Is This the Dumbest New Congressmember?

[StusBlues]

Florida lawmaker calls House ban on hats ‘sexist’ (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20101122/pl_yblog_theticket/florida-lawmaker-calls-house-ban-on-hats-sexist)

Is it wise in any way to make an issue of the right to look like an idiot? Or am I missing some nuance of the spirit of American liberty?

[Marley23]

I'm not much for talking about the dignity of Congress, but if Congress wants to ban hats from being worn while it's in session - and then further show her up by banning sequins - I would fully support it.

[gonzomax]

I can see a congressman wearing a beanie with a propeller to the floor. It's all good.

[Skammer]

Well, to be fair, the rule was targetted at men's hats... no one in the 1800s foresaw women congresspeople coming or the rule may have been different.

But still, as a freshman congresslady, she should not make this her first priority. Seriously.

[StusBlues]

Yeah, if Bella Abzug was able to abstain, Wilson should be able to hold off.

[Marley23]

Well, to be fair, the rule was targetted at men's hats... no one in the 1800s foresaw women congresspeople coming or the rule may have been different.
I'm sure it was. Of course that makes her comment about sexism really backward - the rule is unisex, it's the social etiquette on hats that is sexist (very mildly so). I think I'm more annoyed by her lack of understanding of what sexism means than by the ridiculous hat in the photo.

[MyFootsZZZ]

I don't understand the sexist argument... It's because men don't traditionally wear hats in-doors but women traditionaly can get away with it?

[Chronos]

It looks to me like she has a problem with the fact that the rule isn't sexist. Now, if the rule said that men had to doff their hats but women could leave them on, that would be sexist.

Meanwhile, does the prohibition against arresting legislators in session apply to the fashion police? Because that's gone way beyond "classy" or "fancy" into outright gaudy and tacky.

[MyFootsZZZ]

"It's like a fetish."

[Marley23]

Congratulations, Florida, you've done it again!

[Wheelz]

Wow, there's someone who clearly has her finger on the pulse of the American voter!
"Elect me to Congress and I'll overturn the hat ban!" Let others worry about the economy and junk.*

I'd be embarrassed if I'd voted for this twit.



*Sure, I don't know. Maybe she is worrying about the economy too. But this is truly a tone-deaf way to make one's congressional debut.

[StusBlues]

BTW, this is the same person who was terribly confused by the word 'alien' as it applied to immigration (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=410449&highlight=Frederica+Wilson) a few years ago.

[Giles]

BTW, this is the same person who was terribly confused by the word 'alien' as it applied to immigration (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=410449&highlight=Frederica+Wilson) a few years ago.
I don't think she was confused: she was using less than perfect English, but she was clearly opposed to the use of the word "alien" to refer to foreigners or non-citizens.

However, in this current hat matter, I think she is confused about what "sexism" means, and her confusion comes partly from her old-fashioned ideas about hat etiquette for men and women, and partly from her obvious love of wearing brightly coloured hats that few men other than professional entertainers would wear.

[howye]

Perhaps she should thought of this before applying for the job. And the picture doesn't go a long way to making her look like the brightest congress person, sparkliest though.

[jayjay]

Frankly, I was hoping to see a pic of her in Aretha's giant bow hat from the inauguration...

[Ludovic]

And the picture doesn't go a long way to making her look like the brightest congress person, sparkliest though.Yup, it one of the better "Durp" shots I've seen.

[foolsguinea]

Clearly she wears hats as part of trying to look feminine. So in a way, telling her not to wear a hat is like telling her not to wear makeup, or a dress. To un-woman her, or even to discourage a woman from being on the floor. It is sexist in a way, rather as if a grammar school forbade trousers for its teachers. Yes, I know women don't all wear hats. But they may wear weaves & wigs in this context, & those are just as artificial.

[Marley23]

So in a way, telling her not to wear a hat is like telling her not to wear makeup, or a dress. To un-woman her, or even to discourage a woman from being on the floor.
Come on now. The rule doesn't stop her from doing anything except wearing a hat, and she happens to like wearing hats. It was clearly not designed to keep women from being on the House floor: women couldn't even vote when the rule was passed. It doesn't "un-woman" her, whatever that means. The wording of the rule is gender neutral, and it doesn't have a disproportionate effect on any one group. It's not sexist.

It is sexist in a way, rather as if a grammar school forbade trousers for its teachers.
How would preventing men and women from wearing trousers be sexist?

[rocking chair]

Yeah, if Bella Abzug was able to abstain, Wilson should be able to hold off.

i was under the impression that there was a religious exception for her.

[Sparky812]

As if Congress doesn't have more important issues to deal with...you know, like the economy, oil spills, health care, inflation, etc.. some bimbo wants to debate whether she can wear her stupid sequined cowboy hat in session!
A hat is to keep the sun off your head and believe me.. the lights in Congress aren't that bright! (pun intended)

[Captain Amazing]

How would preventing men and women from wearing trousers be sexist?

Well, it would be harder on the men than the women. . .

[StusBlues]

i was under the impression that there was a religious exception for her.

According to this (http://hatsrcool.com/blog/?p=592), Bella went hatless in the chamber. Many Jewish women wear wigs as a head covering, and she may have done this. Anyone want to step up and fight some ignorance?

[Rick]

Clueless? Check
Worried about shit that doesn't matter? Check
Does not know the meaning of words? Check
Democrat? Check

Figures

[rocking chair]

According to this (http://hatsrcool.com/blog/?p=592), Bella went hatless in the chamber. Many Jewish women wear wigs as a head covering, and she may have done this. Anyone want to step up and fight some ignorance?

thanks! i would reckon if anyone could have had it overturned it would have been ms abzug, she had a really good argument.

[Chronos]

Clueless? Check
Worried about shit that doesn't matter? Check
Does not know the meaning of words? Check
Democrat? Check

Figures You do notice, do you not, that there are plenty of Democrats in here who think she's an idiot, too? Sure, there are losers in both parties, but we don't embrace ours.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm not sure it's quite as dumb as the guy who claimed the Pilgrims were escaping socialism, but I can't remember if that guy was a freshman.

[Fiveyearlurker]

I'm not sure it's quite as dumb as the guy who claimed the Pilgrims were escaping socialism, but I can't remember if that guy was a freshman.

That's actually the right meme of the day right now. It's been all over Foxnews and Rush.

[elfkin477]

It doesn't "un-woman" her, whatever that means.
It's probably a Macbeth riff
Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood;
Stop up the access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
The effect and it! Come to my woman's breasts,
And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances
You wait on nature's mischief! Come, thick night,
And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,
That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,
Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark,
To cry 'Hold, hold!'
Of course, the Bard would probably think she's already unsexed herself by seeking the power of office, anyway.

[Saint Cad]

I don't know if she's crazier for want the rule waived for her or because of the wacky ass hats she wants to wear to Congress.

[gonzomax]

It is not her love of hats. It is her terrible taste in hats that matters.

[Saint Cad]

It is not her love of hats. It is her terrible taste in hats that matters.

Exactly. When I see those hats, I don't think "feminine" but rather, "bad act in Vegas that cost $5 and you get a coupon for the prime rib buffet"

[Vinyl Turnip]

"It's like a fetish."

I'm fairly sure sexually pleasuring oneself on the House floor is also banned, or at least frowned upon.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Exactly. When I see those hats, I don't think "feminine" but rather, "bad act in Vegas that cost $5 and you get a coupon for the prime rib buffet"
Anything to cut the deficit. :D

[Saint Cad]

I'm fairly sure sexually pleasuring oneself on the House floor is also banned, or at least frowned upon.

Would you raise a point of order if it were Michelle Bachmann?

[Shoeless]

Wow. Over 300 hats? A separate room in her house to store them? She's like the Imelda Marcos of (fugly) hats.

[Steve MB]

Whenever she's down in the dumps, she gets a new hat.

Most of us go to the mall, instead.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Would you raise a point of order if it were Michelle Bachmann?
I'd raise a point of throwing up in my mouth a little bit. I don't think Robert's Rules cover that, do they?

[jayjay]

I'm fairly sure sexually pleasuring oneself on the House floor is also banned, or at least frowned upon.

Well, there's at least one former Senate candidate you know wouldn't be doing that, anyway...

[descamisado]

Yes, but I'm sure there's something in the by-laws about boiling cauldrons on the floor during sessions.

[magellan01]

What a friggin' idiot.

[dhkendall]

It looks to me like she has a problem with the fact that the rule isn't sexist. Now, if the rule said that men had to doff their hats but women could leave them on, that would be sexist.

Actually, several places have such a rule. A Google search finds this PDF (http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/1999/House/bills/analysis/pdf/HB0009.EDK.pdf) from the Florida Senate that talks about men removing their hats for the anthem but not women. That comes from the centuries-old notion that a man's hat is an accessory to his outfit, but a woman's hat is part of it. I wouldn't say it's sexist any more than a law saying that men can remove their shirts in public, but women cannot.

Now, with that out of my system, I agree that this is an absolutely stupid fight to start your Senate career off on, never mind taking it on at any point during your public service life!

[boytyperanma]

Well I think in fairness the men shouldn't be allowed to where head coverings either. No more toupees for anyone.

Sure she's an idiot and wasting time in the House with nonsensical issues but it's not like the House has anything better to do. The House has all the time in the world to do fuck all. IMO they shouldn't bother to show up until they have a bill passed by the Senate to vote on. The house could do more good back in their own districts doing community service rather then debating bills the Senate will never take up.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

Congratulations, Florida, you've done it again!

Breathing a sigh of relief up here in South Carolina. Hats off to you, Florida! :smack:

[Really Not All That Bright]

Sure she's an idiot and wasting time in the House with nonsensical issues but it's not like the House has anything better to do. The House has all the time in the world to do fuck all. IMO they shouldn't bother to show up until they have a bill passed by the Senate to vote on. The house could do more good back in their own districts doing community service rather then debating bills the Senate will never take up.
Bills can originate in the House, too, you know.

[jali]

Maybe she's balding and embarrassed to remove her hat.

[boytyperanma]

Bills can originate in the House, too, you know.

Sure and nearly everyone of them that's originated in the house over the past couple years has died without ever even getting to the senate floor. Passing House bills is just something they do at this point to pass the time. If they can't even get a acknowledgment from the Senate they will even look at a bill, why bother getting the House together to vote on a bill?

My congressman would be doing more for me, picking up trash and spending his evenings at home with his family. He could head into DC the few rare times something gets done in the Senate.

Though this woman's decided to take up the wearing of hats, at least that's something the house can resolve on their own. Maybe she has the right idea taking up useless issues because it's time better spent then sending legislation to the Senate.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Sure and nearly everyone of them that's originated in the house over the past couple years has died without ever even getting to the senate floor.
Citation needed.

[boytyperanma]

The Senate is currently sitting on over 400 bills passed by the House. These bills will likely never see a vote from the Senate. Everyone of those bills represents hours of the House's time wasted. Many of them were passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and will likely have to be reintroduced in the next congress representing even more wasted time.

Here's a list

http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Bills_passed_by_the_House_but_not_by_the_Senate_--_111th_Congress

I understand that doesn't meet the cite requested, I couldn't the specific information on which house passed the bills first. In 2009 bills that passed both houses and signed into law amounted to 123. I'm pretty sure less bills passed the senate this year then last.

I'll give up my quote you requested citation for, but still maintain the House showing up to vote on bills, not passed by the senate, is a waste of time.

It is a bit exaggerated because some types bills are required to pass the House before the Senate can consider them, such as tax bills which must originate in the House. So yeah for a few things the House does need call a vote first.

[Kevbo]

Well I think in fairness the men shouldn't be allowed to where head coverings either. No more toupees for anyone.



There head coverings either. There castle either. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to talk like that. Damn my eyes.

For those puzzled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaPZZJVDx6Y

about the 3:20 mark.

[Polycarp]

I'm fairly sure sexually pleasuring oneself on the House floor is also banned, or at least frowned upon.

Anything to cut the deficit. :D

..

[Belowjob2.0]

Actually, several places have such a rule. A Google search finds this PDF (http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/1999/House/bills/analysis/pdf/HB0009.EDK.pdf) from the Florida Senate that talks about men removing their hats for the anthem but not women. That comes from the centuries-old notion that a man's hat is an accessory to his outfit, but a woman's hat is part of it. I wouldn't say it's sexist any more than a law saying that men can remove their shirts in public, but women cannot.

Now, with that out of my system, I agree that this is an absolutely stupid fight to start your Senate career off on, never mind taking it on at any point during your public service life!

Naw, it's brilliant.

Sure, it disqualifies her for running for statewide office, but she's not looking for that anyway.

Her interest, her only interest, is in getting reelected from her majority black district.

Who does most of the voting in her district?

Older black ladies who wear hats in church.

She get some media attention, plenty of sympathy because as my late grandma might put it, "These nasty old crackers won't let her wear her hat."

Brilliant move on her part.

[JohnBckWLD]

Florida lawmaker calls House ban on hats ‘sexist’ (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20101122/pl_yblog_theticket/florida-lawmaker-calls-house-ban-on-hats-sexist)...She's like the living, black, non-Zionist, Texas version of Bella Abzug.

[foolsguinea]

Who does most of the voting in her district?

Older black ladies who wear hats in church.

She get some media attention, plenty of sympathy because as my late grandma might put it, "These nasty old crackers won't let her wear her hat."Yep. This isn't prohibiting some alien style of dress, this is a dickish exclusion of traditional black female American dress. I really do see it as racial, not so much that the white people who made the rule are trying to exclude a black woman, but that they don't get it. It's about a step away from making her wear a straight wig so her kinky hair doesn't offend some white looneytune.

[foolsguinea]

I don't expect that she means to devote her career to this. This is a matter of old-fashioned white male cultural particularism, & she should have been able to get the rule changed & get it out of the way without a bunch of white ninnies calling her an idiot. Or failing that, make the request & not get the change without a bunch of white ninnies calling her an idiot. This isn't Jon Kyl whinging about having to work within a week of Christmas.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Yep. This isn't prohibiting some alien style of dress, this is a dickish exclusion of traditional black female American dress. I really do see it as racial, not so much that the white people who made the rule are trying to exclude a black woman, but that they don't get it. It's about a step away from making her wear a straight wig so her kinky hair doesn't offend some white looneytune.
Please tell me you're not serious.

[StusBlues]

Is there a strict dress code for representatives outside of the hat issue? We had a state senator in Nebraska who made a point of wearing a t-shirt on the floor of the Unicameral; this changed to a sweatshirt with cut-off sleeves when he got older. Would dress like this be tolerated at the national level?

[Saint Cad]

When I'm elected to the House, I'm going to debate Chicago-style.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Mmmm. Deep dish debate.

[lieu]

Maybe she is worrying about the economy too. But this is truly a tone-deaf way to make one's congressional debut.She's all hat and no gavel.

[Mahaloth]

Anyone know where you can see her official Congress portrait? I want to see this lady without her precious hat.

[Bryan Ekers]

She's all hat and no gavel.

Well, *I'll* golf-clap this, if no-one else will.

[constanze]

Okay, reading the article, my thoughts:

1) That sure is a weird, tacky hat.

2) Engage brain before opening mouth is a good rule for politicans when talking to newspapers. "It's like a fetish" is not a good argument to make in your favour. It's rather brain bleach territory.

3) Of course it's a dumb move to suggest this as the very first issue to be addressed.

4) Nevertheless, why make such a big fuss about changing this rule? It't not a law, just a rule for the House, right? So it doesn't have to pass through several chambers or be written in legalese. Just remove that sentence banning hats.

Because seriously, people: Banning hats? Whatever for? So people can check you aren't wearing brain-sucking alien parasites there, or concealing the antennas for remote mind-control? In what way does keeping this rule help the House to do its official job of making good laws?

Are Yanks not in favour of getting rid of ridicoulously old and outdated laws?

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'll give up my quote you requested citation for, but still maintain the House showing up to vote on bills, not passed by the senate, is a waste of time.
I never noticed this post before, so this is a bit late, but thank you (and I agree).
Are Yanks not in favour of getting rid of ridicoulously old and outdated laws?
Sure, but this isn't a law. It's a rule that only applies to the US Congress. And we're certainly not in favor of getting rid of "ridiculously old and outdated laws" that we don't give a shit about. Why would we be?

What if somebody demanded that the House rule requiring men to wear ties be rescinded, because he wants to wear a Hawaiian shirt every day?

[constanze]

Sure, but this isn't a law. It's a rule that only applies to the US Congress. And we're certainly not in favor of getting rid of "ridiculously old and outdated laws" that we don't give a shit about. Why would we be?

Well, aside from making you the laughingstock of the rest of the civilised world, in a normal country, you want the laws to reflect the current level of social understanding and not what was the norm 200 years ago.

Here, we call it "die normative Kraft des Faktischen" - the norm-creating power of the facts. This means when the majority of the population thinks that a specific law is nonsense or outdated - like forbidding the sale of alcohol on Sunday, or making anal sex a crime to punish homosexuals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States) - then the legislation will evaluate the sense of this law and, if it is indeed outdated or dumb, strike it down.

Because, when laws are simply ignored both by the population and the police, and most courts don't enforce it, why keep the law? It only erodes the trust of the population in other laws. Laws should be sensible, so that the sensible part of the population willingly follows them (and the rest is afraid of punishment for breaking them). Ignoring certain parts goes counter to that.

Additionally, it opens the door to abuse: most cases of dumb laws are ignored, but if the cops need something against a person (from a certain group) they don't like they can hassle them with these laws. If a state attorney or judge wants to get points for his election by being tough on crime, or follows a certain ideology, he can bring lots of people to court/ sentence them, while elsewhere, the same thing is ignored.

What if somebody demanded that the House rule requiring men to wear ties be rescinded, because he wants to wear a Hawaiian shirt every day?

And how would that impact the ability of the House to work? How would it prevent them from making laws and passing bills?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, aside from making you the laughingstock of the rest of the civilised world, in a normal country, you want the laws to reflect the current level of social understanding and not what was the norm 200 years ago.

Here, we call it "die normative Kraft des Faktischen" - the norm-creating power of the facts. This means when the majority of the population thinks that a specific law is nonsense or outdated - like forbidding the sale of alcohol on Sunday, or making anal sex a crime to punish homosexuals - then the legislation will evaluate the sense of this law and, if it is indeed outdated or dumb, strike it down.

<snip>

And how would that impact the ability of the House to work? How would it prevent them from making laws and passing bills?
Do you seriously think we don't have something like die normative Kraft des Faktischen? We don't have a fancy name for it, but striking down unpopular laws is an essential function of any legislature.

Sad to say, however, your "social understanding" isn't quite the same as ours. For the record, sodomy between consenting adults is no longer illegal in the United States. Admittedly, we were nearly 40 years behind you on that one, but then most countries were.

In any event, all of this is completely beside the point. You're talking about substantive laws affecting the conduct of individuals. We are talking about silly hats.

And no, allowing Hawaiian shirts would probably not impede the ability of the House to make laws and pass bills- but it's an old building* full of mostly old people discussing things within the framework of a very old government. When the Bundestag implements casual Fridays, let me know.

*By American standards.

[constanze]

Do you seriously think we don't have something like die normative Kraft des Faktischen? We don't have a fancy name for it, but striking down unpopular laws is an essential function of any legislature.

Really? Then you seem to be a bit behind the schedule, with still existing blue laws, open container laws, drunk in public laws...

Sad to say, however, your "social understanding" isn't quite the same as ours. For the record, sodomy between consenting adults is no longer illegal in the United States. Admittedly, we were nearly 40 years behind you on that one, but then most countries were.

Let's see: the US supreme court has ruled in 2003 that currently laws forbidding sodomy are not legal, but the law hasn't been removed.

Germany changed Paragraph 175 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175)in 1969 and abolished it in 1994.

You still have laws against adultery in some US states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#North_America), those were abolished in the wake of the 68 movement.

When the Bundestag implements casual Fridays, let me know.

Since the Bundestag doesn't have a dress code, they can't implement a rule lifting it. :)

The complete rules and procedures for the Bundestag (English PDF here (https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80060000.pdf)) have an addendum on proper behaviour (Verhaltensregeln), which deal only with the obligation of members to reveal their sources of finance, money gifts, and how to deal with conflict of interests.
The only other source that comes close is the Hausordnung (Rules of the house), which mainly regulates who's allowed to be on the premise; it says in § 4
1) In den Gebäuden des Deutschen Bundestages sind Ruhe und Ordnung zu wahren. Die Besucher haben die Würde des Hauses zu achten und auf die Arbeit im Haus Rücksicht zu nehmen. Insbesondere sind alle Handlungen zu unterlassen, die geeignet sind, die Tätigkeit des Deutschen Bundestages, seiner Gremien, Organe und Einrichtungen zu stören.
In the buildings of the Deutsche Bundestag peace and order are to be kept. The visitors have to respect the dignity of the house, and be considerate of the work done in the house. Especially all behaviour is to be refrained from which are able to disturb the workings of the Deutsche Bundestag, its panels, organs and institutions.

There is a long catalogue of behaviour during the discussions - you're not allowed to disturb a speaker; when asking a question you must stand up - but that is conductive to more ordered business.
There are rules on how long each person is allowed to talk, because we think that filibustering serves no constructive purpose, and it's dangerous for democracy and getting things done to simply be destructive / obstructive without positivly achieving something. The President of the Bundestag can also call a speaker back to topic if he's drifting off, and if the speaker keeps straying, the president can take away his right to speak this day.

Calling names is not allowed, but happens regulalry; there's even a book (http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/phil/leo/rahmen.php?seite=r_pol/klemm_schimpfen.php) with collections of famous or innovative names politicans have called each other. (Taken from the protocols usually). One famous one is Joschka Fischer, saying to the president of the Bundestag, after being thrown out of this session "Mit Verlaub, Herr Präsident, Sie sind ein Arschloch."
Beg pardon, Mr. President, but you are an asshole. He had to apologize and was banned for 2 days for that.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Really? Then you seem to be a bit behind the schedule, with still existing blue laws, open container laws, drunk in public laws...
Sadly, those laws are still popular in many corners.
Let's see: the US supreme court has ruled in 2003 that currently laws forbidding sodomy are not legal, but the law hasn't been removed.

Germany changed Paragraph 175 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175)in 1969 and abolished it in 1994.

You still have laws against adultery in some US states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#North_America), those were abolished in the wake of the 68 movement.
The laws don't have to be removed. The US Supreme Court has powers that most high courts don't; they don't send laws back to the legislature to be rewritten, they nullify them (or parts of them). The appropriate legislatures may take the time to remove the laws from the books, or rewrite them, but there's no particular reason to do so.
Since the Bundestag doesn't have a dress code, they can't implement a rule lifting it. :)
But everyone wears a suit, right? Unwritten rules can be even more binding than written ones.

[constanze]

The laws don't have to be removed. The US Supreme Court has powers that most high courts don't; they don't send laws back to the legislature to be rewritten, they nullify them (or parts of them). The appropriate legislatures may take the time to remove the laws from the books, or rewrite them, but there's no particular reason to do so.

But you said that the legislative gets rid of old laws. Could you guess how many obsolete laws were overturned by state or federal legislative vs. how many laws were nullifiyed by the Supreme Court? Just a rule of thumb?

But everyone wears a suit, right? Unwritten rules can be even more binding than written ones.

It's true that Joschka Fischer wearing tennis sneakers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joschka_Fischer#Green_politician) for his swearing-in ceremony (although with a cheap polyester suit) did cause a stir. (And now the sneakers are in the Museum of Modern History, along with Genscher's yellow knit jacket).

But generally, I think, that if you need rules to define dress in order to get respect for the building or institution, then you already have no respect. Because people do it of their own and can defy the unwritten rules, by adhering to them they show greater respect than obeying official rules.

[Really Not All That Bright]

But you said that the legislative gets rid of old laws. Could you guess how many obsolete laws were overturned by state or federal legislative vs. how many laws were nullifiyed by the Supreme Court? Just a rule of thumb?
Well, that would largely depend on the time period you're talking about. Back In The Day, courts showed greater deference to the will of the legislatures, and nullified duly passed legislation only in fairly extreme circumstances.

Nowadays, courts read civil liberties provisions in particular and the US Constitution in general more expansively, so there's more scope for overturning things. "The facts" have also changed, to a degree; at one time, it was a matter of common sense that states could outlaw interracial marriages (for example), though most didn't.

I would say 90% of the time that laws are nullified in their entirety, it happens through the courts. But 90% of the time that laws are repealed in part, it's through the legislatures. Courts rarely strike down laws, or provisions of laws; legislatures do it every day they're in session.

The point remains, though, that while legislatures spend lots of time passing pointless resolutions, declarations, and laws - naming state birds, honoring the veterans of wars generations past, and so on - there's not much point in repealing laws which have already been nullified. It happens (http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/02/24/Montana_Sens_OK_Sodomy_Law_Repeal/), though.

[fifty-six]

What if she just wears the hat and shuts her mouth? Would she be escorted out? What are the ramifications? Maybe I am missing something.

[Really Not All That Bright]

She would be told to take it off by the Sergeant at Arms (http://politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/nov/19/frederica-wilson/congresswoman-elect-wilson-says-hat-ban-started-18/). Whether or not she'd be kicked out if she refused to do so is a bit more complicated.

[Alan Smithee]

Anyone know where you can see her official Congress portrait? I want to see this lady without her precious hat.It appears to be the image shown on her wikipedia page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederica_Wilson) I think her request was reasonable and should have been honored, but it seems she's wisely chosen to back down and remove her hat in the House chamber.