Here in Oz, things are derived from the UK parliament. One nice thing is a notion of “unparliamentary speech” and an ever growing list of unparliamentary expressions. Sadly the glory days of this seems to behind us, but there were some truly brilliant exchanges in the past.
It seems that although you may not call another member of parliament a liar, you can call them a: scum-bag, brain damaged, a “stupid foul-mouthed grub”, “like a lizard on a rock - alive, but looking dead”, an “intellectual rust bucket”, cheat, fraud, drone, “irrelevant, useless and immoral”, a “complete political harlot”, clown, dullard, bag-man, “mindless, useless, idealistic, unprincipled”. Those were the days.
I believe you’re referring to the incident when he testified before them on Indian treaties. Not exactly sitting in with them, though the result was the same.
I have to side with the senate on this. How could they discuss anything without reading it first?
Both Washington and Adams gave the SotUA to Congress each year. It was Jefferson who stopped the practice. Wilson revived it.
In the UK **all **statements are directed to the Speaker, even when responding to something someone else said. It’s a bit like two kids at the dinner table not speaking to each other: “Mom, could you ask Bobby to pass the salt?” “Mom, could you tell Angela that salt will make her look even more bloated than she already does?” etc.
The UK parliament is particularly lively during Prime Minister’s Questions, when the PM spends thirty minutes answering questions. It’s hilarious to hear the flowery language used and the raucousness of the backbenchers.
It’s important to remember that the Prime Minister is a member of the legislature himself; first among equals, if you like. The POTUS is not a member of Congress, so it would be a bit weird for him to show up for a congressional debate.
Theoretically, but at PMQs it’s more and more the case that the PM and Leader of the Opposition respond directly to each other - “You were the future once” and all that sort of thing.
But in debates and more routine business they still stick to “Is the Honourable Member aware that he just said all that out loud?” (or whatever). For real rumbunctiousness you have to look to Canberra.
I presume you’re referring to the House Majority Leader’s “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it” remark about the recent Affordable Health Care Act. (Vid cite: http://youtu.be/hV-05TLiiLU)
Once I understood that the UK Parliament does this regularly, yes, I too thought it was awesome to watch politicians ‘debate’ like this and so wished we had it here in the US*!* However, it does seem that only the oh-so polite and ‘stiff-upper-lip’ English could pull this off without it eventually (and inevitably) turning into a brawl every time (as someone mentioned it often doing just that in other countries’ Parliaments*!*)
The quote is “…we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” (My bolding). “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it” is a common right-wing misquotation.
In New Zealand’s Parliament (unicameral/one house), the only exciting bits are question time (2pm - 3pm, each Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday when in session) and when contentious legislation is being debated.
Like our neighbours to the west, question time is quite often comparable to the behaviours in the UK parliamentary system, as this is where the opposition actually get to question Ministers (and the Prime Minister) directly with the opportunity for follow-up questions.
The rest of the time … well lets say it would aid insomniacs greatly.
