely chosen representatives and in general conditions of equality, in their national legislature".[10]

A 2005 poll paid for by the advocacy group D.C. Vote, but conducted by the non-partisan polling firm KRC Research, found that 82% of 1,007 adults believed that D.C. should have full congressional voting representation.[11] A 2007 Washington Post poll of 788 adults found that 61% of those adults supported granting the District "a full voting" Representative.[12]

There are arguments for and against giving the District of Columbia voting representation in the Congress.

Advocates of voting representation for the District of Columbia argue that as citizens living in the United States, the District's estimated 672,228 residents[13] should have the same right to determine how they are governed as citizens of a state. At least as early as 1776, George Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Rights:

VI. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.

VII. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.[14]

Justice Hugo Black described the right to vote as fundamental in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). He wrote, "No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined."[15]

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act allows U.S. citizens to vote absentee for their home state's Congressional representatives from anywhere else in the world. If a U.S. citizen were to move to the District, that person would lose the ability to vote for a member of the Congress. U.S. citizens who have permanently left the United States are still permitted to vote absentee for the Congress in the state where they last held residency. Scholars have argued that if U.S. citizens who are residents of other countries are allowed to vote in federal elections, then the Congress can extend the same rights to residents of the nation's capital.[15][16]

The primary objection to legislative proposals to grant the District voting rights is that some provisions of the Constitution suggest that such an action would be unconstitutional.[17] How the House of Representatives is to be composed is described in Article I, Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative... who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Representatives... shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers[.]

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment reaffirms Article I, Section 2 in that regard when it says:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

In addition, the Seventeenth Amendment correspondingly describes the election of "two Senators from each State". Those who believe D.C. voting rights legislation would be unconstitutional point out that the District of Columbia is not a U.S. state.[18] Advocates of voting rights legislation claim that Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (the District Clause), which grants Congress "exclusive" legislative authority over the District, also allows the Congress to pass legislation that would grant D.C. voting representation in the Congress.[15] The District is entitled to three electors in the Electoral College, pursuant to the Twenty-third Amendment which says the District is to have:

A number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State[.][19]

Unlike residents of U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico or Guam, which also have non-voting delegates, citizens of the District of Columbia are subject to all U.S. federal taxes.[20] In the financial year 2007, D.C. residents and businesses paid $20.4Â billion in federal taxes; more than the taxes collected from 19 states and the highest federal taxes per capita.[21] This situation has given rise to the use of the phrase "Taxation Without Representation" by those in favor of granting D.C. voting representation in the Congress. The slogan currently appears on the city's vehicle license plates. The issue of taxation without representation in the District of Columbia is not new. For example, in Loughborough v. Blake 18 U.S. 317 (1820), the Supreme Court said:

The difference between requiring a continent, with an immense population, to submit to be taxed by a government having no common interest with it, separated from it by a vast ocean, restrained by no principle of apportionment, and associated with it by no common feelings; and permitting the representatives of the American people, under the restrictions of our constitution, to tax a part of the society...which has voluntarily relinquished the right of representation, and has adopted the whole body of Congress for its legitimate government, as is the case with the district, is too obvious not to present itself to the minds of all. Although in theory it might be more congenial to the spirit of our institutions to admit a representative from the district, it may be doubted whether, in fact, its interests would be rendered thereby the more secure; and certainly the constitution does not consider their want of a representative in Congress as exempting it from equal taxation.[22]

In 1971, Susan Breakefield sued to recover three years of income taxes she paid to the District of Columbia because she said she was a victim of taxation without representation.[23] Breakefield lost her case before both the District of Columbia Tax Court and the United States Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.[23]

Opponents of D.C. voting rights point out that Congress appropriates money directly to the D.C. government to help offset some of the city's costs.[24] However, proponents of a tax-centric view against D.C. representation do not apply the same logic to the 32 states that received more money from the federal government in 2005 than they paid in taxes.[25] Additionally, the federal government is exempt from paying city property taxes and the Congress prohibits the District from imposing a commuter tax on non-residents who work in the city. Limiting these revenue sources strains the local government's finances.[24] Like the 50 states, D.C. receives federal grants for assistance programs such as Medicare, accounting for approximately 26% of the city's total revenue. Congress also appropriates money to the District's government to help offset some of the city's security costs; these funds totaled $38 million in 2007, approximately 0.5% of the District's budget.[26] In addition to those funds, the U.S. government provides other services. For example, the federal government operates the District's court system, which had a budget of $272 million in 2008.[27] Additionally, all federal law enforcement agencies, such as the U.S. Park Police, have jurisdiction in the city and help provide security.[28] In total, the federal government provided about 33% of the District's general revenue.[29] On average, federal funds formed about 30% of the states' general revenues in 2007.[30]

Opponents of D.C. voting rights have also contended that the city is too small to warrant representation in the House and Senate. However, sponsors of voting rights legislation point out that both Wyoming and Vermont have a smaller population than the District of Columbia.[31]

In modern times, all elections held in the district have been overwhelmingly won by the Democratic Party.[32] The Democrats' support of increased D.C. representation in Congress and the Republicans' opposition to it have been alleged to be purely for self-serving reasons.[33][34][35]

Since 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Committee report has cited the United States for denying DC residents voting rights in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty the United States ratified in 1992.[36]

Advocates for D.C. voting rights have proposed several, competing reforms to increase the District's representation in the Congress. These proposals generally involve either treating D.C. more like a state or allowing the state of Maryland to take back the land it ceded to form the District.

Several bills have been introduced in Congress to grant the District of Columbia voting representation in one or both houses of Congress.

The constitutional argument about whether Congress can provide the District of Columbia with a voting member in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate, is heavily debated by each side. In Hepburn v. Ellzey (1805), the Supreme Court held that the right of residents of the District to sue residents of other states is not explicitly stated in Article III, Section 2.[37] In National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc, 337 U.S. 582 (1949), the Supreme Court held that Congress could grant residents of the District of Columbia a right to sue residents of other states.[38] However, opponents of the constitutionality of the legislation to grant D.C. voting rights point out that seven of the nine Justices in Tidewater rejected the view that the District is a “state” for other constitutional purposes.[39] Opponents have also pointed out that if the power of Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over the District is used to supersede other sections of the Constitution, then the powers granted to Congress could potentially be unlimited.[33]

On January 24, 2007, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report on this subject. According to the CRS, "it would appear likely that the Congress does not have authority to grant voting representation in the House of Representatives to the District."[40]

A secondary criticism of a legislative remedy is that any law granting representation to the District could be undone in the future. Additionally, recent legislative proposals deal with granting representation in the House of Representatives only, which would still leave the issue of Senate representation for District residents unresolved.[39] Thus far, no bill granting the District voting representation has passed both houses of Congress. A summary of legislation proposed since 2003 is provided below.

The Justice Department during the administration of President George W. Bush took the position that “explicit provisions of the Constitution do not permit Congress to grant congressional representation to the District through legislation.”[41] Various such proposals were considered by the Congress during Bush's tenure:

On January 6, 2009, Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, and D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced in the House the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 (H.R. 157 and S. 160). On February 26, 2009, the Senate passed S. 160 by a vote of 61â€“37.[50] However, before passing the bill, the Senate adopted an amendment by Senator John Ensign that would have removed the authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit or unduly burden the ability of its residents to possess guns in their homes, on their property, or at their places of business. The Ensign amendment would have also repealed District legislation requiring gun registration, the District's ban on semiautomatic weapons, and the District's criminal penalties for possession of an unregistered handgun.[51] Following the Senate's passage of the bill, as amended, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on March 4 that he had postponed a House vote on the bill for at least a week,[52][53] but it quickly became clear there were not enough votes to bring the bill to the floor without any amendments.[54] Despite Hoyer's efforts to have the amendment's supporters withdraw it and propose it as separate legislation,[55] and Norton's efforts to achieve consensus within the District's political community, where there is strong opposition to Ensign's amendment, Hoyer had to announce on June 9 that the bill was on hold indefinitely.[56] In April 2010, the bill rather abruptly returned to the agenda,[57] but the week a vote was expected, Hoyer declared the bill was unlikely to be passed during the 111th Congress.[58] District politicians reiterated their opposition to the House passing the bill with Ensign's amendment.[59] The House bill was reintroduced in the 112th Congress as H.R.267.[60]

The Justice Department has split over the constitutionality of legislation to give the District of Columbia voting representation in the House of Representatives. The Office of Legal Counsel reported to Attorney General Eric Holder that the proposed legislation would be unconstitutional, but Holder overrode that determination and instead obtained an opinion from officials of the United States Solicitor General's office that the legislation could be defended if it were challenged after its enactment.[61]

The process of reuniting the District of Columbia with the state of Maryland is referred to as retrocession. The District was originally formed out of parts of both Maryland and Virginia which they had ceded to the Congress. However, Virginia's portion was returned to that state in 1846; all the land in present-day D.C. was once part of Maryland.[62] If both the Congress and the Maryland state legislature agreed, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia could be returned to Maryland, possibly excluding a small tract of land immediately surrounding the United States Capitol, the White House and the Supreme Court building.[63] If the District were returned to Maryland, citizens in D.C. would gain voting representation in the Congress as residents of Maryland. One problem with any of these proposals, according to one Virginia Republican in a 1999 interview, is that the state of Maryland does not currently want to take the District back.[64][better source needed] Further, although the U.S. Constitution does not specify a minimum size for the District, retrocession may require a constitutional amendment, as the District's role as the seat of government is mandated by the Constitution's District Clause.[64][65] Retrocession could also alter the idea of a separate national capital as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.[66] It may also violate the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution's granting of votes in the electoral college, as they would still be constitutionally granted to the district.

A proposal related to retrocession was the "District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act of 2004" (H.R. 3709), which would have treated the residents of the District as residents of Maryland for the purposes of congressional representation. Maryland's congressional delegation would then be apportioned accordingly to include the population of the District.[67] Those in favor of such a plan argue that the Congress already has the necessary authority to pass such legislation without the constitutional concerns of other proposed remedies. From the foundation of the District in 1790 until the passage of the Organic Act of 1801, citizens living in D.C. continued to vote for members of Congress in Maryland or Virginia; legal scholars therefore propose that the Congress has the power to restore those voting rights while maintaining the integrity of the federal district.[16] However, the proposed legislation never made it out of committee.[67]

Given the potential constitutional problems with legislation granting the District voting representation in the Congress, scholars have proposed that amending the U.S. Constitution would be the appropriate manner to grant D.C. full representation.[33]

In 1978, the Congress proposed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Under this amendment, the District of Columbia would have been "treated as though it were a State" regarding congressional representation, presidential elections (replacing the limited treatment under the Twenty-third Amendment) and the constitutional amendment process. The amendment had to be ratified within seven years to be adopted. The amendment was ratified by only 16 states, short of the requisite three-fourths (38) of the states, and so it expired in 1985.[40] The amendment has never been resubmitted for ratification.

Senator Lisa Murkowski believed the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 would be unconstitutional if adopted and so she proposed a constitutional amendment to provide the District with one representative.[68][69] Unlike the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, Murkowski's proposal would not have provided the District any Senators or a role in the constitutional amendment process. Her proposal was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which never acted on the proposal.[70]

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution gives the Congress power to grant statehood. If the District were to become a state, congressional authority over the District would be terminated and residents would have full voting representation in both houses of the Congress. However, there are a number of constitutional considerations with any such statehood proposal.[8]

In 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of a new state to be called "New Columbia".[71] This campaign for statehood stalled. After the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment expired in 1985, another constitution for the state of New Columbia was drafted in 1987.[71] The House of Representatives last voted on D.C. statehood in November 1993 and the proposal was defeated by a vote of 277 to 153.[8] Like retrocession, it has been argued that D.C. statehood would erode the principle of a separate federal territory as the seat of the federal government and that a constitutional amendment would be needed to avoid a violation of the Constitution's District Clause.[65]

On April 15, 2016, District Mayor Muriel Bowser called for a citywide vote on whether the District should become the 51st state.[72] This was followed by the release of a proposed state constitution.[73] This constitution would make the Mayor of the District of Columbia the governor of the proposed state, while the members of the City Council would make up the proposed House of Delegates. Despite requests for a different name, the proposed state constitution refers to the District as "New Columbia."[74] However, the Council of the District of Columbia passed legislation making the proposed name "State of Washington, D.C." Under this proposed name "D.C." stands for "Douglass Commonwealth," a reference to the historic abolitionist Frederick Douglass.[75] District residents voted overwhelmingly in favor of statehood, in an advisory referendum, but Congress is unlikely to pass statehood legislation.[76][77]

Other countries with federal systems similar to the U.S. extend full voting rights to residents of the federal capital, comparable to those of a constituent state.

In the National Congress of Argentina, the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires has 25 seats in the Chamber of Deputies[78] as well as three in the Senate, the same as a province.[79]

In the Parliament of Australia, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has seats in both the House of Representatives and Senate, although it was not until 1974 that residents of the ACT were able to vote for the latter.[80] Unlike a state, which elects twelve Senators, the ACT only elects two.[81]

In the National Congress of Brazil, the Federal District has eight seats in the Chamber of Deputies,[82] and three in the Federal Senate, the same number as a state.[83]

In the Parliament of India, the National Capital Territory of Delhi is represented by seven members in the Lok Sabha (lower house)[84] and three members in the Rajya Sabha (upper house), the latter being indirectly elected by the union territory's Legislative Assembly.[85]

In the Parliament of Malaysia, the federal territory of Kuala Lumpur (the original federal capital and still the seat of parliament) has eleven MPs in the Dewan Rakyat (lower house) by members, while Putrajaya (the administrative centre since 1999) has one. In the Dewan Negara (upper house) each of the federal territories is represented by two Senators, but these are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, whereas those representing the states are indirectly elected by each state legislative assembly.

In the Congress of Mexico, Mexico City is represented in the Chamber of Deputies,[86] as well as the Senate.[87]

In the National Assembly of Nigeria, the Federal Capital Territory has two seats in the House of Representatives and one seat in the Senate, unlike the states, each of which has three.

In the Parliament of Pakistan, the Islamabad Capital Territory has two seats in the National Assembly[88] and four in the Senate.[89]

Berlin, the capital of Germany, is also both a city and one of the sixteen states and is represented on the same basis as the other states in the directly elected Bundestag, in which it has twelve directly elected seats, and the indirectly elected Bundesrat, to which its Senate (or executive) sends four members.[90]

Vienna, the capital of Austria, is also one of the nine states and is represented on the same basis as the other states in the Parliament, in the directly elected National Council (lower house) and the indirectly elected Federal Council, to which its Gemeinderat and Landtag sends members.[91]

Brussels, the capital of Belgium, is also one of the three regions of Belgium, forming the Brussels-Capital Region, and is represented in the Federal Parliament by fifteen directly elected members of the Chamber of Representatives and indirectly elected members of the Senate, chosen by the Parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region. In addition, as the capital of the Flemish Region and the Flemish Community, Brussels is also represented in the Flemish Parliament. However, its members have no voting rights on matters devolved to the Brussels-Capital Region.[92] The city is also capital of the French Community and has members in the Parliament of the French Community, elected by the French linguistic group of the Parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region.

Ottawa, the capital of Canada, is not located in a separate territory or district. It instead is within the province of Ontario, of which Toronto is the capital. In the bicameral Parliament, Ottawa is represented by eight Members of Parliament in the House of Commons and is collectively represented with the rest of the province by Ontario's 24 appointed Senators in the Senate. As part of Ontario, Ottawa also elects eight Members of Provincial Parliament to the unicameral Legislative Assembly.

Bern, the unoffical capital of Switzerland, is part of the Canton of Bern, of which it is also capital, and of Bern-Mittelland, of which Ostermundigen is the capital. In the Federal Assembly, it is represented by 25 members in the National Council and two in the Council of States. As part of the Canton of Bern, Bern is represented in the Grand Council.

Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, is not located is a special district and is instead part of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, of which it is also seat. The Federal National Council is half elected and half appointed by the respective Rulers, with the Emirate of Abu Dhabi being allocated 4 elected seats, which is the highest number and on par with the Emirate of Dubai. Due to having the largest oil revenue, the Ruler of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi is also President of the United Arab Emirates, while the Ruler of the Emirate of Dubai is Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates.


who played the first receptionist in doc martin

In 2004, Punch played receptionist Elaine Denham on Doc Martin. She left the television show The Class after appearing in 11 of the first 12 episodes.[10] In 2006 she won the Best Actress award at the Monaco International Film Festival for her performance in Are You Ready For Love?[11] She played murder victim and actress Eve Draper in Edgar Wright's 2007 film Hot Fuzz.

Lucy Punch

Lucy Punch (born 30 December 1977)[1] is an English actress. She has appeared in films such as Ella Enchanted, Hot Fuzz, Bad Teacher, You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, Dinner for Schmucks, and Into the Woods. She is also known for her role as EsmÃ© Squalor in A Series of Unfortunate Events.

Punch was born in Hammersmith, the daughter of Johanna and Michael Punch, who ran a market research company.[2][3] She was educated privately at Godolphin and Latymer School in Hammersmith, London.[4] She performed with the National Youth Theatre from 1993 to 1997, and began a course at University College London before dropping out to become an actress.[5]

Punch made her acting debut in a 1998 episode of The New Adventures of Robin Hood.[6] Her other TV credits include the naive daughter of Alison Steadman's character in the short-lived series  Let Them Eat Cake which starred French and Saunders. She starred as a football player in the kids TV show Renford Rejects, and played the role of victim Melissa Townsend in the 19th episode of Midsomer Murders.

In 2000, Punch appeared in the film Greenfingers..  Punch made her stage debut as Elaine in Terry Johnson's West End adaptation of The Graduate.[7] She has worked at the Royal Court and Bush theatres, both in London.[8][9]

Punch starred in Woody Allen's 2010 film You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger.[12] In August 2010, she appeared in BBC Two's three part police comedy-drama Vexed. In 2011, Punch appeared in Bad Teacher, portraying sanctimonious school teacher Amy Squirrel.[13]

Punch was cast as Deena Pilgrim, the female lead in the TV pilot Powers,[14] but the role was recast. In 2016 she played Amanda, leader of the "Alpha mums" in the BBC comedy series Motherland.

In 2017, Punch was cast in the recurring role of EsmÃ© Squalor on the second season of the Netflix comedy drama series A Series of Unfortunate Events.[15]

Punch resides in West Hollywood, California.[4] She gave birth to her first child, a son named Rex, in July 2015.[16]


when was season 7 of parks and rec filmed

The first 12 episodes were aired within six weeks by airing two each week, back-to-back.[1] Production began on August 11, 2014,[26][27] and ended on December 12, 2014.[28] Although the program initially premiered in NBC's Must See TV Thursday night block, the final episodes were moved to Tuesdays, possibly in an attempt to compete with ABC's dramas.[29]

Parks and Recreation (season 7)

The seventh and final season of Parks and Recreation aired in the United States on the NBC television network from January 13, 2015 until February 24, 2015.[1] The season consisted of 13 episodes.[2]

This season differed from any other season of Parks and Recreation, in that it detailed a much larger story arc for the characters, showcasing their growth over the course of the show. Set in 2017, following Season 6, the season included Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler)'s new career as Regional Director of National Park Service, in addition to her two-year long fallout with former boss Ron Swanson (Nick Offerman). Also included was the rise of fictional tech company Gryzzl taking over Pawnee, Leslie's plea to Sweetums for a Pawnee National Park, and the eventual career departures of the gang from the Parks department.

† denotes an extended episode. ‡ denotes an hour-long episode.

The seventh season of Parks and Recreation overall, as well as the series finale, received universal praise from critics. Rotten Tomatoes gave the season a 100% rating based on 13 reviews.[30] IGN reviewer Matt Fowler gave the series finale a perfect 10 out of 10 score, saying "Doing what the show does best, Parks knocked it clear out of the park with "One Last Ride." A remarkably irresistible swirl of love and satire. The writers knew it wasn't enough to just send everyone off into the future. They knew we needed to see that future. Not just for peace of mind, but because we've all become so lovingly invested in the characters. This final season proved to us that we could withstand a time jump and still remain attached to everyone. And this finale used that to hop through the Pawnee gang's futures, creating an exciting, heartwarming journey."[31]


who do you play as in halo 3 odst

Halo 3: ODST is a shooter video game with most gameplay taking place from a first-person perspective. The game features an open world environment in the updated Kenyan city of Mombasa, referred to as New Mombasa.[1] Although the gameplay of ODST bears a strong resemblance to that of previous Halo titles, the player does not assume the role of the enhanced human supersoldier Master Chief, protagonist of Halo 3. Instead, the player controls human soldiers known as "Orbital Drop Shock Troopers" or ODSTs.[2] Since ODSTs do not possess the Master Chief's advanced armor and reflexes, they cannot jump as high, move as fast, survive large falls, or wield two weapons at once.[3] Instead of the Master Chief's damage-absorbing energy shield, the game uses a recharging stamina mechanic. After the player sustains damage, the screen flashes red and the stamina score decreases. If the player receives additional damage before the stamina can recover, the player's health is reduced.[4] Loss of all health causes the player character to die and restart at the last saved checkpoint. Medical packs scattered around the game environment can restore the player's health.[5] The player's head-up display (HUD) includes a "VISR" mode that outlines enemies in red, allies in green, and items of interest in either blue or yellow.[6]

Halo 3: ODST

Halo 3: ODST ("Orbital Drop Shock Troopers") is a 2009 first-person shooter video game developed by Bungie and published by Microsoft Game Studios. It is part of the Halo franchise, and was released on the Xbox 360 video game console on September 22, 2009. Players assume the roles of United Nations Space Command soldiers, known as "Orbital Drop Shock Troopers" or ODSTs, during and after the events of Halo 2. In the game's campaign mode, players explore the ruined city of New Mombasa to discover what happened to their missing teammates in the midst of an alien invasion. In the "Firefight" multiplayer option, players battle increasingly difficult waves of enemies to score points and survive as long as possible; Halo 3's multiplayer is contained on a separate disc packaged with ODST.

Bungie initially conceived ODST as a small side project to produce in the lull between Halo 3's completion and Halo: Reach. Instead of featuring recognizable characters such as armored protagonist Master Chief, the developers focused on the ODSTs. Story director Joseph Staten penned a detective story utilizing film noir designs, settings, and characters. Composer Martin O'Donnell abandoned his previous Halo themes to create a quieter, jazz-influenced sound. During development, the planned expansion grew in scope to that of a full-sized game. Release marketing for the game included a tie-in comic, live-action trailers, and print and web advertisements.

Upon release, ODST became the top-selling Xbox 360 game worldwide. The title received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised the atmosphere, music, and story approach. Reviewers were divided on whether the relatively short campaign and included extras were enough to justify the game's US$60 price tag. The game was the top-selling title in the United States in September 2009, and sold more than 3Â million copies worldwide. Softpedia, Time, and Wired were among publications that declared the game one of the year's best.

The game's Campaign mode may be played alone or cooperatively with a maximum of three additional players. As a lone human soldier known as "the Rookie,"[7] the player's goal is to discover what happened to his missing teammates. After finding a piece of evidence left behind, such as a sniper rifle hanging from a power line, the player will enter a flashback mission, where they assume the role of the missing soldier six hours earlier.[7][8] After the player has found the first piece of evidence, the choice of where to go next is left open; campaign levels may be played in any order.[9]

In the multiplayer matchmaking, ODST includes Halo 3's multiplayer game modes contained on a separate disc.[10] The offering contains 21 multiplayer maps released for Halo 3 as well as 3 additional maps titled Citadel, Heretic, and Longshore.[11] Along with the Halo 3 maps, ODST includes a version of the Forge map editor[12]—a utility that allows player customizations of multiplayer levels.[13]

ODST contains a cooperative game mode called Firefight, where players take on increasingly difficult waves of enemies in a timed survival game. Firefight can be played cooperatively with up to three other players via networked consoles (System Link) or Microsoft multiplayer service Xbox Live, or up to two players on the same console in splitscreen mode. Players start Firefight with only the Rookie as a playable character; completing the campaign mode unlocks other characters and maps. Players are awarded medals for making special kills, and individual and team scores are tracked throughout the games. Inside Firefight, players have a shared pool of seven lives, which are replenished after completing five rounds. Adding to the difficulty are modifiers called "skulls", which give enemies new abilities or a handicap to the player – the "Catch" skull, for example, causes enemies to throw greater numbers of grenades. Each of the first three rounds in a set activates a different skull. On the fourth set, all skulls are activated and the players must survive 60 seconds.[10][14][15]

ODST takes place in the 26th century, when humans under the command of the United Nations Space Command (UNSC) are locked in a war with a theocratic alliance of alien races known as the Covenant.[16] During the events of the 2004 video game Halo 2, the Covenant discover the location of Earth and launch an assault on the city of New Mombasa in Africa. Though the UNSC manages to repel most of the fleet, a large ship hovers over the city, depositing an invasion force. The ship eventually retreats via a slipspace jump, creating a massive shockwave.[8] While the rest of Halo 2's storyline follows the ship to an ancient installation identical to the first Halo, ODST focuses on the aftermath of the shockwave, while the Covenant still occupy the city.[17]

During the game, the player can unlock audio files to an additional narrative called "Sadie's Story", which tells the story of a civilian girl caught in the initial stages of the Covenant invasion and her quest to find her father. The tale can also provide useful information for the player during the game, such as helping to locate hidden caches of weapons.[17]

The game's protagonist is the unnamed Rookie, a new member of a group of Orbital Drop Shock Troopers. Troopers, known as ODSTs or Helljumpers,[18] often deploy in small, one-man Human Entry Vehicles (HEVs), launched from spaceships in the upper atmosphere.[19] The Rookie is assisted in finding his teammates by Mombasa's city maintenance AI, called the Superintendent or Virgil.[20][21] The Rookie's teammates are Buck, Dutch, Romeo, Mickey, and Dare.[22] The lattermost is a UNSC Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) agent in charge of the squad's operation.[23]

The game begins with Dutch (Adam Baldwin), Romeo (Nolan North), and Mickey (Alan Tudyk) discussing the Covenant ship above New Mombasa, with the Rookie asleep nearby. Buck (Nathan Fillion) arrives and introduces Dare (Tricia Helfer).[23] Romeo wakes the Rookie and the team enter their HEVs and drop through the atmosphere; at the last minute, Dare changes their trajectory to miss the ship.[24][25] The Covenant ship enters slipspace, sending a shockwave toward the ODSTs; the Rookie's pod collides with Mickey's and crashes into a building on the ground, knocking him unconscious for six hours.[26] He awakens and proceeds to find clues as to what happened to his squadmates.[27]

Buck makes a rough landing after the drop and fights through Covenant forces to find Dare. He finds Romeo instead, and the two resolve to find the others and get out of the city.[28] Dutch drops near a nature preserve and helps Marines fighting there. Mickey commandeers a tank and fights his way along a Mombasa boulevard. Meeting up with Dutch, the two defend an ONI base from the Covenant, destroying the facility to keep it from being captured. They are evacuated by a transport and make contact with Buck, arranging a rendezvous at police headquarters, but are shot down. Buck and Romeo rescue Dutch and Mickey, but Romeo is seriously wounded. The squad hijacks a Covenant dropship, but instead of leaving the city, Buck decides to have them turn back and find Dare.[29]

Back in the city, the Rookie is assisted by Virgil (the Superintendent), which leads him to Dare's position. The two reach the Superintendent's data core, which possesses information on something the Covenant is looking for underneath the city.[30] Inside the core, they discover a Covenant Engineer. Dare explains that the Engineers are "biological supercomputers" that have been enslaved by the Covenant, and the one they found wishes to defect to the humans; with the Engineer's information on the Covenant combined with the Superintendent's data,[31] Dare's mission changes from downloading the Superintendent's data to escorting the alien to safety. The Rookie, Dare, and the Engineer reunite with Buck and fight their way out of the city. As they fly away in the transport, the squad watches as Covenant ships destroy New Mombasa.[32]

In the epilogue, one month after the events of the campaign, the ODST squad has been keeping guard over the Engineer. Sergeant Major Avery Johnson arrives, informing the Engineer that he intends to ask it everything it knows about the Covenant—and what they are looking for—setting the stage for Halo 3.[33] If the campaign is completed on the Legendary difficulty level, a scene shows the Prophet of Truth overseeing the excavation of a Forerunner artifact buried beneath the Superintendent's data core.[32]

Much of ODST's development team started work on director Peter Jackson's Halo Chronicles video game during the production of Halo 3. However, the failure of a Halo film adaptation and the subsequent cancellation of Chronicles meant a sizeable team no longer had a project. Around the same time, production for Halo: Reach began, and Bungie realized that there was a window of time for the studio to create a new product,[34] what producer Curtis Creamer described as a two-to-three-hour "mini-campaign".[35] After looking at the proposal and the budget, studio head Harold Ryan gave the go-ahead.[34]

With a game engine already assembled, the team began honing the concept.[34] Bungie was interested in bringing changes to the classical Halo format which had remained essentially unchanged over three games. The developers spent weeks considering which characters they wanted to focus on.[36] Having players control previous protagonists such as the Master Chief or Arbiter would have brought with it story baggage and expectations.[37] At one point, they considered making the game a Covenant-themed story about an elite strike force. Instead, the developers looked at human characters; while they considered Avery Johnson, they settled on the ODSTs.[34] "The ODSTs have always been fan favorites," Bungie community director Brian Jarrard explained.[38] "We never really got inside [the ODSTs]," story director Joseph Staten said, and he saw that game as an opportunity to flesh out the black-armored soldiers.[36]

Making the player an ODST required gameplay changes to preserve the classic Halo gameplay formula while branching it in new directions. The addition of silenced weapons and a revamped pistol were attempts to split the functionality of Halo 2 and Halo 3's "battle rifle" weapon and give the ODSTs unique armaments. The sound designers increased the loudness of the game's submachine gun to make it feel more powerful. The health mechanism was added to provide a level of tension; "it reminds you that you're vulnerable," Staten said.[35]

With the main characters in place, the development team had to decide on a setting.[36] "The events that unfolded on Earth is something fans still clamor for after being'short changed' in Halo 2," Jarrard said.[38] "Fans wanted to know what happened back on Earth, how humanity was defending it."[39] New Mombasa's urban environments fit the intended feel of the game, as Bungie felt that the change of protagonists required a change in location: "We know the kinds of problems Master Chief solves," Staten explained. "He goes to ancient, alien ring artifacts, fights galaxy-consuming parasitic alien monsters and destroys alien empires [...] The ODST, they maybe take small parts in that larger struggle. But the kind of fights they usually get into are usually the kind of fights they can tackle in a day."[34]

Returning to a previous setting offered the artists new challenges and opportunities to expand the scope of the city.[36] Having the player walk through the streets at night inspired a film noir ambiance. Color shifts and a high degree of contrast pushed the game's look beyond what previous Halo games had offered,[36] but the team had to make sure that even dark portions of the city were playable.[35] The entire core development team looked at commissioned concept paintings to decide how lighting schemes would affect the gameplay. The genre also influenced the character names and archetypes. The player character, for example, fits the concept of a lone, hardboiled detective. To increase the depth of the surroundings, Bungie added touches such as advertisements, trash collectors, and civilian versions of previously seen military hardware.[36]

Bungie began development of ODST in March 2008.[40] ODST was the first Bungie title completed in less than three years,[41] as production lasted 14 months.[34] Since the team—numbering around 70, plus a five-person core design group[42]—had such a small window for development, they had to prioritize features; for example, rather than completely redesigning the enemies, only a small new subset of artificial intelligence behaviors were added. Because the game featured an open world different from most Halo missions, certain gameplay tweaks, such as the revamped weapons and an overhead map, were necessary.[37] Whereas in a traditional Halo game, the designers would know from what locations players would approach groups of enemies, ODST required a different strategy. "We had to make sure we had groups of Covenant patrolling the city who could react from wherever you attack from and look intelligent doing it," Creamer said.[43] Though the game engine remained unchanged, graphical enhancements such as fullscreen shader system and parallax mapping added greater detail and realism.[36]

The Firefight game mode was a late addition to the game. Staffer Tim Williams built a prototype shortly after Halo 3 shipped, placing the player in a portion of a Halo 3 campaign map and fighting enemies. When development commenced on ODST, William's concept was adopted for the game and refined. Designer Lars Bakken described one advantage of the game mode as providing a more friendly multiplayer environment than hardcore players online. The designers reused the campaign scoring and medal system from Halo 3 to add a competitive edge.[37]

Sadie's Story was created by Fourth Wall Studios in partnership with Staten and artist Ashley Wood. Fourth Wall Studios was formed by former members of 42 Entertainment, who produced the highly successful I Love Bees alternate reality game to promote Halo 2.[44][45] Recalled Staten, "we realized that in Halo we do a pretty good job of describing the clash of these military industrial complexes, but it really is the soldiers' story," and Halo 3: ODST offered a chance to take a look at the unexplored civilian story.[17]

By December 2008, the game was "representational", meaning that players could experience the game from start to finish, albeit in an unfinished state. The entire Bungie staff was pulled from other duties to play through the game and offer feedback. Among the unfinished elements was the lack of finished dialogue delivered by voice actors, in which Staten filled in placeholder audio.[46] The entire game was completed just before its presentation at the Electronic Entertainment Expo 2009.[47]

Bungie's audio director Martin O'Donnell and his partner Michael Salvatori composed the music for ODST. In contrast to Halo's signature gregorian chant, there is no choral music in ODST,[48] and no previous Halo themes make a return appearance.[49] Two out of the game's three hours of music were packaged in a two-disc soundtrack released September 22, 2009.[48] Due to ODST's shift to a new protagonist, O'Donnell wanted to create new music that was evocative of Halo but branched in a different direction.[40] Because the game tells a "human story, not a cyborg story", O'Donnell said, the score was more "intimate and personal".[26] For the Rookie's rain-slicked investigations, O'Donnell felt that a jazz-influenced approach worked best in echoing the noir atmosphere.[48] Other characters did not have any themes written specifically for them but became paired with motifs that suited them.[49]

O'Donnell began writing the game's music while Bungie was crafting the ODST announcement trailer. O'Donnell based the trailer's music on a small segment from the first ODST piece he wrote, titled "Rain".[50] Salvatori joined the project in February 2009 and helped complete the music chores in two months. Once O'Donnell felt they had enough material, the Chicago-based Salvatori flew to Seattle, Washington, finishing arrangements and recording live musicians.[49] Most of the music was recorded during early 2009. Additional composition chores were handled by Bungie sound designer C. Paul Johnson and orchestrator Stan LePard. The Northwest Sinfonia, which recorded the music for Halo 3, performed orchestral sections at Studio X in Washington.[48]

Members of Bungie were fans of the television series Firefly, and in Halo 3's development brought in several of the actors to fill Marine voice roles.[36] Three of them voiced the four main characters of the ODST squad: Nathan Fillion (a Halo fan himself),[51] Adam Baldwin, and Alan Tudyk.[52] Tricia Helfer provided the voice for the ONI agent Dare; Helfer and Fillion recorded their cinematic dialog together in the same room, a rarity in voice acting. Staten said that "their performances were stronger having them together at the same time".[52] While Staten wrote much of the cinematic dialogue, combat lines could be improvised by the voice actors.[53] Adding Sadie's Story to the game doubled the amount of voice work in the game.[54] After the voice roles were filled, Bungie licensed Fillion and Helfer's likenesses for their respective characters.[36]

In July 2008, Microsoft head of Xbox business Don Mattrick told MTV that Bungie was working on a new Halo game for Microsoft, independent of the franchise spinoffs Halo Wars and Chronicles.[55] An announcement of the new Halo project was expected at the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) 2008 trade fair, with Bungie unveiling a countdown on their web site, but the announcement was shelved by Microsoft.[56] Microsoft stated that it wanted the game to have its own event. On September 25, 2008, a year after the release of Halo 3, Bungie debuted a teaser for the new project on their web site.[57] A full trailer was released during the Tokyo Game Show on October 9, 2008, officially unveiling the game's name as Halo 3: Recon and a release date of Autumn 2009.[55] In an unusual approach for Bungie, the trailer used pre-rendered graphics instead of the game engine or existing assets. Staten explained that it was too early in the game's development to spend a large amount of time on the trailer, and it would not have allowed Bungie to add touches for fans to discuss.[40]

In post-trailer interviews, Bungie staff members told gaming press that Recon was the last installment in the Halo trilogy.[58] Though Bungie did not consider Recon a full game,[59] with writer Luke Smith comparing it to WarCraft III expansion The Frozen Throne, the game shipped with all Halo 3 multiplayer maps and did not require Halo 3 to play.[60][61][62] Smith asserted the game would not be a crossover into stealth and squad-based genres, noting, "this isn't Brothers in Arms: Halo or Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Halo."[39] On November 25, Jarrard announced the game had been retitled to Halo 3: ODST as a "more straightforward" description of the game.[63]

Bungie and Microsoft first showed ODST in a playable form at E3 2009, where the game's release date and retail versions were finalized. Bungie initially marketed ODST as a title smaller in scope than previous numbered entries in the series. When the game's retail versions were announced, however, the game received a standard price of US$60, which Bungie and Microsoft attributed to the game growing beyond the planned scope. "Over the course of development it got a lot bigger than we were anticipating," said Bungie's Lars Bakken. "We thought of it more as an expansion and then it grew well beyond that."[64] Creamer explained that since the development platform was stable, "we were able to create quite a bit more content than we originally thought we would".[65] The game's length increased from original estimates of 3–5 hours to 8–10.[66] The discrepancy was not discussed until E3 2009 when Microsoft decided it was a full game.[64] Unlike the post-launch support for Halo 3, ODST does not have downloadable content.[67]

Halo 3: ODST ships as a two-disc set. The first disc contains the campaign mode as well as the Firefight co-op mode, while the second disc contains the multiplayer mode with the complete set of Halo 3 maps. Owners of the game received an invitation to participate in the Halo: Reach multiplayer beta, which went live on May 3, 2010. Pre-orders included a token to unlock Avery Johnson as a playable character in the Firefight multiplayer mode. This code was included only by certain retailers.[69] A special edition "Collector's Pack" contained the game and a special ODST-branded wireless Xbox 360 Controller.[70] Toys "R" Us offered an ODST action figure and a US$20 gift card as a buying incentive.[71]

By April 2009, market research firm OTX reported that ODST was the most highly anticipated video game,[72] a spot it continued to hold in late August.[73] Before its release the title was the top-selling game on Amazon.com based on preorders alone, spending 107Â days atop the merchant's top 100 video games and software list.[74] Copies of ODST were sold early in France. Microsoft responded by launching an investigation and threatening to ban any players on Xbox Live playing ODST before its official release;[75] Xbox lead manager Stephen Toulouse later clarified that they would not ban legitimate buyers.[76]

Microsoft prepared what was described as a "mammoth" advertising campaign for the game, with Entertainment Director Stephen McGill affirming that the game "is absolutely a key title to us... this is the first time we've ever done anything like this, and Halo 3: ODST is a great way to kick it off." Numerous promotional materials were released through Xbox Live, and many more via online and television advertising.[77] Marvel Comics published a limited comic series, Helljumper, featuring ODST's main characters.[78]

A live-action trailer titled The Life was posted on the Internet in September and later used in television spots as part of the promotional material released for the game.[79][80] Filmed at several locations in Budapest, Hungary, The Life follows an ODST named Tarkov from a military funeral where he is inspired to become a soldier, through training and combat and up to the moment he becomes a leader in battle.[81] The short film was created by advertising agency TAG SF with effects by Asylum, and directed by production company MJZ, who also handled the award-winning Halo 3 "Believe" advertisement.[80] Legacy Effects designed and fabricated props, weapons, armor, and a Covenant Brute costume within two weeks.[82] Bungie supplied 3D geometry that allowed the company to quickly create accurate representations of in-game items, and provided input on the UNSC dress uniforms. The initial cemetery scene was filmed inside the cooling tower of an active nuclear power plant in Budapest, and outside the tower the production team created a mud pit and obstacle course to simulate basic training. Members of the Hungarian special forces served as drill instructors in the training sequence, firing blanks. Finally, filming moved to an abandoned Soviet-era aluminum refinery for the short's final memorial scene. An additional scene was shot there, but did not appear in the final product.[81]

ODST launch events were held around the United States. Bungie and Microsoft sponsored an official launch event at the Experience Music Project and Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame in Seattle, Washington. Featured at the event were discussion panels about the series and advance looks at other Halo content such as the anime collection Halo Legends.[83] About 800 fans attended from around 6–11 pm before heading to nearby game stores to get their copy of the game.[84] GameStop held almost 3,700 launch parties across the United States.[85]

On release Halo 3: ODST became the top-selling Xbox 360 game worldwide.[86] More than 2.5 million copies of the game were sold within two weeks of release, totaling more than US$125 million in sales.[87] ODST claimed the overall top spot in UK game sales,[88] becoming the 12th highest sell-through for a single platform title in the market.[89] ODST took the top spot on Australian game charts on release and, after being outsold by FIFA 10 in early October, reclaimed the best seller position.[90] In Japan, where first-person shooters have generally fared poorly,[91] ODST sold 30,000 copies by September 27.[92] ODST sold 1.5 million units during September in the United States, the best-selling title for that month.[93][94] In October, the game sold 271,000 units in North America (taking sixth place for game sales); Microsoft reported that ODST sold 3 million units worldwide by November.[95][96] Overall, it was the ninth bestselling game of the year in the United States, one of only two Xbox 360 games to chart.[97] Expecting sales of the game to increase as players wanted to access the Reach beta, UK retailers slashed its price in April 2010.[98]

The remastered campaign of Halo 3: ODST was released as downloadable content for Halo: The Master Chief Collection in May 30, 2015 and was free to all owners of said game that played from launch to December 19, 2014. It is available to purchase separately to those who are not eligible for a free code for the add-on.[99][100][101]

Halo 3: ODST garnered generally positive reviews, and holds an average of 83/100 on aggregate web site Metacritic.[102] Time's Lev Grossman wrote ODST was a "milestone" as it proved "Bungie can use the same instrument to play in totally different key," adding to the longevity of the Halo franchise.[118] In contrast, Pete Metzger of the Los Angeles Times wrote that although ODST was a good game with a compelling story, action, and graphics, "the same can be said for nearly every first-person shooter that is released these days" and that ODST failed to raise the bar set by previous Halo games.[119] 1UP.com's Jeremy Parish noted that while ODST had its flaws, its greatest success was bringing together players who preferred either the multiplayer or campaign portions with a game that would satisfy both camps.[103]

Critics were split on whether ODST was worth its price. Official Xbox Magazine critic Ryan McCaffrey confidently wrote that given the campaign, multiplayer mode, and second Halo 3 multiplayer disc, "no one should have any qualms about ODST's value as a [US]$60 offering!"[115] Other critics who judged the title a full game included the staff of Edge Magazine,[105] Parish,[103] and Computer and Video Games' Mike Jackson.[104] Erik Brudvig of IGN did not consider ODST a "true sequel", but more than an expansion, and recommended that those hesitant about buying the game do so.[112] Those who disagreed included Ars Technica's Ben Kuchera,[120] GamesRadar's Charlie Barratt,[111] Eurogamer's Tom Bramwell,[106] and IGN Australia's Narayan Pattison.[114] In The New York Times' Seth Schiesel wrote that "Microsoft Game Studios has overreached in trying to charge the typical retail price for a full game, around [US]$60, for a product that either should cost [US]$40 or have a lot more content for the single-player aspect of the product."[121]

Critics also disagreed sharply regarding whether the game was a large step forward for the series. Parish said that less enemy variety was balanced by changes he considered the most experimental things Bungie had done for years.[103] Edge and Bramwell praised the contrast between the Rookie's nighttime segments and the more fast-paced flashback vignettes.[105][106] Edge added that while the narrative design was not groundbreaking, it served as a structure for exploring every possible weapon choice and strategy in the series.[105] While Parish considered the ODST's abilities much different from those of the Chief,[103] other critics such as Jackson wrote that the Halo feel was barely changed and that this was not detrimental.[104] Brett Molina of USA Today felt that the game disappointed by not spending more time in the Rookie's open environment; "instead," Molina wrote, "roughly two-thirds of ODST's combat feels very much like a traditional Halo game" instead of exploring new mechanics.[122]

ODST's visuals and atmosphere were praised. McShea wrote that while the Halo 3 engine was showing its age, the game could still "wow" because of the art design.[109] Parish wrote that the feel of Mombasa changed dramatically when played cooperatively;[103] G4TV found that additional players spoiled much of the solitary feel.[107] Travis Moses of GamePro wrote that while the game's graphics were consistently outclassed by other shooters, the game's frame rate remained consistently high as expected from Halo games.[6] Technology company Digital Foundry said that, despite welcome improvements in AI, the main flaws from Halo 3's graphics engine—namely a sub-720p native resolution and lower-quality human faces—remained.[123]

The game's audio and sound were lauded.[124] McCaffrey wrote that while the music of Halo 3 was "too familiar", ODST had freed O'Donnell to "craft his best work yet", which the critic considered good enough for a standalone purchase.[115] A significant departure from the consensus was offered by Kuchera, who wrote that the saxophone touches "[sound] like the softcore porn they show on Cinemax after midnight",[120] and GameSpy's Anthony Gallegos, who felt that the music did not mesh when extended into combat segments.[110]

Firefight was praised as "addictive",[125] especially for showcasing the excellent artificial intelligence of enemies.[103] Jeff Marchiafava of Game Informer credited the enemies with differentiating Firefight from similar game modes in games such as Gears of War 2 or Left 4 Dead, which featured mindless zombies or cannon fodder.[108] The staff of Official Xbox Magazine UK wrote that the gametype's depth and options made Gears of War's comparable mode look "simple" in comparison, and that Firefight extended the life of the game.[116] In contrast, Bramwell felt that in Firefight "there is both a sense of futility in the knowledge that death is only a matter of time and odds, and fatigue in the realisation that many levels play out just as they did in the campaign, except a bit more so".[106]

Interviewed by G4TV, Bungie representatives saw part of the mixed and negative reception as stemming from their own marketing of the titleâ€”first as an expansion pack, then a full game. "If you look at the lower scores, they almost all cite an issue in perceived value based on an initial expectation that was set for an 'expansion' and then a feeling that they were overcharged for the final product," Jarrad said, echoing Staten's comment that "if we'd never said the words 'expansion pack' we would have seen an appreciable increase in the review scores". Other elements they wish they had improved had they the time were the pacing and navigation of the nighttime segments and matchmaking for Firefight.[126] Halo manager 343 Industries director Frank O'Connor said that he was glad ODST "didn't take off", in his view, because it allowed people to focus on Reach and its launch and marketing.[127]

Lev Grossman and Peter Ha ranked ODST as the eighth best game of the year for Time, lauding the game as "a dark, slow, jazzy, hard-boiled take on the Halo world".[128] Softpedia branded ODST the best first-person shooter of the year; games editor Andrei Dumitrescu wrote that while the game occasionally felt formulaic, it was bolstered by a good plot, great music, and supporting characters that players could care about.[129] Chris Kohler from Wired ranked ODST as the third best Xbox 360 title of the year, writing that the game "injected a fresh breath into the staid corridors of Bungie's shooter franchise".[130] Halo 3: ODST also won "Best Original Score" at the 2009 Spike Video Game Awards.[131] "The Life" was a finalist in the "Outstanding Visual Effects in a Video Game Trailer" category by the Visual Effects Society in the group's eighth annual awards.[79]


where does the word christ come from and what does it mean

Christ comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one". In the Greek Septuagint, christos was used to translate the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ, messiah), meaning "[one who is] anointed.", a title allegedely adopted from the term for the tradition of anointing the Egyptian pharaoh during coronation or marriage with oil drawn from the fat of messeh, who was the sacred crocodile or crocodile star in the spells and the same anointing ritual may be traced to earlier Mesopotamian Mušḫuššu.[19][20][21] In coffins of Egyptian mummies the word krst is found as a blessing and anointing  from Horus and Osiris, hence the word Christos is thought as loaned.[22][23] Krst denoted the process of preparation of the mummy by embalming, purifying and anointing, and can mean anointed, buried or covered in oil.[24][25][26][27]

Christ (title)

In Christianity, Christ[Notes 1] (Greek Χριστός, Christós, meaning "the anointed one") is a title for the saviour and redeemer who would bring salvation to the Jewish people and mankind. Christians believe Jesus is the Jewish messiah foretold in both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament. Christ, used by Christians as both a name and a title, is synonymous with Jesus.[5][6][7]

The role of the Christ in Christianity originated from the concept of the messiah in Judaism. Although the conceptions of the messiah in each religion are similar, for the most part they are distinct from one another due to the split of early Christianity and Judaism in the 1st century.

Though the original followers of Jesus believed Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, e.g. in the Confession of Peter, before the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus was usually referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus, son of Joseph".[8] Jesus came to be called "Jesus Christ" (meaning "Jesus the KhristÃ³s", i.e. "Jesus the Messiah" or "Jesus the Anointed") by his followers after his crucifixion and resurrection. Christians believe that the messianic prophecies were fulfilled in his mission, death, and resurrection. The Pauline epistles, the earliest texts of the New Testament,[9] often refer to Jesus as "Christ Jesus" or "Christ".[10] The word Christ was originally a title, but later became part of the name "Jesus Christ". It is also used as a title, in the reciprocal use "Christ Jesus", meaning "the Messiah Jesus", and independently as "the Christ".[11]

The followers of Jesus became known as Christians (as in Acts 11:26) because they believed Jesus to be the Khristós or Mashiach prophesied in the Hebrew Bible.[12][13] Jesus was not, and is not, accepted in Judaism as a Jewish messiah, and the concept of a divine messiah was always rejected by Judaism as idolatry.[14] Religious Jews still await their messiah's first coming and the Messianic prophecies of Jewish tradition to be accomplished. Religious Christians believe in the Second Coming of Christ, and they await the rest of Christian messianic prophecies to be fulfilled.[15] One of those prophecies, distinctive in both the Jewish and Christian concept of the messiah, is that a Jewish king from the Davidic line, who will be "anointed" with holy anointing oil, will be king of God's kingdom on earth, and rule the Jewish people and mankind during the Messianic Age and World to come.[16] Muslims accept Jesus (Arabic: عيسى, translit. ʿĪsā) as al-Masih, the messiah in Islam, and believe he will come again[17], but don't believe that the messiah is divine or the Son of God.

The area of Christian theology called Christology is primarily concerned with the nature and person of Jesus Christ as recorded in the canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament.[18]

The word Christ (and similar spellings) appears in English and in most European languages. English-speakers now often use "Christ" as if it were a name, one part of the name "Jesus Christ", though it was originally a title ("the Messiah"). Its usage in "Christ Jesus" emphasizes its nature as a title.[11][12] Compare the usage "the Christ".

The spelling Christ in English became standardized in the 18th century, when, in the spirit of the Enlightenment, the spelling of certain words changed to fit their Greek or Latin origins. Prior to this, scribes writing in Old and Middle English usually used the spelling Crist - the i being pronounced either as /iː/, preserved in the names of churches such as St Katherine Cree, or as a short /ɪ/, preserved in the modern pronunciation of "Christmas". The spelling "Christ" in English is attested from the 14th century.[28]

In modern and ancient usage, even in secular terminology, "Christ" usually refers to Jesus, based on the centuries-old tradition of such usage. Since the Apostolic Age, the

[...] use of the definite article before the word Christ and its gradual development into a proper name show the Christians identified the bearer with the promised Messias of the Jews.[29]

At the time of Jesus, there was no single form of Second Temple Judaism, and there were significant political, social, and religious differences among the various Jewish groups.[30] However, for centuries the Jews had used the term moshiach ("anointed") to refer to their expected deliverer.[29] A large number of Old Testament passages were regarded as messianic by the Jews, many more than are commonly considered messianic by Christians, and different groups of Jews assigned varying degrees of significance to them.[30]

The Greek word messias appears only twice in the Septuagint of the promised prince (Daniel 9:26; Psalm 2:2). This title was used when a name was wanted for the promised one who was to be at once King and Savior.[31][32] The New Testament states that the long-awaited messiah had come and describes this savior as "the Christ". In Matt 16:16, the apostle Peter said, in what has become a famous proclamation of faith among Christians since the first century, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."[30]

Mark 1:1 ("The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God") identifies Jesus as both Christ and the Son of God. The divinity is re-affirmed in Mark 1:11.[33] Thereafter, Mark never applies the term Christ to Jesus as a name. Matthew 1:1 uses Christ as a name and Matthew 1:16 explains it again with: "Jesus, who is called Christ". In the Gospel of John, Jesus referred to himself as the Son of God far more frequently than in the Synoptic Gospels.[34]

The use of the definite article before the word "Christ" and its gradual development into a proper name show that the Christians identified Jesus with the promised messiah of the Jews who fulfilled all the Messianic predictions in a fuller and a higher sense than had been given them by the rabbis.[29]

The Gospels of Mark and Matthew begin by calling Jesus both Christ and the Son of God, but these are two distinct attributions. They develop in the New Testament along separate paths and have distinct theological implications. At the time in Roman Judaea, the Jews had been awaiting the "messiah", and many people were wondering who it would be. When John the Baptist appeared and began preaching, he attracted disciples who assumed that he would be announced as the messiah, or "the one" that they had been awaiting. But the title Son of God was not attributed to John.[citation needed][original research?]

The first instance of Jesus being called the Son of God appears during his baptism by John the Baptist. In the narrative, a voice from heaven called Jesus "My Son". John the Baptist was in prison in the Messengers from John the Baptist episode (Matthew 11:2–6 and Luke 7:18–23),[35] and two of his disciples ask Jesus a question on his behalf: "Are you the one to come after me or shall we wait for another?"[36]—indicating that John doubted the identity of Jesus as Christ at that time (see also Rejection of Jesus).

In John 11:27 Martha told Jesus, "you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world", signifying that both titles were generally accepted (yet considered distinct) among the followers of Jesus before the raising of Lazarus.[37]

Explicit claims of Jesus being the messiah are found in the canonical gospels in the Confession of Peter (e.g. Matthew 16:16) and the words of Jesus before his judges at his trial before the Sanhedrin.[31][38] These incidents involve far more than a mere Messianic claim; taken in their setting, they constitute a claim to be the Son of God.[31]

In the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate, it might appear from the narratives of Matthew and Luke that Jesus at first refused a direct reply to the high priest's question: "Art thou the Christ?", where his answer is given merely as "su eipas" ("thou hast said it"). The Gospel of Mark, however, states the answer as "ego eimi" ("I am"), and there are instances from Jewish literature in which the expression "thou hast said it" is equivalent to "you are right".[31] The Messianic claim was less significant than the claim to divinity, which caused the high priest's horrified accusation of blasphemy and the subsequent call for the death sentence. Before Pilate, on the other hand, it was merely the assertion of his royal dignity which gave grounds for his condemnation.[31]

The word "Christ" is closely associated with Jesus in the Pauline epistles, which suggests that there was no need for the early Christians to claim that Jesus is Christ because it was considered widely accepted among them. Hence Paul can use the term Khristós with no confusion as to whom it refers, and he can use expressions such as "in Christ" to refer to the followers of Jesus, as in 1 Corinthians 4:15 and Romans 12:5.[39] Paul proclaimed him as the Last Adam, who restored through obedience what Adam lost through disobedience.[40] The Pauline epistles are a source of some key Christological connections; e.g., Ephesians 3:17–19 relates the love of Christ to the knowledge of Christ, and considers the love of Christ as a necessity for knowing him.[41]

There are also implicit claims to him being the Christ in the words and actions of Jesus.[31] Episodes in the life of Jesus and statements about what he accomplished during his public ministry are found throughout the New Testament. Trinitarianism summarily claims: "Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man in one person, and will be so forever."[42]

There are distinct, and differing, views among Christians regarding the existence of Christ before his conception. A key passage in the New Testament is John 1:1–18 where John 1:17 specifically mentions that "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." Those who believe in the Trinity, consider Christ a pre-existent divine hypostasis called the Logos or the Word. Other, non-Trinitarian views, question the aspect of personal pre-existence or question the aspect of divinity, or both. An example is the Orthodox Gnomic view, which asserts that Christ was, in fact, not a pre-existent divine being.

The concept of Christ as Logos derives from John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In the original Greek, Logos (λόγος) is used for "Word," and is often used untranslated. In the Christology of the Logos, Christ is viewed as the Incarnation of the "Divine Logos", i.e. The Word.[43]

In the 2nd century, with his theory of "recapitulation", Irenaeus connected "Christ the Creator" with "Christ the Savior", relying on Ephesians 1:10 ("when the times reach their fulfillment – to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ") to gather together and wrap up the cycle of the Nativity and Resurrection of Christ.[44]

"She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." â€” In Matthew 1:21 the name Jesus was selected by Divine direction.[46]

In Colossians 1:15â€“16 Apostle Paul viewed the Nativity of Jesus as an event of cosmic significance which changed the nature of the world by paving the way for salvation.[47][48][49][50]

Christian teachings present the Love of Christ as a basis for his sacrificial act that brought forth salvation.[51][52] In John 14:31 Jesus explains that his sacrifice was performed so: "that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do."[52] Ephesians 5:25 then states that: "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it".[51]

In the 2nd century, Irenaeus expressed his views of salvation in terms of the imitation of Christ and his theory of "recapitulation". For Irenaeus the imitation of Christ is based on God's plan of salvation, which involved Christ as the "Last Adam"[53][54] He viewed the incarnation as the way in which Christ repaired the damage done by Adam's disobedience. For Irenaeus, salvation was achieved by Christ restoring humanity to the image of God, and he saw the Christian imitation of Christ as a key component on the path to salvation.[55] For Irenaeus Christ succeeded on every point on which Adam failed.[56] Irenaeus drew a number of parallels, e.g. just as in the fall of Adam resulted from the fruit of a tree, Irenaeus saw redemption and salvation as the fruit of another tree: the cross of crucifixion.[55]

Following in the Pauline tradition, in the 5th century Augustine of Hippo viewed Christ as the mediator of the New Covenant between God and man and as the conqueror over sin. He viewed Christ as the cause and reason for the reconciliation of man with God after the fall of Adam, and he saw in Christ the path to Christian salvation.[57] Augustine believed that salvation is available to those who are worthy of it, through faith in Christ.[58]

In the 13th century Thomas Aquinas aimed to recapture the teachings of the Church Fathers on the role of the Holy Trinity in the economy of salvation.[59] In Aquinas' view angels and humans were created for salvation from the very beginning.[60] For Aquinas the Passion of Christ poured out the grace of salvation and all its virtues unto humanity.[61]

Martin Luther distinguished the history of salvation between the Old and the New Testament, and saw a new dimension to salvation with the arrival of Christ.[62]

The focus on human history was an important element of the biblically grounded 16th-century theology of John Calvin. Calvin considered the first coming of Christ as the key turning point in human history. He viewed Christ as "the one through whom salvation began" and he saw the completion of Christ's plan of salvation as his death and Resurrection.[63]

The use of "Χ," derived from Chi, the Greek alphabet initial, as an abbreviation for Christ (most commonly in the abbreviation "Χmas") is often misinterpreted as a modern secularization of the term. Thus understood, the centuries-old English word Χmas, is actually a shortened form of CHmas, which is, itself, a shortened form for Christmas. Christians are sometimes referred to as "Xians," with the 'X' replacing 'Christ.[64]

A very early Christogram is the Chi Rho symbol formed by superimposing the first two Greek letters in Christ ( Greek: "Χριστός"), chi = ch and rho = r, to produce ☧.[65]