# Did Pelosi just un-invite Trump from the State of the Union? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 16, 2019, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898 "2019-01-16T22:02:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/281 "2019-01-18T03:54:21Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This week, it’s [from Beto](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsauFHK-18k). Help me know what I should look for there. Is it the snippet of a quote that begins, “I don’t want a sound bite of it reported”? Because you’re kind of setting yourself up here. Edit: [here’s the source](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/beto-orourkes-immigration-plan-no-wall-but-no-specifics/2019/01/15/f6e36fac-15ea-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?utm_term=.acc0d93412b4). He was talking about the Constitution only in oblique terms. Using this to suggest liberals hate the constitution is contemptible bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/282 "2019-01-18T03:59:48Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t know what you’re referring to. Could you at least give me a post # or something? > > ETA: Are you talking about #266? Yes. Are you revising that post now? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/283 "2019-01-18T04:13:38Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Yes. Are you revising that post now? I’ll elaborate it on it further if you’d like. My preference would be for the Congress to not cede so much authority to the executive branch. It’s a process that has gone on for decades, and I find it lamentable. I don’t think Pelosi believes the same, at least not in any sincere, lasting way. She may have some fleeting fascination with it (similar to many liberals’ current, but i suspect fleeting, fascination with states rights) but that’s just a matter of political convenience for her (and them) right now, with President Trump. When Obama was President, I don’t recall her taking any politically-courageous stands against presidential power. Perhaps you have some examples you’d like to offer up? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/284 "2019-01-18T04:31:19Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Maybe she should meet with Ann Coulter then. Let the women hammer out a compromise? > [@JohnT](#): > > Tragically, Anne Coulter has no Constitutional authority to negotiate with Pelosi, nor would Pelosi stoop so low. > > I thought the Constitution was important to you guys, now y’all want to declare a fake military emergency to send troops into Texas and steal private lands, as well as asking that the Speaker of the House negotiate with the President via private citizens. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Huh? What does the Constitution have to do with who Pelosi negotiates with? Ultimately, there are some steps that have to be followed for a bill, such as a bill funding government operations for the currently “shut down” departments, to become law, but in the interim, the Constitution is silent on the specifics of how President Trump or Pelosi negotiate a way out of the impasse. If he wanted to send Ivanka, or Melania, or Ann Coulter to work out the details, that’d be just fine. > [@JohnT](#): > > He would have to appoint them. Since Anne Coulter isn’t appointed to shit, Ditka, she doesn’t represent the President in any capacity. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > To talk with Pelosi? I think you’re confused. Is there some specific provision in the Constitution where this “appointment” requirement is established? > [@JohnT](#): > > Since you asked… > [@THE US CONSTITUTION](#): > > He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That’s a hard fail right there. I know the President can make appointments to a variety of official positions. That’s not what I asked. I asked you if there was any requirement that the person who meets with Pelosi to work out a resolution to the shutdown be appointed. > > I contend that the President could send Barron with a folded-up note like something straight out of middle school: “Hey Nancy, would you go out with me for $2.5B of wall funding” and that Pelosi could fold up her own little note and send it back to the President via Barron “No, but I’d do it for an even $2B” and that this form of negotiation, if it were acceptable to both parties, would not run afoul of the Constitution. Do you agree or disagree? > [@JohnT](#): > > But in your example, the President _appointed_ Barron to negotiate with Pelosi. And in this example, Barron isn’t even negotiating - he’s just a courier. > > I mean, can’t you come up with an example that actually describes your position? Because your position is this: > > “I negotiated with Anne Coulter!” > “So? I didn’t tell you to. She doesn’t represent me. Where’d you get that idea?” > “Somebody on a message board told me I can negotiate with unappointed negotiators, so… oh. Dammit.” I know the goalposts have been moved from Lambeau Field to Arrowhead stadium in this thread, but I still want to clarify your position on this point: “Does”\* or “does not”\* the Constitution _require_ the President to either appoint (“hire”, to use a more modern expression) Ann Coulter _or_ appoint (“hire”) someone with the authority to appoint Ann Coulter (say, a Chief of Staff) so Ann Coulter can then negotiate on behalf of the Executive Branch of the United States of America? \*Two words at max, that’s all I need. Any word that follows is disqualifying. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/285 "2019-01-18T06:19:01Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t think Pelosi believes the same, at least not in any sincere, lasting way. Cite for your feeling? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/286 "2019-01-18T11:58:56Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I was ridiculing Pelosi for thinking she was the equal of President Trump. > > A while ago, John Boehner said something like ‘you can’t expect us to do too much when we only control one half of one third of the government’. That’s the situation Pelosi is in today. She’s not “equal” to the President and she doesn’t have power comparable to his. Except that McConnell has, effectively, ceded complete control of the Legislative branch to her: According to him, the Senate will do nothing until the Democrats and Trump agree on something. She is negotiating for the full legislature at the GOP’s invitation. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/287 "2019-01-18T12:50:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Trump has an opportunity (not that he is likely to take it) to make Pelosi and the Dems look as petty as they are being. Give the SotU address from somewhere else, in DC, and mention how Pelosi doesn’t even want to hear anything about anything about the state of the USA until she gets what she wants. “The Democrats won’t listen, so I am fulfilling my Constitutional duty, in accordance with the tradition of the last century and speaking directly to this great nation.” Etc. And that will have great credibility coming from a man who immediately walked out of a meeting to discuss the shutdown because the other side wouldn’t give him everything he wanted right away. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The “actual substance of the issue” is that Pelosi suggested they not hold the SOTU speech because of “security concerns” and now the head of the DHS has weighed in and said they can handle it. I’m the one that provided that second point, with a link to the cite. Did you consider that a substantive response? To repeat: 1. It was the DHS itself that previously categorized the SOTU as an event requiring special security measures. 2. The departments that provide those security measures are currently affected by the government shutdown. So what Pelosi said remains entirely true. That Nielsen responded after the fact that the DHS could provide unpaid security for an non-time-critical event that, remember, Pelosi wasn’t suggesting should be cancelled but rather postponed to a time a few weeks later when the government was back in operation doesn’t change either the truth or the rationale for what she said. The government can also “handle” flying Melania to Mar-a-Lago, because the President can use his office to demand a variety of services despite the shutdown. That you think that Pelosi is the one this reflects poorly on is, of course, just your opinion, man. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/288 "2019-01-18T13:46:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Relishing something does not = increased support. Also, Trump is typically not very good at the things he claims to relish. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/289 "2019-01-18T13:49:25Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You seem confused about the fundamental nature of opinions. If someone says, “I think Trump is so mean that he would steal candy from a baby”, they don’t have to have actually witnessed President Trump stealing candy from a baby to hold that opinion. If he had stolen candy from toddlers, and children, and young adults, that would all be “evidence” that support that opinion. > > Likewise, the fact that liberals have something of a habit of shitting on things they don’t like leads me to conclude, quite reasonably, that they might well literally take a shit on the Constitution one day. While I would not recommend or condone it, I’ll take a liberal literally shitting on the Constitution over Trump and the rest of the conservatives figuratively shitting on it. One is an exercise of rights, the other is denying of rights. Based on your method of argument by cherry picking, should I say that conservatives have a habit of having armed confrontations with the government, taking over federal buildings and land, and even blowing up federal buildings when they don’t like what the government is doing? I’ll take a peaceful protest that results in a slight biohazard over the violence that conservatives have a habit of using to voice their displeasure. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Today, in reality? No. One branch has taken and / or been given far more power than the other two. Right, and that happened when McConnell ceded the authority of the senate to the executive branch by refusing to bring a bill to the floor unless he agreed to sign it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/290 "2019-01-18T13:49:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Do you believe we have three co-equal branches of government? That doesn’t make Pelosi constitutionally equal to Trump. Putting the other arguments aside and assuming that the Executive and Legislative Branches have absolutely equal power, the President IS the executive branch. He controls it by his say so. Pelosi is the leader of one of the two houses of the legislative branch. She can enact nothing on her own. As you are aware, she must get a majority of her House to approve legislation, have the Senate, which is currently in the hands of the other party and unlikely to approve her directives, approve it with a majority (more likely 60 votes) and then the President again has to approve it. If he does not, she needs 2/3ds of her House and again 2/3ds of the Senate. I think it is clear that the Constitution does not say that she is equal to the President anymore than Mike Pence, by virtue of being President of the Senate, is equal to the President. And neither can say that they are 50% equal to the President because unlike either of them, the President does not rely on a vote to conduct executive functions. ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/291 "2019-01-18T14:03:10Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > I know the goalposts have been moved from Lambeau Field to Arrowhead stadium in this thread, but I still want to clarify your position on this point: > > “Does”\* or “does not”\* the Constitution _require_ the President to either appoint (“hire”, to use a more modern expression) Ann Coulter _or_ appoint (“hire”) someone with the authority to appoint Ann Coulter (say, a Chief of Staff) so Ann Coulter can then negotiate on behalf of the Executive Branch of the United States of America? > > \*Two words at max, that’s all I need. Any word that follows is disqualifying. I think **HD** was envisioning a hypothetical scenario where Pelosi and Schumer try to work out something directly with Ann Coulter (as a third party) to see what she could stomach, and then just wait for the next Fox&Friends update that tells Trump how he’s supposed to think for the day. Which is completely different than Trump personally empowering Coulter to negotiate on his behalf. Can we stop this tangent now? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/292 "2019-01-18T14:17:50Z")
Given it was brought out as a realistic means for the government to resolve the dispute which is the basis of the actions discussed in this thread, I am quite fine continuing the “tangent” as to what the Constitution has to say about delegated authorities and their ability to resolve the impasse which will allow the SOTU to continue in a manner agreeable to both parties. Appreciate the advice though! ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/293 "2019-01-18T14:19:06Z")
OK, **octopus** , next question: Do you believe that it is a good thing for people to be able to vote? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/294 "2019-01-18T14:21:49Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > That doesn’t make Pelosi constitutionally equal to Trump. > > Putting the other arguments aside and assuming that the Executive and Legislative Branches have absolutely equal power, the President IS the executive branch. He controls it by his say so. > > Pelosi is the leader of one of the two houses of the legislative branch. She can enact nothing on her own. As you are aware, she must get a majority of her House to approve legislation, have the Senate, which is currently in the hands of the other party and unlikely to approve her directives, approve it with a majority (more likely 60 votes) and then the President again has to approve it. If he does not, she needs 2/3ds of her House and again 2/3ds of the Senate. > > I think it is clear that the Constitution does not say that she is equal to the President anymore than Mike Pence, by virtue of being President of the Senate, is equal to the President. And neither can say that they are 50% equal to the President because unlike either of them, the President does not rely on a vote to conduct executive functions. I neither agree or disagree with this. I just thought **HD** was making poor arguments. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/295 "2019-01-18T14:27:08Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You seem confused about the fundamental nature of opinions. If someone says, “I think Trump is so mean that he would steal candy from a baby”, they don’t have to have actually witnessed President Trump stealing candy from a baby to hold that opinion. If he had stolen candy from toddlers, and children, and young adults, that would all be “evidence” that support that opinion. > > Likewise, the fact that liberals have something of a habit of shitting on things they don’t like leads me to conclude, quite reasonably, that they might well literally take a shit on the Constitution one day. I’d call such people awful human beings if doing so didn’t leave me bereft of something to call those who support torturing prisoners and murdering their families. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/296 "2019-01-18T14:57:34Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > the President IS the executive branch. He controls it by his say so. A “unitary Executive” man, I see. :rolleyes: ETA: If this was true, none of that 277-page decision the other day about the Census citizenship question would mean a thing. If the President controls the Executive Branch by his say-so, then if he says there’s a citizenship question, then there is a citizenship question. And presumably the same would be true for Wilbur Ross acting on his authority. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/297 "2019-01-18T15:55:37Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, **octopus** , next question: Do you believe that it is a good thing for people to be able to vote? Since all that is off topic I’ll send you a pm. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/298 "2019-01-18T16:15:04Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Since all that is off topic I’ll send you a pm. Jesus Christ you can’t answer that simple question publicly? Do you think people voting is bad? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/299 "2019-01-18T16:15:53Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > A “unitary Executive” man, I see. :rolleyes: > > ETA: If this was true, none of that 277-page decision the other day about the Census citizenship question would mean a thing. If the President controls the Executive Branch by his say-so, then if he says there’s a citizenship question, then there is a citizenship question. And presumably the same would be true for Wilbur Ross acting on his authority. I did not claim that the executive was a king and could order absolutely anything he wanted. I said that within the purview of what are executive powers, he has the sole and final say so. The citizenship question on the census case is because litigants are claiming that asking such a question violates other portions of the Constitution and, if they are correct, such a thing would not be a legitimate executive function. That’s where the judiciary comes in as the third branch and makes decisions on who gets what power. But once it is determined that the power is executive, it is the President’s call to make. When it is determined that a certain power is legislative, then Congress as a whole must decide, not Pelosi, or McConnell, or Pence. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898/300 "2019-01-18T16:20:48Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Since all that is off topic I’ll send you a pm. lol [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-pelosi-just-un-invite-trump-from-the-state-of-the-union/827898.md?page=16)