Is This the Dumbest New Congressmember?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@lieu

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Are Yanks not in favour of getting rid of ridicoulously old and outdated laws?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

@boytyperanma

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).

@constanze

Are Yanks not in favour of getting rid of ridicoulously old and outdated laws?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 And we’re certainly not in favor of getting rid of “ridiculously old and outdated laws” that we don’t give a shit about.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What if somebody demanded that the House rule requiring men to wear ties be rescinded, because he wants to wear a Hawaiian shirt every day?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]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

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 And we’re certainly not in favor of getting rid of “ridiculously old and outdated laws” that we don’t give a shit about.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 - 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]

@constanze

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]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

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 175in 1969 and abolished it in 1994.

You still have laws against adultery in some US states, 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) 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 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]

@constanze

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 175in 1969 and abolished it in 1994.

You still have laws against adultery in some US states, 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]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

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 wearingtennis sneakers 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]

@constanze

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, 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. Whether or not she’d be kicked out if she refused to do so is a bit more complicated.

[Alan_Smithee]

@Mahaloth

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. 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.