I
confess that I dislike the State of the Union address. It was intended to be a
report given to Congress by the president to inform them of, well, the state of
the union.
That
sounds like a great idea—that the three branches of government should communicate—but
it’s more than a great idea. It’s a constitutional requirement.
Constitutional basis
The
president “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.”
U.S. Const. art. II, § 3,
cl. 1.
You’ll notice right away that “from time to
time” is vague, and this nonspecific requirement to give “Information” is a
long way from what the speech has become: An annual display of clichéd rhetoric,
pure grandstanding. Members of the president’s party rise to their feet to give
a hearty standing ovation after each trite phrase, while members of the
opposing party sit stonily, arms crossed and lips pursed. No matter who the
president may be, he offers little new or necessary “Information.”
To be honest, I don’t watch it, and neither do
most Americans.
The king’s
speech
While George Washington gave at least one such
report in speech form, Thomas Jefferson strongly objected to this practice
because it resembled an address given by a king from his throne. For this
reason, most presidents didn’t give a speech at all but sent a written report
to Congress, usually at the end of the calendar year.
President Woodrow Wilson more or less started
the modern speech tradition, which really took off under FDR. At that time, it
came to resemble the yearly display before both houses of Congress that we see
now. It was broadcast on radio, and then television and thereby became to be
seen as an address to the American people rather than a report to Congress.
It’s still a report to Congress, however. We
tend to forget that, but President Trump finds himself reminded of it now.
House rules
When anyone, including the president, wishes to
address a joint session of Congress, he or she must be invited. If the speech
is to be given in the House chamber, the Speaker of the House issues the
invitation. The Speaker of the House, of course, is Nancy Pelosi, who issued
this invitation to Trump several weeks ago.
She has not formally rescinded the invitation,
but she has written to Trump to inform him that she does not want him to give
the speech while the federal government is shut down.
Trump wrote to Pelosi that he planned to give
the speech in the House chamber anyway, or at least somewhere in the Capitol
building, despite her wishes.
Can he do this? While Trump could physically
burst into the House chambers and start speaking, it wouldn’t be an official
report. In order for official remarks to be delivered in the House chamber, the
House must be in session, and that is up to Pelosi’s discretion.
Further, Pelosi could have the lights and
microphones in the House chamber turned off, making it impossible for Trump to
have his speech broadcast (unless someone used a camera phone, at which point
Pelosi could rebuke him). The speech still wouldn’t be officially recognized.
Apparently, someone has informed Trump of this,
and at the time I wrote this, he had backed down.
Alternative
locations
There is no requirement that the address be given
in the House chamber.
One possible alternative is the Senate chamber.
In fact, when it was given as a speech, the State of the Union was always held
in the Senate chamber until the capital was moved from Philadelphia to D.C. in
1801.
Trump could also speak from any other location,
including the White House.
Various GOP legislators have offered venues in
their home states, from the SuperDome in New Orleans to the state capitol building
in more than one state. Several lawmakers suggested he deliver the address at
the Mexican border.
While all of these alternatives are possible,
they wouldn’t really be an address to Congress, however, so it is unclear which
location if any Trump will choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment