Posted on 01/23/2019 1:47:53 PM PST by Lazamataz
WASHINGTON — President Trump said he would look for alternative venues for his State of the Union address on Tuesday, appearing to capitulate after Speaker Nancy Pelosi again told him she would not invite him to deliver it at the House until the government reopens.
The decision came after a tit-for-tat between Mr. Trump and Ms. Pelosi over the State of the Union address.....It had concluded, at least by late afternoon, with Mr. Trump declaring at the White House, “The State of the Union has been canceled by Nancy Pelosi because she doesn’t want to hear the truth.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Did Nancy decide this on her own without taking a vote in the House? How can she exert all of this power herself?
Exactly! It’s the “PEOPLES HOUSE!” plain and simple
I agree.
Fun
Trump is dealing with a Psycho House!
I’d love to see a Pelosi dummy seated in the background with a placard around the neck that reads “Dummy”
POTUS has the same 1st Amendment right as anyone. He could deliver the info he is obliged to provide to Congress to the public if he so chooses. I don’t know if the Speaker has the right to prevent the appearance of POTUS, seems kind of odd but I am also not sure where such a dispute could be resolved. It’s between the two branches.
Personally, assuming she can keep the House chamber closed, I think he should plan to deliver it to the Senate, where I don’t think there is enough room for all the House of Representin’ members to sit - so the Senate can decide which House members to invite. This gives Speaker Botox the option whether to open the House and lose this round, or set a new precedent where the House is downgraded in esteem (also a loss for the Speaker) and she can watch the speech from her vacation home in Puerto Rico. POUTS simply sends the House a transcript of his speech on the Senate floor to meet the Constitutional requirement.
Their only win would be the optics of not seeing the RBG seat go empty.
You mean her seat at the speech (not on the bench, I presume). I thought some of the SC justices stopped going after that finger wagging session from Obama. Anyway, no big deal, not sure why SCOTUS is there, or even wants to be there. It’s not a cocktail party. Personally think it’s a win-win, either the Speaker caves in order to keep the speech in her chamber and for her members, or, it moves to the Senate (implicit threat that this will be the new precedent) and Speaker Nancy loses more than she bargained for. Imagine a SOTU where 90% of the House is simply unable to attend.
Nevermind, I read it backwards...doh!
I like it!
I think he has her number and has her on a string.
What if the plan is to force Trump to hold it in the senate the deep state plants a bomb. O dems show up and they take out the entire republican congress leaving piglosey prez.
They are that nuts
WHEREVER HE HAS IT, HE HAS NOW CREATED A GREAT INTEREST IN WHAT HE WILL SAY AT THE SOTU!!!!!!!!
MAGA!
Nobody’s been that nuts since Guy Fawkes. Or Osama Bin Laden...
Exactly my point she is nuts they all are nuts
Pelosi forgot Trump thrives on being different, just look at the way he ran his campaign and beat Hillary with larger crowds, less money, etc. How he responds will be interesting to see.
They can invite Nancy, she just doesn’t get to sit on the dais. It’s not her chamber.
Besides, this isn’t an issue where Trump is trying to take over her role. If he were to trying to usurp legislative power, you’d have a good point, but he isn’t. There is no separation of powers argument in utilizing the House for a reasonable event that has been held virtually every year for a long time. Held by parties in power in the Presidency that were opposite of those in power in the House.
If Newt had tried to do this to Bill Clinton, the media would have literally shut down the House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.