Pelosi Suggests Delaying State of the Union

[ZZ PUPPS]

Fuck Nancy. Have it in the Senate instead and ban the House members...LOL.

 

[Ame®icano]

Where I said it has to be "State of the Union" address? He can have "extraordinary" emergency address to Congress, and demand every Congressman and Senator to be there, just to deliver "extraordinary occasion" speech, just as Constitution allows him to.

We’re not talking about an emergency address. Pelosi didn’t uninvite him from giving an emergency address. We’re talking about the state of the union address.... that’s not an extraordinary occasion. Being attacked by another nation is an extraordinary occasion. A devastating natural disaster could be an extraordinary occasion. A regular occurrence like the state of the union address is not an extraordinary occasion. Nor does it become one because his widdle feewings are are and he wants to one up Pelosi.

We have found the common ground here.

With some reserve I agree that she can deny SOTU on the Congress floor, but she cannot deny him right to address the Congress. What I was saying in all posts above, he can find reason to adjourn the Congress, and government shutdown is a good enough reason to use for, if he wants to.

He doesn't have a "right to address Congress". As a conservative Republican, I would actually support bringing Articles of Impeachment against him for abuse of power in invoking this clause of the Constitution to deliver this speech.

The Constitution says otherwise, he may address the Congress in certain cases.

Where does the Constitution say anything about him addressing Congress, let alone your lunatic plan for him to march around giving orders like some banana-republic dictator?

I posted it at least three times in this thread, even in the post you replied to, but you ignored it.

Article 2, Section 3. Read it.

 

[Ame®icano]

We have found the common ground here.

With some reserve I agree that she can deny SOTU on the Congress floor, but she cannot deny him right to address the Congress. What I was saying in all posts above, he can find reason to adjourn the Congress, and government shutdown is a good enough reason to use for, if he wants to.

Sure he can, but not for the state of the union address. For an “extraordinary occasion.”

You know, he can go there for an "extraordinary occasion" and deliver the SOTU address. They don't get to see what's in the speech until they hear it.

And then they get to impeach him for abusing his power. What a grand idea.

What power would he abuse?

I won't deny that you really are particularly obtuse at the moment, but don't even descend into left-think and pretend that you need the damned conversation entirely recapped for you every single post because you magically forgot the topic. I will treat you exactly like I do the leftists and assume that it means you're just too damned dumb to deserve to discuss it.

You can either sack up, or you can admit that your little plan has been full of shit from the start. Pick one.

Ooooh, you can't answer...

Again, if Trump use his constitutional power under Article 2, Section 3, of the Constitution, to convene the Congress (either House or Senate, or both) under extraordinary occasions, or when there is a disagreement between them, please explain what power would he abuse if he does so?

You're so smart, that won't be a problem, right?

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey....whatever the outcome of this, the level of division continues to expand = winning for real Americans.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We’re not talking about an emergency address. Pelosi didn’t uninvite him from giving an emergency address. We’re talking about the state of the union address.... that’s not an extraordinary occasion. Being attacked by another nation is an extraordinary occasion. A devastating natural disaster could be an extraordinary occasion. A regular occurrence like the state of the union address is not an extraordinary occasion. Nor does it become one because his widdle feewings are are and he wants to one up Pelosi.

We have found the common ground here.

With some reserve I agree that she can deny SOTU on the Congress floor, but she cannot deny him right to address the Congress. What I was saying in all posts above, he can find reason to adjourn the Congress, and government shutdown is a good enough reason to use for, if he wants to.

He doesn't have a "right to address Congress". As a conservative Republican, I would actually support bringing Articles of Impeachment against him for abuse of power in invoking this clause of the Constitution to deliver this speech.

The Constitution says otherwise, he may address the Congress in certain cases.

Where does the Constitution say anything about him addressing Congress, let alone your lunatic plan for him to march around giving orders like some banana-republic dictator?

I posted it at least three times in this thread, even in the post you replied to, but you ignored it.

Article 2, Section 3. Read it.

So in other words, you can't actually cite any quotes about a "right to address Congress".

Just a tip: when you have to resort to leftist tactics to make your point . . . you don't have a point.

Second tip: Shouting, "Convene Congress! He can convene Congress! That means he can order them around any time, for any reason he feels like!" in response to being told that he CAN'T do that without abusing his power, is not an argument. It's an admission that you don't have an argument.

I have no doubt that if Obama had exercised his power to convene Congress in an emergency on such a petty partisan matter, you'd have been shitting bricks. I have no doubt that if Congressional Democrats exercised the powers of Congress for petty partisan reasons, you would be equally upset. In fact, that's exactly what's happening here, and look at you.

 

[saveliberty]

Than whats the fuzz to reopen it, if is completely normal thing?

Keep it shut for as much I am concerned.

What you describe here is how dictators act, with convening the legislature when it suits them and sending them home when it doesn't. Is that what you're aiming for? Do you think America should be a dictatorship with a puppet Congress? The Constitutional section you keep referring to doesn't not mean what you want it to. You are misreading how the paragraph is put together. Despite efforts by people equal or more intelligent than you making attempts to educate your ass.

Basically a good time for you to stfu.

 

[Faun]

The “State of the Union” address is not an “extraordinary occasion,” it’s a regular occasion.

Where I said it has to be "State of the Union" address? He can have "extraordinary" emergency address to Congress, and demand every Congressman and Senator to be there, just to deliver "extraordinary occasion" speech, just as Constitution allows him to.

We’re not talking about an emergency address. Pelosi didn’t uninvite him from giving an emergency address. We’re talking about the state of the union address.... that’s not an extraordinary occasion. Being attacked by another nation is an extraordinary occasion. A devastating natural disaster could be an extraordinary occasion. A regular occurrence like the state of the union address is not an extraordinary occasion. Nor does it become one because his widdle feewings are are and he wants to one up Pelosi.

We have found the common ground here.

With some reserve I agree that she can deny SOTU on the Congress floor, but she cannot deny him right to address the Congress. What I was saying in all posts above, he can find reason to adjourn the Congress, and government shutdown is a good enough reason to use for, if he wants to.

He doesn't have a "right to address Congress". As a conservative Republican, I would actually support bringing Articles of Impeachment against him for abuse of power in invoking this clause of the Constitution to deliver this speech.

The Constitution says otherwise, he may address the Congress in certain cases.

He can call on them to convene under an “extraordinary occasion.”

Delivering the state of the union is not an “extraordinary occasion,” I don’t care how stubbornly stupid you are.

 

[Faun]

Fuck Nancy. Have it in the Senate instead and ban the House members...LOL.

He can certainly do that. He’ll still have to deliver the state of the union to the House.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Fuck Nancy. Have it in the Senate instead and ban the House members...LOL.

He can certainly do that. He’ll still have to deliver the state of the union to the House.

No he won't. He's having the SOU on date X. If the House wants to host - OK. If not , fuck 'em. They can watch it on TV.

 

[Faun]

We’re not talking about an emergency address. Pelosi didn’t uninvite him from giving an emergency address. We’re talking about the state of the union address.... that’s not an extraordinary occasion. Being attacked by another nation is an extraordinary occasion. A devastating natural disaster could be an extraordinary occasion. A regular occurrence like the state of the union address is not an extraordinary occasion. Nor does it become one because his widdle feewings are are and he wants to one up Pelosi.

We have found the common ground here.

With some reserve I agree that she can deny SOTU on the Congress floor, but she cannot deny him right to address the Congress. What I was saying in all posts above, he can find reason to adjourn the Congress, and government shutdown is a good enough reason to use for, if he wants to.

He doesn't have a "right to address Congress". As a conservative Republican, I would actually support bringing Articles of Impeachment against him for abuse of power in invoking this clause of the Constitution to deliver this speech.

The Constitution says otherwise, he may address the Congress in certain cases.

Where does the Constitution say anything about him addressing Congress, let alone your lunatic plan for him to march around giving orders like some banana-republic dictator?

I posted it at least three times in this thread, even in the post you replied to, but you ignored it.

Article 2, Section 3. Read it.

No, you rightard.

It says under “extraordinary occasions,” he can call upon them to ”convene.” Nowhere in there does it give him the power to be present in the House chamber while they convene. That’s still a choice left in the hands of the House Speaker. Guess who that is...?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fuck Nancy. Have it in the Senate instead and ban the House members...LOL.

He can certainly do that. He’ll still have to deliver the state of the union to the House.

He can fax it to them the week after. Or mail it "Postage Due".

 

[Faun]

Fuck Nancy. Have it in the Senate instead and ban the House members...LOL.

He can certainly do that. He’ll still have to deliver the state of the union to the House.

No he won't. He's having the SOU on date X. If the House wants to host - OK. If not , fuck 'em. They can watch it on TV.

Not according to our Constitution. He’s constitutionally required to deliver the state of the union to the “Congress,” not just the Senate. There’s no requirement for the House to “host” a public speech.

 

[Faun]

Fuck Nancy. Have it in the Senate instead and ban the House members...LOL.

He can certainly do that. He’ll still have to deliver the state of the union to the House.

He can fax it to them the week after. Or mail it "Postage Due".

Sure he can. But he still has to deliver it at some point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fuck Nancy. Have it in the Senate instead and ban the House members...LOL.

He can certainly do that. He’ll still have to deliver the state of the union to the House.

No he won't. He's having the SOU on date X. If the House wants to host - OK. If not , fuck 'em. They can watch it on TV.

Actually, I just had an interesting idea. Although I will say that there's a pretty strong case that he has to actually give the SOTU information to the Congressmembers, and probably giving a speech on TV and telling them "Watch it on TV or fuck off" probably doesn't meet Costitutional muster . . . he could give the address in the Senate chamber, have it televised . . . and then send a copy of the tape to each of the Democrats' offices.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fuck Nancy. Have it in the Senate instead and ban the House members...LOL.

He can certainly do that. He’ll still have to deliver the state of the union to the House.

No he won't. He's having the SOU on date X. If the House wants to host - OK. If not , fuck 'em. They can watch it on TV.

Not according to our Constitution. He’s constitutionally required to deliver the state of the union to the “Congress,” not just the Senate. There’s no requirement for the House to “host” a public speech.

As I said, he's not required to have any of them at all present, though. So long as he sends them a transcript, or a DVD, or even just a memo of the highlights, the Constitutional requirements are met.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fuck Nancy. Have it in the Senate instead and ban the House members...LOL.

He can certainly do that. He’ll still have to deliver the state of the union to the House.

He can fax it to them the week after. Or mail it "Postage Due".

Sure he can. But he still has to deliver it at some point.

No, he doesn't. The Constitution doesn't require him to make a speech at all. As has been mentioned numerous times, the SOTU requirements were met by letter until around the turn of the 20th century or so.

 

[Faun]

Fuck Nancy. Have it in the Senate instead and ban the House members...LOL.

He can certainly do that. He’ll still have to deliver the state of the union to the House.

No he won't. He's having the SOU on date X. If the House wants to host - OK. If not , fuck 'em. They can watch it on TV.

Not according to our Constitution. He’s constitutionally required to deliver the state of the union to the “Congress,” not just the Senate. There’s no requirement for the House to “host” a public speech.

As I said, he's not required to have any of them at all present, though. So long as he sends them a transcript, or a DVD, or even just a memo of the highlights, the Constitutional requirements are met.

I didn’t say they’re required to be present. I said he’s constitutionally required to deliver the state of the union to Congress at some point.

 

[Faun]

Fuck Nancy. Have it in the Senate instead and ban the House members...LOL.

He can certainly do that. He’ll still have to deliver the state of the union to the House.

He can fax it to them the week after. Or mail it "Postage Due".

Sure he can. But he still has to deliver it at some point.

No, he doesn't. The Constitution doesn't require him to make a speech at all. As has been mentioned numerous times, the SOTU requirements were met by letter until around the turn of the 20th century or so.

I said nothing about him giving a speech.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If trump declares a national emergency over the wall while the opiod crisis and healthcare crisis are still raging, he will cement his spot as the worst president in history. If he hasn't already, that is.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Illegal immigration is at an all time low in a decade.

Illegal drugs coming into this country are coming through regular ports of entry via paid drug mules, not crossing some desolate part of the border on the backs of migrants.

The opioid crisis was caused by doctors over prescribing opiate drugs, and then shutting people off of their scripts after they became addicted, forcing them to turn to heroin for relief.

Fentanyl (the drug responsible for the most overdoses currently), doesn't come from Mexico or the drug cartels. It is made in China by pharmacy companies over there.

The current humanitarian crisis at the border was caused by the Trump admin's decision to separate families, as well as forcing asylum seekers to come in only 40 per day, while waiting on the Mexican side of the border.

So.....................what exactly is this "emergency crisis" that Trump is talking about?