Pelosi Suggests Delaying State of the Union

[CowboyTed]

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?

Please do...

Pelsoi can sneak into the WH and he would come back with his stuff on the front lawn...

Melania will be gone to NYC, having the moving in party organised...

Security will go, "Who are you again?"

It will be like Bobby Ewing in the Shower on Dallas... It was all one bad dream....

 

[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.

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.

That's your interpretation, and not what the Article says.

It's not to convene, while they're adjourned...

It's two part sentence, just like in the 2nd Amendment, divided by (,) coma.

..."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"...

It means, President may convene them (on extraordinary occasions), AND President may adjourn them (in case of disagreement...).

Just as he can call a special session of Congress, he can adjourn them if they disagree about when they want to adjourn.

Assuming you know the meaning of word "convene", tell me, does President have right to address the Congress when he convene them?

 

[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.

That's your interpretation, and not what the Article says.

It's not to convene, while they're adjourned...

It's two part sentence, just like in the 2nd Amendment, divided by (,) coma.

..."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"...

It means, President may convene them (on extraordinary occasions), AND President may adjourn them (in case of disagreement...).

Just as he can call a special session of Congress, he can adjourn them if they disagree about when they want to adjourn.

Of course that’s what it means. Why else would a president need to call a special secceion of the Congress while they’re in session?

Assuming you know the meaning of word "convene", tell me, does President have right to address the Congress when he convene them?

Under extraordinary occasions, yes; but even then, he still does not have the right to speak from the House floor without the permission of the House Speaker. He can send them a letter from the White House, if he wants. Just like he did the other day when he informed Pelosi she couldn’t use the military to fly her overseas.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

That's your interpretation, and not what the Article says.

It's not to convene, while they're adjourned...

It's two part sentence, just like in the 2nd Amendment, divided by (,) coma.

..."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"...

It means, President may convene them (on extraordinary occasions), AND President may adjourn them (in case of disagreement...).

Just as he can call a special session of Congress, he can adjourn them if they disagree about when they want to adjourn.

Assuming you know the meaning of word "convene", tell me, does President have right to address the Congress when he convene them?

No.

 

[Ame®icano]

He's plowing in. Constitutional duty calls.

 

[Faun]

He's plowing in. Constitutional duty calls.

LOLOL

”I will be honoring your invitation,” is your idea of “plowing in,” is it?

 

[Ame®icano]

He's plowing in. Constitutional duty calls.

LOLOL

”I will be honoring your invitation,” is your idea of “plowing in,” is it?

Reminder, the initial invitation was for January 29.

His letter is more like:

* You lied to everyone about Secret Service not being capable of handling it.
* I will be giving the SOTU address
* I will be giving it on the date you initially invited me to give it
* I will be giving it in House Chamber
* Get REKT

Yeah, he's plowing in.

 

[Faun]

He's plowing in. Constitutional duty calls.

LOLOL

”I will be honoring your invitation,” is your idea of “plowing in,” is it?

Reminder, the initial invitation was for January 29.

His letter is more like:

* You lied to everyone about Secret Service not being capable of handling it.
* I will be giving the SOTU address
* I will be giving it on the date you initially invited me to give it
* I will be giving it in House Chamber
* Get REKT

Yeah, he's plowing in.

LOLOL

So when family and friends come to my house after I invite them, they’re “plowing in,” are they?

 

[Ame®icano]

He's plowing in. Constitutional duty calls.

LOLOL

”I will be honoring your invitation,” is your idea of “plowing in,” is it?

Reminder, the initial invitation was for January 29.

His letter is more like:

* You lied to everyone about Secret Service not being capable of handling it.
* I will be giving the SOTU address
* I will be giving it on the date you initially invited me to give it
* I will be giving it in House Chamber
* Get REKT

Yeah, he's plowing in.

LOLOL

So when family and friends come to my house after I invite them, they’re “plowing in,” are they?

Right...

It is a mere formality and he is TELLING Pelosi he will be there no matter what the **** she says and that she better be there too.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Right...

It is a mere formality and he is TELLING Pelosi he will be there no matter what the **** she says and that she better be there too.

And Fox News is reporting that Pelosi basically told trump - pack sand.

"Dear Mr. President:

When I extended an invitation on January 3rd for you to deliver the State of the Union address, it was on the mutually agreed upon date, January 29th. At that time, there was no thought that the government would still be shut down.

In my further correspondence of January 16th, I said we should work together to find a mutually agreeable date when government has re-opened and I hope that we can still do that.

I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President’s State of the Union address in the House Chamber until government has opened.

Again, I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened.

Sincerely,

Nancy Pelosi"


.>>>>

 

[Lakhota]

Speaker Pelosi tells Trump - "No SOTU until government reopens". Go Nancy!

 

[hadit]

Speaker Pelosi tells Trump - "No SOTU until government reopens". Go Nancy!

Correction, in the House chamber. He can make the speech anywhere he wants and she can't do diddly about it. You really need to read a little more closely.

 

[Ame®icano]

Right...

It is a mere formality and he is TELLING Pelosi he will be there no matter what the **** she says and that she better be there too.

And Fox News is reporting that Pelosi basically told trump - pack sand.

"Dear Mr. President:

When I extended an invitation on January 3rd for you to deliver the State of the Union address, it was on the mutually agreed upon date, January 29th. At that time, there was no thought that the government would still be shut down.

In my further correspondence of January 16th, I said we should work together to find a mutually agreeable date when government has re-opened and I hope that we can still do that.

I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President’s State of the Union address in the House Chamber until government has opened.

Again, I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened.

Sincerely,

Nancy Pelosi"


.>>>>

That womyn has a nerve, I'll give her that.

However, the premise was "security concerns", and since there are none, I don't think she have a choice.

 

[hadit]

Right...

It is a mere formality and he is TELLING Pelosi he will be there no matter what the **** she says and that she better be there too.

And Fox News is reporting that Pelosi basically told trump - pack sand.

"Dear Mr. President:

When I extended an invitation on January 3rd for you to deliver the State of the Union address, it was on the mutually agreed upon date, January 29th. At that time, there was no thought that the government would still be shut down.

In my further correspondence of January 16th, I said we should work together to find a mutually agreeable date when government has re-opened and I hope that we can still do that.

I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President’s State of the Union address in the House Chamber until government has opened.

Again, I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened.

Sincerely,

Nancy Pelosi"


.>>>>

That womyn has a nerve, I'll give her that.

However, the premise was "security concerns", and since there are none, I don't think she have a choice.

Oh, she still has a choice. What she doesn't have is the excuse she tried to use to cover her petty tantrum. Trump can now hold the SOTU where and how he wants, dump it all on Pelosi, and it's her fault.

 

[Faun]

He's plowing in. Constitutional duty calls.

LOLOL

”I will be honoring your invitation,” is your idea of “plowing in,” is it?

Reminder, the initial invitation was for January 29.

His letter is more like:

* You lied to everyone about Secret Service not being capable of handling it.
* I will be giving the SOTU address
* I will be giving it on the date you initially invited me to give it
* I will be giving it in House Chamber
* Get REKT

Yeah, he's plowing in.

LOLOL

So when family and friends come to my house after I invite them, they’re “plowing in,” are they?

Right...

It is a mere formality and he is TELLING Pelosi he will be there no matter what the **** she says and that she better be there too.

LOLOL

He’s not allowed in unless she lets him in. It’s her chamber, not his. Unless you b’lieve he’s a dictator who can demand Congress breaks their own rules for him.

 

[Faun]

Speaker Pelosi tells Trump - "No SOTU until government reopens". Go Nancy!

Correction, in the House chamber. He can make the speech anywhere he wants and she can't do diddly about it. You really need to read a little more closely.

So what? Pelosi never said he can’t give his State of the Union address.

 

[Faun]

Right...

It is a mere formality and he is TELLING Pelosi he will be there no matter what the **** she says and that she better be there too.

And Fox News is reporting that Pelosi basically told trump - pack sand.

"Dear Mr. President:

When I extended an invitation on January 3rd for you to deliver the State of the Union address, it was on the mutually agreed upon date, January 29th. At that time, there was no thought that the government would still be shut down.

In my further correspondence of January 16th, I said we should work together to find a mutually agreeable date when government has re-opened and I hope that we can still do that.

I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President’s State of the Union address in the House Chamber until government has opened.

Again, I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened.

Sincerely,

Nancy Pelosi"


.>>>>

That womyn has a nerve, I'll give her that.

However, the premise was "security concerns", and since there are none, I don't think she have a choice.

LOLOL

She’s in charge of who speaks from the House dais. Of course she has a choice. She could send the measure to the House floor to vote on, but she’s choosing not to.

No vote = no formal invitation = no Trump in the House chamber.

 

[Faun]

Right...

It is a mere formality and he is TELLING Pelosi he will be there no matter what the **** she says and that she better be there too.

And Fox News is reporting that Pelosi basically told trump - pack sand.

"Dear Mr. President:

When I extended an invitation on January 3rd for you to deliver the State of the Union address, it was on the mutually agreed upon date, January 29th. At that time, there was no thought that the government would still be shut down.

In my further correspondence of January 16th, I said we should work together to find a mutually agreeable date when government has re-opened and I hope that we can still do that.

I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President’s State of the Union address in the House Chamber until government has opened.

Again, I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened.

Sincerely,

Nancy Pelosi"


.>>>>

That womyn has a nerve, I'll give her that.

However, the premise was "security concerns", and since there are none, I don't think she have a choice.

Oh, she still has a choice. What she doesn't have is the excuse she tried to use to cover her petty tantrum. Trump can now hold the SOTU where and how he wants, dump it all on Pelosi, and it's her fault.

He could always have held it anywhere else he wanted, where allowed. That didn’t change since Pelosi rescinded her invitation.

But I agree she’s being petty and unreasonable and I would have preferred for her to allow him to give it from the House floor as usual.

 

[Ame®icano]

Right...

It is a mere formality and he is TELLING Pelosi he will be there no matter what the **** she says and that she better be there too.

And Fox News is reporting that Pelosi basically told trump - pack sand.

"Dear Mr. President:

When I extended an invitation on January 3rd for you to deliver the State of the Union address, it was on the mutually agreed upon date, January 29th. At that time, there was no thought that the government would still be shut down.

In my further correspondence of January 16th, I said we should work together to find a mutually agreeable date when government has re-opened and I hope that we can still do that.

I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President’s State of the Union address in the House Chamber until government has opened.

Again, I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened.

Sincerely,

Nancy Pelosi"


.>>>>

That womyn has a nerve, I'll give her that.

However, the premise was "security concerns", and since there are none, I don't think she have a choice.

Oh, she still has a choice. What she doesn't have is the excuse she tried to use to cover her petty tantrum. Trump can now hold the SOTU where and how he wants, dump it all on Pelosi, and it's her fault.

He could always have held it anywhere else he wanted, where allowed. That didn’t change since Pelosi rescinded her invitation.

But I agree she’s being petty and unreasonable and I would have preferred for her to allow him to give it from the House floor as usual.

This is the part where presidential override called "extraordinary occasion" could kick in.

I hope he uses it and rub it in American fascist Pelosi's face.

 

[Faun]

Right...

It is a mere formality and he is TELLING Pelosi he will be there no matter what the **** she says and that she better be there too.

And Fox News is reporting that Pelosi basically told trump - pack sand.

"Dear Mr. President:

When I extended an invitation on January 3rd for you to deliver the State of the Union address, it was on the mutually agreed upon date, January 29th. At that time, there was no thought that the government would still be shut down.

In my further correspondence of January 16th, I said we should work together to find a mutually agreeable date when government has re-opened and I hope that we can still do that.

I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President’s State of the Union address in the House Chamber until government has opened.

Again, I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened.

Sincerely,

Nancy Pelosi"


.>>>>

That womyn has a nerve, I'll give her that.

However, the premise was "security concerns", and since there are none, I don't think she have a choice.

Oh, she still has a choice. What she doesn't have is the excuse she tried to use to cover her petty tantrum. Trump can now hold the SOTU where and how he wants, dump it all on Pelosi, and it's her fault.

He could always have held it anywhere else he wanted, where allowed. That didn’t change since Pelosi rescinded her invitation.

But I agree she’s being petty and unreasonable and I would have preferred for her to allow him to give it from the House floor as usual.

This is the part where presidential override called "extraordinary occasion" could kick in.

I hope he uses it and rub it in American fascist Pelosi's face.

LOLOLOL

No it can't. Want proof? Trump desperately wants to deliver his State of the Union address from the House, just like every other president for the last 100 years or so.

He won't use the section of the Constitution you idiotically claim he can use -- because he can't.