House Rule Ban's Use of Words Such as "Liar"

House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has released a helpful, updated primer for members regarding their conduct on the floor and in committees. Especially useful: The section on how to properly insult the executive branch in the in the chamber. "Disgrace" and "nitwits" -- okay. "Liar" or "sexual misconduct" -- ixnay. 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.” Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• 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 can understand wanting to keep civility in the house, however this is a little extreme.

There are times in life, when someone is straight face lying to you, that you need say, your lying, or perhaps "you're a liar sir"

I wonder when the law will be passed saying you can't disagree with anything related to the three branches of government.

At what point does softening your words completely cripple them?
Source: Politico


edited to add link to source.


[edit on 9/15/2009 by Alaskan Man]

Can the words pontificating fabricator be used? Or is that too personal?

How about fable-minded or fictionarily challenged?

Where were these rules of decorum when Cheney was around? I'll never forget the famous 'Go #*&% yourself' line he spouted on the floor.
Crooks and liars not wanting to be called crooks and liars on the record, imagine that...

reply to post by Alaskan Man


Can the president say "liar" in the House again?
Do the rules only apply to some people?

I say the rules are silly. Let them voice their opinion. That being said, I still think there are more appropriate times to call the President a liar.

I still find it hard to believe that this violates house rules while not paying your taxes and getting lobbyist money is a pat on the back.:shk:

Useless rules useless people useless House all just plain useless. We must remember though this is D.C. so we can't be surprised.

reply to post by Alaskan Man


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/badbc095b6b2.jpg[/atsimg]
The writing is on the wall people.
And that is all I have to say on the matter.

There was a rude Iraqi man who was unable to control his emotions, like a child, who attempted to assault President Bush with a shoe. He served nine months in jail.

Another man, who was unable to control his emotions, like a child, assaulted the President with offensive words on his own turf, in his own country.

Both were childlike, labile, disrespectful and rude.

To tell you the truth, I don't see a lot of difference in this deviant and embarrestingly childlike and unintelligent behavior. Same thing.

That's my two.

Will "unmitigated prevaricator" still be allowed? How about "falsifier"? Come on people, it's a big dictionary.

Still, there's a time and a place for everything.

reply to post by whitewave


I propose they use "bunghole" instead of "liar".
Would liven things up.

what ever happened to freedom of speech? Oh, that's right. i had forgotten
there are certain words that we can't say or (GOD FORBID) someone might get offended. Well maybe they should.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


Really? You don't see a difference between calling someone a liarand physically assaulting them? How interesting...

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
There was a rude Iraqi man who was unable to control his emotions, like a child, who attempted to assault President Bush with a shoe. He served nine months in jail.

And he is a National Hero.

Muntadhar al-Zeidi is a Hero and will be Legend one day - what are you?
what will you be?

removed,

[edit on 9/15/2009 by Alaskan Man]

Seems like it would be unconstitutional and a violation of free speech. This has nothing to do with something such as yelling fire in a theater. It's all about some people being offended and nothing more.

If these are supposed to be the people we elect to speak for us, then to take away their freedom of speech is to take away my freedom of speech.

And "liar" would be on the nice side of what I want those who represent me to be saying. "Crook" as someone mentioned I think would have went nicely with that.

I personally enjoyed watching that man throwing the shoe at Bush. I would've done the same thing. Of course I'd probably of used both shoes to make sure one actually hit him.

The authority of Congress to discipline its Members is found in Article I, Section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states in part:

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

Through the years, disorderly behavior has become synonymous with improper conduct such as support of rebellion, disloyalty, corruption, and financial wrongdoing, particularly for personal gain.

However, only within the past 40 years has Congress systematically undertaken self-discipline related to conduct.

In 1964, the Senate established its first permanent ethics committee, the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, which was renamed the Select Committee on Ethics in 1977. The House first established a permanent ethics committee, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, in 1967. In 1968, each chamber adopted rules of conduct.

On March 11, 2008, with the adoption of H.Res. 895, the House created the independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) to review allegations of impropriety by Members, officers, and employees and, when appropriate, to refer allegations to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for final disposition.

It is common, towards the beginning of each session of Congress, to readdress the Rules of Conduct, for the benefit of Freshman Congresspersons, even amending the Rules by Vote when found necessary.

The Rules of Conduct by which Congress is charged by the Constitution to abide are self-regulatory measures. The Right to Free Speech does not apply on the Floor of the House or the Senate, where decorum is mandated by Congressional Rule.

It is no different than the Terms of Service on ATS, where decorum is mandated by the Moderators. Your Right to Free Speech on ATS does not apply if it violates the Terms of Service.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by fraterormus]

reply to post by fraterormus


just because a corrupt house has the ability to change its rules and still abide my constitutional law (sort of a loop hole in this case) does that make it right?

edited to add:

and when the rule was originally instated, i imagine it was more for civility.

just like ats terms and conditions you are not aloud to spout four letter words, fortunately on ats liar doesn't count as one of those yet, however now you can't say it in the house, when did "liar" become a curse?



[edit on 9/15/2009 by Alaskan Man]

reply to post by Beach Bum


If someone were to do the same to Obama, there would be riots on the streets calling for his head.

Originally posted by warrenb
reply to post by whitewave

 

I propose they use "bunghole" instead of "liar".
Would liven things up.

I prefer a$$ clown.