House Parliamentarian Vetoes Article 1
Who'd a thunk that a little 'ole button would get freshman Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) in such a pickle?
Yarmuth made up a bunch of small lapel buttons last month bearing the seemingly innocuous words "Article 1" when he began a walking civics lesson to remind folks that Congress, not the president, is Numero Uno under the Constitution. He thought the buttons would be the perfect subliminal message to his colleagues and the entire viewing audience of C-SPAN. And he enlisted a slew of members to join him in wearing the pins.
But now, just as the emasculated legislators are beginning to feel somewhat empowered again, comes... the button police.
The House parliamentarian has told Yarmuth and his button battalion that they may no longer wear their Article 1 buttons during speeches on the House floor. People will just have to learn some other way that the Founding Fathers intended the elected officials under the dome, not inside the White House, to run the country.
According to the parliamentarian's office, the pins violate House rules that forbid the "wearing of badges by members to communicate a message." In other words, the buttons must come off.
And with the buttons, so come the gloves. A ticked-off Yarmuth whipped off a letter this week to House Parliamentarian John Sullivan challenging the ruling and asking close to (but maybe not quite) a million questions as to why his button has been banned.
"If a simple mention of the founding document of the country constitutes a message, how does it differ from the wearing of the American flag?" Yarmuth asked in his letter, a copy of which he provided to the Sleuth. "Both, it seems to me, are simple acknowledgments of our nation. Certainly, the acknowledgment of Article 1 is not in the same category of messages as a button that reads 'Impeach Bush' or even 'Save the Whales,' which clearly violate the rule. However, any inference of partisan or policy intent in the Article 1 reference is no more reliable than the implicit intent of wearing a flag. In a similar vein, would a button that simply says 'U.S. Constitution' be in violation of the rules?"
Yarmuth also asked how his Article 1 button might differ from the pink ribbons occasionally worn by some members to promote breast cancer awareness. And what about neck-ties? Some members wear "Save the Children" ties. Yarmuth wanted to know if he could design an "Article 1" tie and get away with it.
"I assure you I am not trying to be a troublemaker," the troublemaker wrote, "but those of us members who believe strongly in the 'Article 1' effort want to be sure that our ability to express our support for the U.S. Constitution is not abridged by decisions that are neither logical, consistent, nor based on defensible arguments."
Parliamentarian Sullivan responded within hours, delivering a personal letter to Yarmuth on the floor Thursday evening. Basically, his message was: No buttons allowed in this button-downed joint.
According to Yarmuth, the letter explained that members cannot wear badges to "communicate a message wholly apart from the matter on which the member has been recognized" to speak. Sure, members can wear their buttons, but not when speaking at the podium.
Yarmuth wasn't satisfied with the parliamentarian's response, saying, "He didn't really answer all of my questions." But he accepted his defeat graciously.
Still, with an administration so gung ho about exerting executive power - legitimately or not - Yarmuth says he and the other Article Oners will keep wearing their buttons to hearings and meetings and even on the floor (when they're not being recognized to speak) in hopes of fending off the imperial presidency that Article 1 was intended to prevent.
By Mary Ann Akers |
November 9, 2007; 11:21 AM ET
Previous: Sen. Vitter's French Quarter "Friend" Bares Secrets |
Next: Courtroom Drama: Starring Condi Rice and Abbe Lowell?
Posted by: votenic | November 9, 2007 11:48 AM
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Weekly Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
Posted by: votenic | November 9, 2007 11:49 AM
so do you really believe he's a troublemaker, or are you being snarky and sarcastic. it's hard to tell with people over 30.
Posted by: IMGoph | November 9, 2007 2:53 PM
Well, the button doesn't say "Impeach Bush," but the anti-Bush message came through loud and clear, and the HP heard it. Would the reaction have been the same if the button read, "God Bless our Wonderful President?"
Any and all resistance to Bush's demented presidency is to be applauded. My contribution would be a supply of T-Shirts showing Bush stuffing America down a toilet stool. I would stand across the street from the White House and pass them out free until they were gone--or until Bush's Goon Squad got me, which ever came first :(
Posted by: valleyforge | November 10, 2007 7:29 AM
Yarmuth should design a set that includes a simple black cover for the button. That cover would go on when the Member speaks. Do you think the HP would call that a message about being in mourning for the Constitution?
Posted by: Al Weed | November 12, 2007 4:23 PM
Screw the button,use Article 1 and get the bums out,NOW!!!,before martial law is put in place. Now that's going to be a sight to behold. They don't have enough jails for everyone that would protest. Ans remember that Blackwater has no qualms in shooting Americans,if the money is right.
Posted by: jime | November 12, 2007 6:52 PM
I wonder where one could get either the button, t-shirt, or bumper sticker. It would certainly engender discussion.
Posted by: martin Bernstein | November 12, 2007 6:54 PM
Wearing the flag is not a political statement? The devil it isn't. The radical right clearly intends to indicate that all who do not wear this symbol are less patriotic than the religious freaks who do. Who appointed this parliamentarian? His actions clearly point to a Bush partisan. January 2009 cannot come too soon. Regards, Carl W.
Lundquist, JD, Colonel, Army of the United States (Retired) ...... Boston
Posted by: cwlund@verizonnet | November 12, 2007 11:45 PM
You probably should read the parliamentarian's letter before disparaging him as somebody's partisan. At least consider why the letter is only being characterized rather than being released.
Posted by: Hey, Carl. | November 13, 2007 7:19 AM
what a loser
Posted by: Anonymous | November 13, 2007 9:14 AM
C'mon Col. Lund, certainly there are those on the right who wear the flag as a sign of their politics. Let's have some balance and have discourse about those on the radical left who want to burn the flag and think this is the worst country in the world, but for some reason can't seem to find a better one to move to.
Posted by: actuator | November 13, 2007 1:17 PM
Geez. What EGOs they have in Congress!
Posted by: chiefpayne | November 13, 2007 3:26 PM
My God! The current administration has totally politicized every thing that they can, and when someone else tries, the gloves come off. Get a grip, either no buttons of any kind, or let them wear them.
Posted by: woody7 | November 14, 2007 10:16 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Weekly Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.