Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Pelosi, Delay State of Union Address


OverSword

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

I mean, all he has to do is push Sarah Sanders to the side and give his speech.  You are way too hung up on him forcing Congress to go into session and let him speak in front of them.

I'm not "hung up" on this or anything else. He has the "duty" to do this under Article II, Section 3. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I'm not "hung up" on this or anything else. He has the "duty" to do this under Article II, Section 3. 

And he can do it with a letter............  Just like presidents before him.

You are beginning to sound like Dustin Hoffman on "Rainman"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

And he can do it with a letter............  Just like presidents before him.

You are beginning to sound like Dustin Hoffman on "Rainman"

Two hundred and fourty six !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

And he can do it with a letter............  Just like presidents before him.

I don't disagree with that, however it is his prerogative as to how he gives it. The Constitution simply says he "shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;".

The Speaker of the House has no authority in the Constitution as to how, when, or where the President chooses to give this "State of the Union" to the Congress. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lost_shaman said:

I don't disagree with that, however it is his prerogative as to how he gives it. The Constitution simply says he "shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;".

The Speaker of the House has no authority in the Constitution as to how, when, or where the President chooses to give this "State of the Union" to the Congress. 

Correct.  The only authority she has is in a certain way which he can't.  He can write a letter, he can go on TV, he can take out a news paper add, he can post it on the internet, etc.

The only thing he can't is speak in front of Congress while in session without her permission. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, I'd say that if the Speaker of the House attempts to obstruct the President from preforming his Constitutional duty to give to Congress his "State of the Union" address that this would be grounds for centur if not impeachment of the Speaker of the House!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

The only thing he can't is speak in front of Congress while in session without her permission. 

Where do you get this idea? Cite this in the Constitution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lost_shaman said:

Where do you get this idea? Cite this in the Constitution. 

You haven't shown me in the Constitution where he has to physically speak in front of a Congress to disprove.

  So, I'll just point you back at this: "shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;".

There it is right there.  The president has to give the information to Congress but it doesn't give him any Constitutional rights on the method of delivery.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

You haven't shown me in the Constitution where he has to physically speak in front of a Congress to disprove.

  So, I'll just point you back at this: "shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;".

There it is right there.  The president has to give the information to Congress but it doesn't give him any Constitutional rights on the method of delivery.

 

 

Nor does the Constitution give the Speaker of the House authority to deny the President the method of delivery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

The "instrument" for the President to to this is Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. And yes there is precedent for this. Truman convened a "joint session" on July 27th, 1948.

https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/President-Harry-S--Truman-s-special-Joint-Session-on-inflation,-housing,-and-civil-rights/

Addin more to this...

The Concurrent resolution for this Joint Session was H.Con. Res. 220 it passed the House the day before and passed the Senate the same day as the Joint Session.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

Addin more to this...

The Concurrent resolution for this Joint Session was H.Con. Res. 220 it passed the House the day before and passed the Senate the same day as the Joint Session.

So? These have no force of Law. They are simply agreeing with themselves.

Edited by lost_shaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, lost_shaman said:

So? These have no force of Law. 

It's part of the procedure to make the Joint Sessions happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't every top politician have a representative who stands in for them when they are absent, ill, or out of the country?  I would have assumed there is a contingency plan put in place.

 

 

Edited by Aaron2016
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here's the crux of it.  The Constitution gives the responsibility of giving the state of the union address to the President but does not specify the means, nor does it give him any special powers to do so.  The Speaker of the House has the power to decide who can speak on the floor. Absent any special power from the Constitution in this regard, the Speaker of the House has the power to prevent the President from directly addressing the joint congress in this matter.  Pretty cut and dry.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

In fact, I'd say that if the Speaker of the House attempts to obstruct the President from preforming his Constitutional duty to give to Congress his "State of the Union" address that this would be grounds for centur if not impeachment of the Speaker of the House!

 

This is what I am wondering. Is the privileged message from the President taking the necessary precedence. The Congressional Procedures require

Quote

"When at the beginning of a new Congress the House has completed its essential organizational business, it informs the President, by committee, that it has established a quorum and is ready to receive any message he may wish to transmit."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

So here's the crux of it.  The Constitution gives the responsibility of giving the state of the union address to the President but does not specify the means, nor does it give him any special powers to do so.  The Speaker of the House has the power to decide who can speak on the floor. Absent any special power from the Constitution in this regard, the Speaker of the House has the power to prevent the President from directly addressing the joint congress in this matter.  Pretty cut and dry.

 

I'm certain it is covered in the Congressional Procedures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

I'm certain it is covered in the Congressional Procedures.

It is.  But with tunnel vision on the Constitution only, it is hard to explain to others.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe orange man and wrinkle lady are really having an affair and they just protest too much. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Myles said:

Maybe orange man and wrinkle lady are really having an affair and they just protest too much. 

Thank you for burdening me with that image :( 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Nancy Pelosi wasn't just put on a short leash by Trump.

It also appears Trump just handed that leash to Mick Mulvaney.  Too funny!

DxNOpLDX4AcF9ZE.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

This is what I am wondering. Is the privileged message from the President taking the necessary precedence. The Congressional Procedures require

 

It's a good question since the Constitution requires the President to inform Congress "information of the State of the Union", and if the President chooses to speak to the Congress then is Pelosi as Speaker of the House in violation of the Constitution if she refuses to let the President give the SOTU in the House chambers? I honestly don't know the answer but I assume we will find out soon or this question may end up in Court, likely the Supreme Court and then whatever they rule will resolve the question for all future SOTU instances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2019 at 12:05 PM, Tatetopa said:

I think you are looking too deeply.  It is a move in the power struggle between Don and Nancy.   The security question probably is BS.  Now the President has to respond.  If he postpones, then Nancy wins and he know it.   If he has it from the oval office, it may not get any more favorably reviews than his last prime time address from there. 

Any speech looks better with a cheering audience. He could hold it at a rally, or at a venue of his choosing where he could invite only Republicans.     Maybe this is what he really wanted; to select the audience. The effect of his speech could be hampered in the House when the audience is full of jeering Democrats.  He has to worry about which one of the new members will pull a Joe Wilson and shout out "you Lie!"

3

Yes, and I'm certain that any civility that still remained has gone away since these freshmen congresspeople have landed.  The same thing would happen if he held the address at a venue that was public.  He needs to get out in the country and take his message personally to as many of his constituents as possible.  He should buy ads to push the message as well.  The Democrats, as a whole, seem to loathe the man and he doesn't need to waste time trying to convince them of anything.  The only way he can combat a propagandist media is to get out there and be among the people.  It is delusional to think that trying to accommodate people who literally hate you, is going to help anything.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.