I would be the first to agree that Rep. Wilson broke decorum by speaking out during the President's speech. I believe that the Office of the President should be respected no matter who resides in the Oval Office. Wilson telephoned the White House and apologized for his outburst the day after the address.
In an effort to bring some civility back to the legislative process, Chairwoman Louise M. Slaughter of the House Rules Committee has published an updated set of rules governing the proper manner in which the President may be addressed.
Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:
- refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
- refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
- refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
- refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”
- call the President a “liar.”
- call the President a “hypocrite.”
- describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
- charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
- refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
- refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”
I enjoy a lively debate. I think that decorum should always be used in civil discourse and that passionate speech be vigorously encouraged. The new updated rules of discourse, in light of the inaction taken against Rep. Stark (D) CA, calls into the question whether or not the House is ushering in an Orwellian concept of free speech: Freedom of speech is upheld so long as such speech freely agrees with our enlightened point of view. Instead of issuing a new standard delineating what exact words can be uttered on the floor of the House in order to refine debate and discourse, our fine Representatives need to look no further than the following:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Quite simple. If only more of our representatives actually understood the Constitution.
Quite simple. If only more of our representatives actually understood the Constitution.
The House of Representatives oath of office states, "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." It also states, "I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." The House of Representatives has had rules for decorum and debate in place since it's inception. Documents including Deschler's Precedents, Cannon's Precedents, and Hinds' Precedents cover nearly 100 years of House rules and reflect the current rules of Decorum and Debate. The current rule is thus: A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who desires to speak or deliver a matter to the House shall rise and respectfully address the Speaker and, on being recognized, may address the House from any place on the floor. When invited by the Chair, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may speak from the Clerk’s desk. Remarks in debate (which may include references to the Senate or its Members) shall be confined to the question under debate, avoiding personality. (Rules of the House of Representatives Rule XVII pg 30) A representative who has taken the oath of office is duty bound to defend the Constitution, and is bound by the duties of his or her office to follow the rules of the House of Representatives which include rules for Decorum and Debate. Representative Joe Wilson was not following protocol.
ReplyDelete