Quick question for DU parliamentarians...(Rep. Grayson v. Rep. Wilson)

[KansDem]

Already the right-wing scream machine is comparing Rep. Grayson's comments on the floor of the House with what Rep. Wilson did during Pres. Obama's address to Congress.

Now, I haven't read Robert's "Rules of Order" much and don't know that much about how Congress conducts its sessions, but isn't this "comparison" a false one to make? I mean, doesn't the contrast lie in that Rep. Grayson "had the floor" and Rep. Wilson didn't? When you "have the floor," as Rep. Grayson most certainly did, can't you say just about anything you want to say? Whereas, in Rep. Wilson's case, he was "out of order?"

I'm surprised more isn't being made about this contrast...

[gateley]

1. I'm not a parliamentarian, but I heard the same argument you give on one

of the MSNBC's shows. That Wilson was definitely breaking the rules, Grayson wasn't. (I think it was Ed Schultz)

[KansDem]

3. That's what I thought...

Like when it was revealed SC Gov. Sanford went AWOL to see his mistress, the media played up the "so he has a mistress...big deal" angle instead of "head of state disappears for several days without informing anyone," which is much, much worse.

I would have liked for someone to point out to Wolf and his ilk that Rep. Wilson was out of order, Rep. Grayson wasn't, so STFU!

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Of course, it's a false comparison. It's coming from the GOP.

[LTR]

4. I studied ParliPro in college

Robert's Rules are popular with the fraternity/sorority crowd.

Grayson had the floor, was in the right. Wilson shouted out of turn. Big no-no.

Not the same thing.

[Winterblues]

5. Congress has their own written rules of Decorum

It is strictly forbidden to namecall the President but it is not forbidden to call the opposition on their footdragging and listing some provable consequences being the death of some people...

[sofa king]

6. Yes there is a big difference.

The House's first order of business every two years (each new Congress) is to adopt a set of rules. This year and next the rules are codified in H. Res. 5, which can be viewed as a .pdf file here:

http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hres_ruleschnge.pdf

As usual, the rules were simply carried over from the last Congress, with 30-some pages of amendments, so it only gets more complicated from there. Interested readers can try to piece together the whole thing by looking here:

http://rules.house.gov/archived_Congresses.aspx?CID=11&GP=2

I know that many firms, lobbying, law, and other, spend a lot of time to piece together the whole rules in forms which are easier to read and consult. Perhaps we'll get lucky and one of those folks will wander by.

All of Congress' rules, House and Senate, trace their origins back to 1801, when Thomas Jefferson published his "Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States," which was in turn largely borrowed from the rules of procedure which govern the House of Lords.

The text of that treatise can be found here, just under the Constitution:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/hrm/browse_109.html

For what it's worth, here's my ex-professional, unresearched, highly unreliable opinion:

With one outburst, Rep. Wilson committed a number of offenses:

1) He spoke out of turn, which is certainly a violation of the rules of conduct;

2) His allegation, "you lie," was demonstrably false, as the President was referring to a passage of text in the proposed bill he was describing, and therefore...

3) Rep. Wilson falsely impugned the character of a guest of Congress, while speaking out of turn, while that guest was addressing Congress, and that guest also happened to be an elected official, and that guest also happened to be the President of the United States, which may further compound the offense.

Under the right circumstances (which we won't see), this action could provide justification for unseating Rep. Wilson.

Rep. Grayson's speech, on the other hand, was delivered according to the rules, in proper turn, did not impugn the character of any individual Member of Congress, and cited reports which should prove to be accurate. In other words, he did nothing that compares to what Rep. Wilson did.

But that's just my opinion, and you shouldn't take my word for it.

[KharmaTrain]

7. Grayson Didn't Break Any Rules...

He didn't directly attack anyone specific nor broke the rules of the House. He spoke during his designated time and was well within his right to say what he did. Nothing offense...except if you consider anything rushpublicans do offensive.

This is more "poutrage"...the right wing echo machine in full yell or should I say all hat and no cattle.

Wilson's insult of the President was premediated and deliberate...a personal attack. Grayson took on the entire rushpublican party and the truth hurts.

[Cleita]

8. Did Rep. Grayson, interrupt a President's address calling him a liar?

I don't think so. Apples and Oranges my dear.