Politics can be so confusing. Take, for instance, the recent House-passed condemnation of President Donald Trump's racist tweets telling four minority congresswomen to "go back" to their "crime-infested" countries.
Going back would keep the congresswomen right here in the good old U.S.A., by way of New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Michigan. But Trump, after all, has now told at least 10,796 lies or misstatements - some in serial fashion - during his first two and a half years in office. That fact alone - that we allow a president to remain president under such circumstances - is confusing enough. But also consider the stage-show Tuesday as the House debated whether to condemn President Trump's racist tweets.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stood at the dais and read the condemnation resolution: "The comments from the White House are disgraceful and disgusting, and these comments are racist. How shameful to hear him continue to defend those offensive words. ... words which are not only divisive, but dangerous. ... Every single member of this institution, Democratic and Republican, should join us in condemning the president's racist tweets."
Suddenly the debate was sidetracked and put on pause. The problem? How dare the speaker use the word "racist" in concert with the president. Her criticism flouted a long-standing precedent - rooted in parliamentary procedure - that one cannot deride the president, or apparently even his words, on the House floor.
Georgia Republican Rep. Doug Collins asked Pelosi if she wanted to "rephrase that comment." She said she'd cleared the remarks with the Parliamentarian before she read them. Collins then asked that her words be "taken down" - struck from the record.
"Soon, the House rule-keepers were reviewing her remarks like NFL officials looking at a potentially game-changing moment on replay," wrote Meagan Flynn, a reporter with The Washington Post. "The chairman presiding, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), grew so frustrated by the disagreement that he dropped the gavel and said, 'I abandon the chair.' Finally, about an hour later, the verdict was in: Pelosi was out of order, and her 'words should not be used in debate,' ruled House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland)."
Speaking of Parliament, blame it on the King of England. Hoyer ruled Pelosi out of order based on the standards of the House rule book, which takes its idea that lawmakers can't insult the president's character from the British Parliament's rules of decorum. The Parliament's rules were the same rules that shaped the Founding Fathers' understanding of how Congress should work, according to congressional scholars. In fact, it can be found in Thomas Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice. "In Parliament, to speak irreverently or seditiously against the King is against order," the 1801 book reads.
Here's what's confusing: Those same Founding Fathers and framers of our Constitution spelled out pretty clearly in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution that America should have no king: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States."
If we don't have a king, why can't we call the words of one - or a would-be-king president - racist?
The Constitution's framers were so adamant about that no-nobility thing that they went even further, forbidding our presidents and elected officials from even receiving gifts and gains from kings or other foreign powers, writing: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
(Yes, that's the emoluments clause that Trump may well be violating daily with profits from foreign dignitaries staying in his hotels and resorts to curry favor from him - but that's another topic for another day.)
Ultimately on Tuesday, the Democratic-majority House voted not to strike the speaker's words from the record, and also to allow her to continue speaking.
The result was a 240-to-187 vote to condemn the president's racist remarks, but it seemed to fall on Trump's closed ears - probably because only four Republicans and one independent voted with the Democrats.
Within 24 hours, King Trump was back at it - railing Wednesday in a North Carolina campaign rally against the same four minority congresswomen. At one pause in Trump's lengthy rant about Somalia-born, U.S. citizen and duly elected Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, the crowd began chanting, "Send her back," in the same cadence they once used for a Hillary Clinton "lock-her-up" refrain.
On Thursday morning, Trump told reporters he disagreed with the new chant. Asked why he didn't stop the crowd, he said he began speaking again "very quickly."
It was, however, lie No. 10,797 or so. Rally video shows Trump stood quietly a good 13-15 seconds, and in fact didn't start talking again until after the chanters stopped.
This is way beyond confusing. Mostly, it's way beyond sad.