Pelosi Suggests Delaying State of the Union

[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.

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.

Why are you continuing to repeat this as though it somehow contradicts anything I've said? He does not have to make a speech at all, and if he does make a speech, he does not have to have anyone in particular present. All he's required to do by the Constitution is present them with the information in some format or other in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[Faun]

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.

Why are you continuing to repeat this as though it somehow contradicts anything I've said? He does not have to make a speech at all, and if he does make a speech, he does not have to have anyone in particular present. All he's required to do by the Constitution is present them with the information in some format or other in a reasonable amount of time.

You're saying the same thing I said, so why are you posting that to me?

 

[saveliberty]

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

No, written form is acceptable by itself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

No, written form is acceptable by itself.

Oh, well then, better make sure the white house has crayons....

 

[saveliberty]

Oh, well then, better make sure the white house has crayons....

Doubt they'll let you in, but bring your coloring book.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Doubt they'll let you in

So what? I don't east fast food.

 

[saveliberty]

Doubt they'll let you in

So what? I don't east fast food.

Do you north, south or west it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Doubt they'll let you in

So what? I don't east fast food.

Do you north, south or west it?

Oh the wit...oh the intelligence...say, you're a trump supporter, aren't ya? Lucky guess....

 

[saveliberty]

Doubt they'll let you in

So what? I don't east fast food.

Do you north, south or west it?

Oh the wit...oh the intelligence...say, you're a trump supporter, aren't ya? Lucky guess....

You'd be the dumbfuck with typing issues.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Doubt they'll let you in

So what? I don't east fast food.

Do you north, south or west it?

Oh the wit...oh the intelligence...say, you're a trump supporter, aren't ya? Lucky guess....

You'd be the dumbfuck with typing issues.

Oh, that cuts deep. Yeah, at least you only have mental issues but not typing issues...so you have that going for ya!

Can you imagine if trump wrote his own speech? Hahaha...pure comedy gold!

 

[Faun]

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

No, written form is acceptable by itself.

WTF is wrong with you people? Where did I say it has to be delivered verbally??

 

[22lcidw]

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.

Its Pelosi who did this. Have it in the House section without the Reps there and fill the seats with his supporters and people who have been special and/or hurt by the progressive tactics.

 

[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.

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.

I haven't said SOTU is the extraordinary occasion. The extended government shutdown could be. Disagreement between the two houses could be. He can use is to adjourn either or both houses to deliver the speech and try to resolve the problem. Any speech. And call it "I feel talking to Congress today".

Speaking of stupidity, I'm not worrying about yours, neither should you... if is gonna make you feel better, you're not alone, a lot of people have no talent.

 

[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.

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...?

Funny, you omitted the part of the article right after it... "he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper". I don't see is saying "when Speaker think is proper"... It's President's right.

 

[Faun]

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.

Its Pelosi who did this. Have it in the House section without the Reps there and fill the seats with his supporters and people who have been special and/or hurt by the progressive tactics.

It’s not his House.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Its Pelosi who did this. Have it in the House section without the Reps there and fill the seats with his supporters and people who have been special and/or hurt by the progressive tactics.

How do you propose he barge into the House chamber and start telling the Representatives who can and can't be there?

 

[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.

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.

I haven't said SOTU is the extraordinary occasion. The extended government shutdown could be. Disagreement between the two houses could be. He can use is to adjourn either or both houses to deliver the speech and try to resolve the problem. Any speech. And call it "I feel talking to Congress today".

Speaking of stupidity, I'm not worrying about yours, neither should you... if is gonna make you feel better, you're not alone, a lot of people have no talent.

”I haven't said SOTU is the extraordinary occasion.”

The hell you haven’t...

Second, according to the Constitution, Article 2, Section 3. State of the Union, Convening Congress:

"He shall (President) 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; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

... President is within his constitutional rights, and Pelosi has no right to deny him a SOTU.

Clearly, even you are so embarrassed by your own stupidity, you’re trying to run from it now. Sadly for you, like glue, it’s forever stuck to you.

”The extended government shutdown could be. Disagreement between the two houses could be. He can use is to adjourn either or both houses to deliver the speech and try to resolve the problem. Any speech. And call it "I feel talking to Congress today".”

You’re actually getting dumber.

Article II, Section 3 allows a president to convene, while they’re adjourned, under “extraordinary occasions.” And when such a meeting is convened, it still doesn’t mean he meets with them or can give a speech about anything from the floor of the House. The Speaker of the House still controls who may do that.

 

[edward37]

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.

I haven't said SOTU is the extraordinary occasion. The extended government shutdown could be. Disagreement between the two houses could be. He can use is to adjourn either or both houses to deliver the speech and try to resolve the problem. Any speech. And call it "I feel talking to Congress today".

Speaking of stupidity, I'm not worrying about yours, neither should you... if is gonna make you feel better, you're not alone, a lot of people have no talent.

”I haven't said SOTU is the extraordinary occasion.”

The hell you haven’t...

Second, according to the Constitution, Article 2, Section 3. State of the Union, Convening Congress:

"He shall (President) 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; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

... President is within his constitutional rights, and Pelosi has no right to deny him a SOTU.

Clearly, even you are so embarrassed by your own stupidity, you’re trying to run from it now. Sadly for you, like glue, it’s forever stuck to you.

”The extended government shutdown could be. Disagreement between the two houses could be. He can use is to adjourn either or both houses to deliver the speech and try to resolve the problem. Any speech. And call it "I feel talking to Congress today".”

You’re actually getting dumber.

Article II, Section 3 allows a president to convene, while they’re adjourned, under “extraordinary occasions.” And when such a meeting is convened, it still doesn’t mean he meets with them or can give a speech about anything from the floor of the House. The Speaker of the House still controls who may do that.

Newly-elected Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in an interview published on Thursday that the Constitution considers her equal to President Trump.

When Pelosi was asked whether she considers herself equal to Trump, she said, "The Constitution does,” The New York Times reported.

Pelosi's position as Speaker makes her the second in line for the presidency should something happen to Trump, after Vice President Pence, according to the Constitution.

The House on Thursday elected Pelosi as Speaker for the second time in 12 years, a historic return to power for the nation’s first female Speaker. Pelosi's reelection made her the first lawmaker to become Speaker in nonconsecutive Congresses since 1955.

Pelosi during the Times interview recounted a White House dinner last year during which men spoke over her, which she said prompted her to ask, "Doesn’t anybody listen to a woman in the room?"

“Hopefully that will become a thing of the past now that we have so many women in Congress — and with the gavel,” Pelosi told the Times. “The gavel makes a big difference.”

 

[Faun]

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...?

Funny, you omitted the part of the article right after it... "he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper". I don't see is saying "when Speaker think is proper"... It's President's right.

I omitted it because it’s irrelevant to this discussion. Even worse for you, based on your usage of the word, “adjourn,” it’s clear that it doesn’t mean what you think it does.

How on Earth would adjourning Congress enable him to give a State if the Union address from the House floor? Is it your imagination that Trump could simply sneak onto the House dais while the Congress is away?

 

[Faun]

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.

I haven't said SOTU is the extraordinary occasion. The extended government shutdown could be. Disagreement between the two houses could be. He can use is to adjourn either or both houses to deliver the speech and try to resolve the problem. Any speech. And call it "I feel talking to Congress today".

Speaking of stupidity, I'm not worrying about yours, neither should you... if is gonna make you feel better, you're not alone, a lot of people have no talent.

”I haven't said SOTU is the extraordinary occasion.”

The hell you haven’t...

Second, according to the Constitution, Article 2, Section 3. State of the Union, Convening Congress:

"He shall (President) 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; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

... President is within his constitutional rights, and Pelosi has no right to deny him a SOTU.

Clearly, even you are so embarrassed by your own stupidity, you’re trying to run from it now. Sadly for you, like glue, it’s forever stuck to you.

”The extended government shutdown could be. Disagreement between the two houses could be. He can use is to adjourn either or both houses to deliver the speech and try to resolve the problem. Any speech. And call it "I feel talking to Congress today".”

You’re actually getting dumber.

Article II, Section 3 allows a president to convene, while they’re adjourned, under “extraordinary occasions.” And when such a meeting is convened, it still doesn’t mean he meets with them or can give a speech about anything from the floor of the House. The Speaker of the House still controls who may do that.

Newly-elected Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in an interview published on Thursday that the Constitution considers her equal to President Trump.

When Pelosi was asked whether she considers herself equal to Trump, she said, "The Constitution does,” The New York Times reported.

Pelosi's position as Speaker makes her the second in line for the presidency should something happen to Trump, after Vice President Pence, according to the Constitution.

The House on Thursday elected Pelosi as Speaker for the second time in 12 years, a historic return to power for the nation’s first female Speaker. Pelosi's reelection made her the first lawmaker to become Speaker in nonconsecutive Congresses since 1955.

Pelosi during the Times interview recounted a White House dinner last year during which men spoke over her, which she said prompted her to ask, "Doesn’t anybody listen to a woman in the room?"

“Hopefully that will become a thing of the past now that we have so many women in Congress — and with the gavel,” Pelosi told the Times. “The gavel makes a big difference.”

Pelosi is delusional to believe that. Constitutionally, the Executive branch is an equal branch to the Legislative branch. And where Trump is the head of the Executive branch, Pelosi is NOT the head of the Legislative branch. She’s the head of the House of Representatives, which is only one chamber of the two which comprise the Legislative branch.