Now yesterday in my blog about Ted Nugent being a guest for the state of the union, and his address to the media afterwards I included this line
"You see by "tradition", (i'll explain the "" on that tomorrow) immediately following the end of the presidents remarks the opposition party the republicans in this case, give a short counter speech to the president."
Well tomorrow is now today. So why did I put the word tradition in quotes? because its not really a tradition. Because the opposition response to the State of the Union only goes back to 1966, making it 5 years younger then the current president.
Which is actually less shocking when you realize that the "traditional" state of the union, such as the one we are going to see tonight, itself only goes back to 1965.
What's that you say? your 5th grade history teacher told you that the Constitution of the United States mandates the State of the Union in article 2 section 3, so you think I'm a dirty liar?
Well actually here's the thing, both me and your beloved 5th grade history teacher are right.
See here's article 2 section 3 of the Constitution
"He 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; 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."
You note whats missing from that? pretty much everything President Obama is going to do tonight.
1) there is no requirement as to how often the State of the Union is to be given. Just "from time to time" you know basically whenever the president feels like.
In fact prior to 1934, the State of the Union, on the occasions it was delivered was usually delivered in December, until the 20th amendment changed the term dates of congress and they didnt want to address the outgoing congress.
2) Who the president actually has to address, or where for that matter.
Like every president before him since 1913, who has given an address President Obama will address the Congress from the house chamber. Oddly though he needs an invitation from the house to do so (some law or another that says the president cant address from congress without an invite that, honestly I dont feel like tracking down, but the invite was sent last month and always is about a month early)
Because see nothing in the Constitution stipulates he make the address from the house, its just a question of logistics its the only impressive looking room in DC that can hold more then 537 people, bodyguards and guests and also looks "governmental"
Now oddly enough thats the other thing. He doesnt have to invite all 535 members of Congress or the Vice President. Read the Constitution "he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them". He could just address the Senate or just the House if he so choose. Hell if he wants to he can send them home and give the address to an empty room if the house and senate cant agree on a date "he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper"
3) Actually give a speech. This is is simple but easy to miss. Read the Constitution again, see any requirement to give a speech? nope. there isnt one. the only requirement is that he "give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union" it never says HOW he has to give it.
See George Washington gave a speech for his State of the Union, as did John Adams. But Thomas Jefferson was a lazy fuck and couldnt be bothered to give a speech, so he wrote a letter and sent a clerk to read it aloud.
Ok, I admit the real reason is a bit more legitimate then being lazy. Jefferson believes a speech to congress was too monarchical, and too similar to the "Speech from the Throne" given by the Monarchs of various parliamentary governments (such as the British) at the start of the legislative session. So he opted for the much less arrogant and democratic approach of sending a letter.
Although I gotta be honest, if I was a congressman getting lectured by a clerk, I think I might be a bit pissed....just saying.
Anyways point is, after Jefferson every single president sent a clerk to give his State of the Union all the way up until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson made what was at the time a controversial decision to do it himself. Later health concerns would see Wilson return to the clerk system by 1919, his successor Harding would do them in person, after his death Coolidge did one in person, but did the rest via clerk, on "strict constructionist" grounds (which of course are bullshit since I as pointed out the Constitution is silent on the issue) and his successor Hoover did them all via clerk for the same reason.
Now up until this point, the address had actually not been called the "State of the Union: (despite the name being mentioned in the Constitution), they had been called "the President's Annual Message to Congress" with FDR being the first to use the term State of the Union, when he broke pattern and resumed giving the addresses in person, a tradition that would be upheld until today, with a few exceptions; Truman in 1946 and 1953, Eisenhower's in 1961, Nixon's in 1973 and Carter's in 1981.
But perhaps you remember back to the beginning, when I mentioned the current modern State of the Union only dates back to 1965, a good 30 years after FDR. Well see up until 1965 all the State of the Unions, no matter how they were delivered, were done in the middle of the day, at a time when congress is normally in session and therefore easiest for them. This was true regardless of if the speech was also broadcast to the public or not.
Well in 1965 LBJ decided to "take his case" for the Great Society to the public and moved the speech to its current 9 pm EST time-slot figuring that would be more convenient for the general public.
And of course it was, hence both the reason the State of the Union staying at that time slot, and the then opposition party Republicans starting the tradition of an opposition response for the same reasons (to get THEIR message out) the following year.
Now fair warning, so far I've been basically non partisan, these are the fact's behind the myth of the tradition of the state of the union. But their is one last fairly new change I want to address and I don't really think I can say what I want to about it without giving my opinion.
Maybe you've noticed and maybe you havnt, but our last two, and tonight's, state of the union have been a little odd. Their has been not 1 but two responses given after President Obama is done speaking.
The first is,as always the republican response, given by Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels and (tonight) Marco Rubio. The second is ALSO a republican response, telling you how wrong republicans were in the first response.
But that second one is called the Tea Party response, previously given by Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and now Rand Paul (who must be thrilled beyond belief to be associated with those other two intellectual giants). And as I stated before basically it consists of a republican telling you exactly why the ideas the president proposed and the ideas their own party just proposed both suck.
In other words it undermines the very idea of the response to the State of the Union, a unified govening vision by the opposition party in contrast to the presidents vision.
Instead it just shows to the whole country just how broken one of our political parties is, they cant even agree on what they disagree with the president on, and that they are basically at war with themselves (And they wonder why they just got their butts kicked in the last election).
Further complicating the whole double response this year, back in 2010 when the Tea Party came to power, their highest profile "win" was Senator Marco Rubio, who became known in some circles as "the Tea Party Senator" or "crown prince of the Tea Party movement" despite not joining the Tea Party Caucus after being elected.
Now to be fair, Rand Paul was also elected in 2010, but is generally known much more as a Libertarian then anything else. This despite the fact that he was backed by the Tea Party and is a member of the Tea Party Caucus
So to sum up: the "Tea Party Senator" who isnt actually in the Tea Party will deliver the Republican response to the State of the Union, only to himself be rebutted by the "Libertarian Senator" who is actually a member of the Tea Party, but no one thinks of him as one, delivering the Tea Party response.
Like I said, it just goes to show off the crazy in-fighting and complete chaos in the GOP
The only upside for the GOP in this, most news networks arnt gonna cover the Tea Party response because lets be honest when you hear the name Bachmann Cain and Paul together the first word that pops into your head is Kook, and the networks dont seem to like giving airtime to kooks when they already gave two free hours in the middle of primetime away to politicians half the country ignores anyways.
So at least the people who will see how broken the GOP is will be minimized.
The national downside by the way of the double response, both Rubio and Paul are considered early contenders for the 2016 election, so hopefully if your a republican you recovered from the whole Romney mess already cause we are off to the races.....
Anyways, there you have a it a whole bunch of things you wont hear tonight on the news when they are talking about the "long honored tradition" of the State of the Union (and some political commentary at the end there cause its my blog and can do what I want damn it :P )
No comments:
Post a Comment